Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Sex Sells ... Especially in Church
Sex sells. Yes, even in church. Especially in church.
That's what the folks at Relevant Church in Ybor City, Fla., are finding. After brainstorming with church leaders about how to help couples struggling with issues of sex and money, pastor Paul Wirth launched a challenge to those in his Tampa-area congregation this past Sunday: For the next 30 days, have lots of sex. In fact, have sex every day.
Ultimately, the point of his "30-Day Sex Challenge" is to help couples purposefully create time for increased intimacy, which will then make way for better communication and improve their relationships. As for singles in the church, they're urged to refrain from sex for the month (hopefully something they're already doing on a continual basis) and concentrate on going deeper in their own relationships without getting tripped up by physical issues.
"When you talk about sex, everybody expects the church to say God hates sex," Wirth says. "That's just not true. I really believe that God wants us to have great sex. ... Relationships are at an all-time low, and no one seems to have a handle on how to make them work right." He's arguing that his church—and this challenge—can help.
I had planned on blogging about this Monday morning, as it had sat on my radar for a few days prior. Then it became a story within a story, something not only incredibly indicative of our times, but also worthy of discussion that goes beyond the catchy sex tags. Here's why ...
As you can imagine, the media has eaten up this story. I've watched as it's quickly gone from a three-paragraph blurb on a small Tampa news site to Fox News, to the AP, to a two-page spread in the St. Petersburg Times, to every type of media outlet around the world. Definitely viral ... and the wordplay potential has certainly made attention-grabbing headlines. Meanwhile, church marketing blogs I regularly read have applauded the efforts of this small, hip downtown church full of 20- and 30-somethings. Doesn't every young, hip leader love it when you can stop a crowd mid-bustle and hold their attention for the required 0.2 nanoseconds with something that remotely, maybe, just might have to do with God or church or something?
I'm not trying to sound facetious. (OK, at least not too much.) I like what Relevant Church is doing with this, and I know the intention well because it rings true in every pastor's heart. We do whatever helps people so that, ultimately, they can step further aside and watch God move in their lives. I'm also in agreement with marketing guys who say churches shoot themselves in the foot most of the time by being irrelevant, lacking purpose and fumbling both the packaging and delivery. Hey, at least Relevant's leadership was smart enough to launch a Web site to coincide with the series (which, by the way, has apparently received so many hits it blew up—last I checked the site was still down).
So my objection? It's not an objection, not even a concern ... just a thought. I wonder if there will ever be a time when marketing isn't a church function, when we don't have to reek of "whatever gets your attention." A time when God is relevant by Himself, sans the cool sermon series, edgy Web designs, promotional videos and rock-band intros. Obviously, this is the age we live in, and we must reach people where they are, just as Jesus did, with whatever means it takes. So maybe I'm being religious by wondering in the first place. Maybe I'm just still in rant mode. Or maybe at this point, in a culture that has filled each second with 100,000 options and declared God's relevancy irrelevant, it's a moot point.
That's what the folks at Relevant Church in Ybor City, Fla., are finding. After brainstorming with church leaders about how to help couples struggling with issues of sex and money, pastor Paul Wirth launched a challenge to those in his Tampa-area congregation this past Sunday: For the next 30 days, have lots of sex. In fact, have sex every day.
Ultimately, the point of his "30-Day Sex Challenge" is to help couples purposefully create time for increased intimacy, which will then make way for better communication and improve their relationships. As for singles in the church, they're urged to refrain from sex for the month (hopefully something they're already doing on a continual basis) and concentrate on going deeper in their own relationships without getting tripped up by physical issues.
"When you talk about sex, everybody expects the church to say God hates sex," Wirth says. "That's just not true. I really believe that God wants us to have great sex. ... Relationships are at an all-time low, and no one seems to have a handle on how to make them work right." He's arguing that his church—and this challenge—can help.
I had planned on blogging about this Monday morning, as it had sat on my radar for a few days prior. Then it became a story within a story, something not only incredibly indicative of our times, but also worthy of discussion that goes beyond the catchy sex tags. Here's why ...
As you can imagine, the media has eaten up this story. I've watched as it's quickly gone from a three-paragraph blurb on a small Tampa news site to Fox News, to the AP, to a two-page spread in the St. Petersburg Times, to every type of media outlet around the world. Definitely viral ... and the wordplay potential has certainly made attention-grabbing headlines. Meanwhile, church marketing blogs I regularly read have applauded the efforts of this small, hip downtown church full of 20- and 30-somethings. Doesn't every young, hip leader love it when you can stop a crowd mid-bustle and hold their attention for the required 0.2 nanoseconds with something that remotely, maybe, just might have to do with God or church or something?
I'm not trying to sound facetious. (OK, at least not too much.) I like what Relevant Church is doing with this, and I know the intention well because it rings true in every pastor's heart. We do whatever helps people so that, ultimately, they can step further aside and watch God move in their lives. I'm also in agreement with marketing guys who say churches shoot themselves in the foot most of the time by being irrelevant, lacking purpose and fumbling both the packaging and delivery. Hey, at least Relevant's leadership was smart enough to launch a Web site to coincide with the series (which, by the way, has apparently received so many hits it blew up—last I checked the site was still down).
