So apparently I’m a little slow here, and you all have probably heard about this, but I just found out today about the 30 Day Sex Challenge. This was a project started by Lead Pastor Paul Wirth of Relevant Church. It’s an interesting idea, for sure (for a news clip of the challenge, click here). Paul challenged married couples in his church to have sex once a day for 30 days, and he challenged single/unmarried folks to abstain from sex for 30 days. The idea being that unmarried couples might be placing too much emphasis on the physical aspect of the relationship (and the challenge would give them a chance to spend more time focusing on other areas of their relationship), while married couples get so caught up by the busyness of daily life, that they really don’t have enough sex (and the challenge would give them the chance to increase the intimacy that may be lacking in their marriage).
Well, unfortunately, the 30 Day Sex Challenge just ended a few days ago, so I missed it. But what do you all think about this? Is it appropriate for a pastor to be encouraging folks to have sex? Should the pastor care about the sex lives of people in his/her church?
Related posts:
- Patheos Theoblogger Challenge: “Who/What is God?” in 100 Words or Less
- Lenten Reflection #3: Dairy #FAIL
Share This Post:
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Well, everyone knows that unmarried evangelical Christians don’t have sex anyway, so it’s kind of a moot point… ;)
Checking the material (website and newscast), there was precious little in the way of details.
As for married couples, well… was he promoting contraception, too? Did he consider the fact that in a 30 day period, so to speak, certain things will happen that might be a problem? Was he advocating only certain “approved” types of sexual activity?
I don’t think it’s inappropriate that the church addressed the issue, though – just curious as to their take on the details.
I can’t say that I like this idea…I’m all for the church honestly talking about sexuality, but this seems to be going about it the wrong way. I would take exception to the idea that the marital status of the people has anything to do with the place that sex has in their relationships. It’s not possible for married people to put too much emphasis on the physical aspect of their relationship?
I think we have a serious problem in this culture and in the church with understanding what moral sex is. It has very little to do with the marital status or orientation of the people, and everything to do with whether a relationship is governed by mutuality, fidelity and love. Start talking about sex in those terms, and we might actually have a relevant word to speak to the world.
Yes, I think its very appropriate to address this issue. However, I don’t know about encouraging married couples to have sex everyday. I feel that might be a little too much. Even during a 30 spread the mandate to have sex might suck all the fun out of it. Maybe sex could be encouraged in another way… although I don’t have any suggestions right now.
It also could be that this pastor really wants to kick start his children’s ministry and thought this was the best way to go about it. Just a thought.
Hehehe, I would go for the idea, but I don’t know that my wife would :p
Yup asked her…. she said she thought the idea was stupid :p
I’m with matt. in ten months, that church is going to have a 30-day capital campaign to build a new infant and toddler day school.
I think the models they used for their banner was a bad choice. What percentage of people in their church look like that, do you suppose? The banner projects an image that what this challenge is about is hot, young, sexy 20-somethings getting it on. I can understand why they don’t want to project the image of flabby, middle-aged people having sex everyday, but if this church is going to speak honestly about what sex is, I think they should consider changing the images they use.
The whole concept of this challenge is wrong. It seems to suggest that intimacy means more sex. How about a challenge where married couples set some time aside to talk to each other about the sexual aspect of their relationship, what they enjoy about it, what is lacking, etc. and then spend the next 30 days responding to that conversation. I imagine that the conversations that newlywed couples would be much different than the conversations that married couples with 5 kids had and those would be much different than the conversations that 65 year old retired couples had. And I imagine that these conversations all might be different than the conversation between a husband and his wife who is paralyzed or between a couple that is grieving a miscarriage or any number of other situations.
Also, I haven’t read any of the website but I hope that the challenge for unmarried people involved more than just abstainence. What the church should be teaching unmarried people about sex is more than just “don’t have any.”
