Sexfest

By Zach Kincaid

Relevant Church in Tampa, Florida, is challenging its members to participate in a 30-Day Sex Challenge. The premise is for married couples to have sex every day for 30 days. From their site:

People are not having enough sex. An epidemic of breakups proves the needs that lead to a great sex life are being overlooked. Dirty dishes, frumpy clothes, and a lack of authentic connections are killing the romance. A great sex life is a challenge and takes focus, determination, and planning. Some say it’s an unrealistic goal, but we disagree. We believe you can have a great sex life, in fact we believe God wants you to have a great sex life.

When I heard this, I thought of the temple prostitution circuit of Rome and Greece.

The pagans figured out the simple logic of making promiscuity a religious pursuit—call it a sacrifice to the gods. I imagine the scowl on Augustine’s face. Maybe even Martin Luther regrets his rabble-rousing in favor of sex.

Okay, so this is a little better than prostitutes in pagan temples. But the focus is the same. The Sex Challenge comes with a calendar. (Are there shiny gold stars to put on it?) They also supply readings from Song of Songs: “Take me away with you—hurry! Let the king bring me into his chambers.” Maybe this helps with role-playing.

The challenge sounds chauvinistic. As ABC commentator Harry Smith said to pastor Paul Wirth, “I’m trying to think what the downside could possibly be. . .” I think my wife could name a few downsides, and I could too. The “challenge” puts both people in an awkward place by demanding a sexual performance because of a church commitment. I may be flying solo here, but I don’t want the church anywhere close to my bedroom.

As I see it, The Bible stands somewhat removed from the bedroom. Yes, procreation was a command in the garden and yes, there are references to sex all through scripture—usually sexual infidelity tagged with other issues: Abraham lacked faith, David lacked humility, Solomon lacked satisfaction. When we get to Jesus, there are no direct references to marriage, let alone sex in marriage. He changes water to wine at a marriage feast (which might encourage drunkenness with sexual activity), and he mentions bridegrooms in parables. And Paul has little to say. (He might ask women to cover their heads.) Peter sees marriage as the representation of Christ and his church. It’s as if marriage and marriage sex are assumed—and not hyped up.

But given our culture, we shouldn’t be surprised by hype and gimmicks. After all, one of the core values of Relevant Church is “to be as current as today’s newspapers.” And Relevant Church is launching the Sex Challenge during Lent: the holiest days on the church calendar.

Zach Kinkaid directs thematthewshouseproject.org.

Comments

[John]

Sorry, Zach, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you - not necessarily about the Sex Challenge as such, but about this statement:

"As I see it, The Bible stands somewhat removed from the bedroom."

I think you need to read a little more carefully. If sexuality and sexual expression is not an embodiment of faith, it gets reduced to an act of recreation, and the door is far more easily opened to abuse of all sorts.

In my opinion, it's exactly this dualism (sex on one side, and God on the other, and never the twain shall meet), that creates the kind of sexual problems that we see arising in the lives of people of faith - from the sexual embarrassments of TV preachers, to the sex scandals of priests, to the abuse of way too many wives and daughters of so-called men of faith who have left God out of their sexuality.

I may sound alarmist here, but the church has a lot to answer for when it comes to sexual dysfuntion. And if the Scriptures have nothing to say to our sexuality, they have nothing to say to a significant part of who we are as human beings - which ultimately will mean that they have nothing to say.

For what it's worth.
John
__________________
www.sacredise.com

[Casey Taylor]

Man, this church has certainly gained the free publicity! The Church (catholic) has gone full circle, from Jerome's disavowal of sex to present day embrace of intercourse. Anything to put butts in the pew.

C. Taylor
irregularchristian.blogspot.com

[rick brand]

What a fascinating trend seems to be developing on this site about theology. We have had pornographic images discussed, unwed mothers, and now promotion of sex for a month.

I do not recall that Jesus spent all of his time talking about sex. There was money and greed in there too, and poverty and clothing, and making peace.

Is this a case of our theology being dictated by the culture as our culture is rather dominated by sexual forces?

[Jason Byassee]

But sex is interesting Rick!
It is important that you know that ideas aren't "assigned." It really is random that Zach, Amy or I would think to write about similar things at the same time.

[Casey Taylor]

Or, Jason, maybe there's a sexual zeitgeist in the Lenten air!

[Bromleigh]

I wrote my ministry thesis on Christian sexuality education programs for adolescents and, during the public presentation, someone asked a question very similar to Rick's. My thought is that we, as practicing theologians, are called to be responsive to the questions of our culture. Many, many Americans (especially our teenagers!)are trying to figure out how to order their lives as sexual beings. They might even like to do so faithfully. But how to do that puzzles a lot of people -- within the church and without. Thus, I think it's absolutely imperative that we do the hard work of formulating theological responses grounded in experience, tradition, scripture and reason to help folks.