So my objection? It's not an objection, not even a concern ... just a thought. I wonder if there will ever be a time when marketing isn't a church function, when we don't have to reek of "whatever gets your attention." A time when God is relevant by Himself, sans the cool sermon series, edgy Web designs, promotional videos and rock-band intros. Obviously, this is the age we live in, and we must reach people where they are, just as Jesus did, with whatever means it takes. So maybe I'm being religious by wondering in the first place. Maybe I'm just still in rant mode. Or maybe at this point, in a culture that has filled each second with 100,000 options and declared God's relevancy irrelevant, it's a moot point.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Warning: Political Rant Ahead
I don't think I'm alone in saying this may be the most volatile political season our country has experienced in generations. I, like many of you, find myself at a crossroads: While I'm more passionate about the political process than ever before, I'm also beyond the point of being exasperated with it. For the average Joe, it's annoying enough that the media frenzy surrounding this November's election seems to have started around, oh, 320 B.C. But for those who actually like the fact that The Biggest Loser or another CSI rerun have been routinely pre-empted by a televised debate, there's a greater annoyance: this season's brash, blatant and maddening media bias.
You don't have to be a political junkie (which I'm not) to realize this is nothing new. In fact, it's very old news when you consider the machines that have run the parties for decades. And yet can you ever remember such a barrage of hyped-up public debates, forums and Q&A sessions that overtly squelched the predetermined "losers"? Regardless of where this season ranks in terms of dirty politics, it still scares me to see the effects of such coverage on the common voter.
Case in point: My wife was at a coffee shop the other day, where at the next table two older women adamantly discussed their dislike for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. It became obvious that the women were Christians, so my wife was curious about their interest in other candidates. "I'm sorry, but I couldn't help overhearing your conversation," she said while leaning over to their table. "If you don't mind me asking, who are you voting for?" Neither had decided, but they certainly knew who they weren't voting for. "So what about Mike Huckabee?" my wife asked. Both paused for a while, shrugged a bit and then matter-of-factly stated that he probably wouldn't win.
[Warning: Editor rant ahead]Therein lies the heart of the current problem. It's one that's equally frustrating for fans of Ron Paul, who I think beautifully epitomizes the stirring, rabid underground movement that is fed up with conventional party politics. Paul and Huckabee are two different candidates, with unique positions, unique theories and unique followers. And both, we've been repeatedly told for the past year, are surefire losers. Can't win. Don't have enough cash. Don't have the support of key figures. Don't have the evangelical vote. Don't have enough charisma, experience, hair, Armani suits—you name it, they've been doubted because of it.
Surprise, surprise ... here we are, mere months from the party conventions and at least two of those "losers" are still hanging on, despite a process that is bent on dismissing them. They're certainly not surviving because of air time. Mainstream media outlets have, as usual, been successful enough to brainwa—er, convince the general public who the real winners are. As a result, we stand a few delegates away from McCain gaining the GOP nomination. Still, I believe people are finally catching on to the reality. When Ron Paul gets invited to a two-hour debate but isn't asked a single question, you know something's up. Or when Mike Huckabee is asked to attend the same event yet only gets tossed the token "evangelical" questions, it's just as infuriating. It doesn't help that major Christian leaders have added to that frustration by either supporting those who seemingly contradict their core values or, as in the case of guys like James Dobson, offering endorsements that reek of settling for the "best remaining choice"—and too late at that.
So who wins in all this? I honestly don't know. On one hand, I'm confused by Christians who say they stand for certain fundamental values but refused to get behind a former pastor and denominational leader simply because he supposedly wouldn't win. And on the other hand, I feel for a 10-term Congressman who is propheticly bold enough to call this a political scam—while being a victim of it. What I do know, however, and what gives me hope for the future, is that things are being exposed. Slowly, yes ... but at least they're being exposed.
You don't have to be a political junkie (which I'm not) to realize this is nothing new. In fact, it's very old news when you consider the machines that have run the parties for decades. And yet can you ever remember such a barrage of hyped-up public debates, forums and Q&A sessions that overtly squelched the predetermined "losers"? Regardless of where this season ranks in terms of dirty politics, it still scares me to see the effects of such coverage on the common voter.
Case in point: My wife was at a coffee shop the other day, where at the next table two older women adamantly discussed their dislike for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. It became obvious that the women were Christians, so my wife was curious about their interest in other candidates. "I'm sorry, but I couldn't help overhearing your conversation," she said while leaning over to their table. "If you don't mind me asking, who are you voting for?" Neither had decided, but they certainly knew who they weren't voting for. "So what about Mike Huckabee?" my wife asked. Both paused for a while, shrugged a bit and then matter-of-factly stated that he probably wouldn't win.
[Warning: Editor rant ahead]
Surprise, surprise ... here we are, mere months from the party conventions and at least two of those "losers" are still hanging on, despite a process that is bent on dismissing them. They're certainly not surviving because of air time. Mainstream media outlets have, as usual, been successful enough to brainwa—er, convince the general public who the real winners are. As a result, we stand a few delegates away from McCain gaining the GOP nomination. Still, I believe people are finally catching on to the reality. When Ron Paul gets invited to a two-hour debate but isn't asked a single question, you know something's up. Or when Mike Huckabee is asked to attend the same event yet only gets tossed the token "evangelical" questions, it's just as infuriating. It doesn't help that major Christian leaders have added to that frustration by either supporting those who seemingly contradict their core values or, as in the case of guys like James Dobson, offering endorsements that reek of settling for the "best remaining choice"—and too late at that.
So who wins in all this? I honestly don't know. On one hand, I'm confused by Christians who say they stand for certain fundamental values but refused to get behind a former pastor and denominational leader simply because he supposedly wouldn't win. And on the other hand, I feel for a 10-term Congressman who is propheticly bold enough to call this a political scam—while being a victim of it. What I do know, however, and what gives me hope for the future, is that things are being exposed. Slowly, yes ... but at least they're being exposed.
[End rant]