Jesus talked more about the poor, surely, but the tradition is subsequently a lot less ambiguous about poverty, peace, etc. There's certainly more work to be done in bringing a kingdom vision into being, but more of the theological "problems" of poverty are sort of worked out for most clergy, academics, etc,, don't you think? Not all, but more. Not so with human sexuality.

That said -- 30 days of sex? I am all about making an effort to "connect" in my marriage -- but that seems a little narrow-minded in prescribing appropriate interaction. I wouldn't mind if my husband and I set a regular date night or went out for coffee on Saturday mornings. I feel like that could work, too. Here, Rick is right: sex, God love it, is not the be all and end all of human life, whatever our culture, or Relevant Church, may say.

[Suzy]

Acknowledging that sexual zeitgeist, it does make sense to direct sexual energy toward marriage and away from the other outlets that are getting quite a lot of attention right now. I'm doubtful, though, that the prescription should be one-size-fits-all. That presumes that married couples have not already found an appropriate sexual balance in their relationships (or I guess, that if they've found the right balance it's an every-day schedule, which doesn't seem very likely).

I would not want to be looking out at my congregation every Sunday throughout Lent, wondering whether they were following my instructions.

[Tom]

I think its a great idea to bring the bedroom out of the closet in Church land. Too often is Christianity equated with stuffy blue-haired ladies and vacantly smiling teenagers gritting their teeth as they espouse the virtues of celibacy. I don't believe in promoting promiscuity, but encouraging a healthy and loving sex life between committed couples is a bold and beautiful statement. I have preached, and counseled in marriage prep., the need for couples to work on their sex lives to the enjoyment and satisfaction of both people. If more people were satisfied with their partners, there would probably be a greatly reduced desire to look outside the relationship. Christianity has failed us in this area - its time to grow up.

[Tom]

...and, Suzy, I bet those faces you'd be afraid to look at on Sunday morning would be wearing a lot more smiles....
In my church we do a "passing of the peace" - one couple does so with a firm kiss to each other and as I walk down the aisle I do the same with my wife... and its beautiful. Intimacy isn't something to be afraid of - its something to be honoured and cherished.

[Zach Kincaid]

John, I disagree. I think the Bible presumes a person's functionality in the bedroom under the moral weight of proper relations. The examples that you share are when sex is thrown around and misused. My thought is not that we divorce sex from a marriage relationship, but a pastor who marks out a church theme centered on sexual behavior seems to be erring on the side of appeal instead of devotion.

[Zach Kincaid]

Goodness... wrote my comment Friday and posted before seeing all the other posts.

[Steve]

"When we get to Jesus, there are no direct references to marriage,"

Ummm, Zach, I think there's quite a bit in Mt. 19:1-12, and parallel synoptics. "And Paul has little to say"!? How about all of the long chapter 7 of I Corinthians. And then Paul, not Peter, has a deal to say about Christ and the Church as Bride in Ephesians 5. Check your references. Twice.

[sweet pea]

As someone who has been married for 30 years (to the same man), I know there are times when sex moves down the priority list for couples. However, I have also learned that some of the times when sex is way down my list have also been some of the times when such intimacy has reminded me of 1) my own humanity, and 2)what is really important in life. It is so easy to get caught up in our own self-importance, apart from our spouse, yet, our sexual relationship reminds us that we really are two parts of one whole. And Chirst is there. Having coffee with my spouse, while enjoyable, does not clarify my thinking in these two important areas.
Yet, having sex dailiy for 30 days might prove exhausting! Perhaps it might even become sacraficial. Perhaps both partners would be able to understand Paul's admonition to care for our spouse's body as we do for our own. It could be a learning experience physically, emotionally, intellectually, and spiritually which could ultimately lead to more balanced lives.
I agree that when we separate our sexual selves from our "spriritual" selves such dualism reduces both to charicatures. This is not balance, nor is it healthy to be excessive in either direction.
About 30 years ago, one of those many sex studies done in the US found that people who considered themselves to be "spiritual" had much more sexually fulfilling marriages. I am inclined to agree, but I am also inclined to think that those who do not have sexually fulfilling marriages may have some serious spiritual issues that need to be addressed.
Being able to discuss sexual reality in this century (as opposed to during Jerome's day) might be a catalyst for believers to address some unhealthy thinking that leads to sexual behavior that hurts specific individuals and communities.
My reading of Jesus' relationship with Mary Magdelene, the woman at the well, and the woman caught in adultry indicates that sexual sin was not nearly as important to him then as it is to us today. His beef with divorce, as I read it, had to do with the exploitation of women (who had little social power then)by men. And, I can't recall any comments by Jesus regarding other than male/female sexual behavior.