It’s an absurd idea. Sex is good for marriage, but who decided that the idea of being a sexual glutton is better? Did this pastor watch a little too much Morgan Spurlock? It is just all kinds of wrong. I am all for incorporating more discussion of sex and sexuality in the church, but this takes it a little overboard.
And everyone’s comments about babies is right. Married couples have sex every day intentionally when they are trying to get pregnant. And let me tell you, doing it every day takes a lot of the magic out of it and it becomes almost clinical.
generally speaking, i think it’s mostly appropriate. some of this particular approach seems a bit sensationalist to me.
the church also published a 30 day booklet to go along with the whole idea. i skimmed it a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty well done. and it gave me a different sense for how they were actually going about it – ideas of intimacy, depth and such, like the things bradm mentioned.
While I agree that their banner was not a good representation of the church, I think this is a great idea. I can totally see what you mean about it putting too much pressure on people, but I could see how it could really jump start a marriage that had lost the flame and excitement. No, that’s not what marriage is all about, and no, all marriage don’t look the same sexually (or any other way) but I believe sex is not just a physical act. I think it is deeply emotional and spiritual and has a phenominal ability to unite people together. Are there some folks that maybe would not benefit from this type of challenge? I am sure. But there are others that would benefit immensely! Just like any other challenege that comes out of a preacher’s mouth during a sermon, it will challenge some and not others. And for those it challenges, some will take the challenge and some won’t. Hopefully the folks who participated followed the lead of God’s Holy Spirit and not the words of a mere man.
On another note, I find it interesting that no one has commented on the absitnance portion of this challenge. I think a real positive aspect of this challenge is that it emphasized the fact that sex is for marriage in a negative way (singles don’t have sex) and a positive way (married people have sex!). I can see how that would be very positive influence on someone who was single but not celibate.
Hey, my wife and I are 50, we have an 18 year old in the house, we both work, yeah right! Neither of us have the stamina for such a thing. And in case the pastor doesn’t know, perhaps his wife should tell him, that there are a couple of days in the month that its probably not a good idea.
So, while sex is an important part of the marriage relationship and churches shouldn’t be afraid of it, this is really quite silly — I suppose if you’re 25, newly married, you might feel differently, but that’s my perspective.
The have sex more if you are married is not the issue. The issue is trying to do it for 30 straight days. It does not seem to be a necessary practice to change the behavior. As Bob indicates, there is a good 5 day, and sometimes longer, period where neither of us want to engage in anything sexual. Trying to do it in spite of that fact would not be very instructional.
But the question is what benefit having sex for 30 days straight is? How about 14 days straight? 4 days out of the week with a plan and a structure to discuss desire? How about helping couples talk to each other about what they want and expect out of the relationship not only sexually, but with other things that cause 50 percent of them to end in divorce: kids, money, careers, retirement, housing, etc.? Sex is intimate – most of the time. But not all intimacy is sexual. Good intimacy that couple are missing is learning how to air their dirty laundry to each other in a mutually edifying and supportive way where there is no fear of retribution. Couple need to be able to say “Honey I need more from you” in a way that is mutually giving and THAT is something that does not, and I would say cannot be done with the act of sex every 24 hour period for 30 straight days.
Want divorce to go down? Teach couples how to be brutally honest and embarrassingly honest with each other so that honesty simply ceases to be brutal or embarrassing anymore. Honesty come with a fear of loss of both one’s self and of the partner somehow. That’s what a good exercise would instill in the relational consciousness of a couple.
“us” in the above is a referent to myself and my wife. That looked a little odd.
As a married man I can tell you that this is one of the best ideas I have ever heard…
@Trent: “I think we have a serious problem in this culture and in the church with understanding what moral sex is. It has very little to do with the marital status or orientation of the people, and everything to do with whether a relationship is governed by mutuality, fidelity and love.”
I couldn’t disagree more.
Maybe I’m missing something here, but didn’t both Jesus and Paul both care about what was and wasn’t ‘moral sex?’ (I’m thinking Mt 19 or 1 Cor5) I think it’s very appropriate for a pastor to care about the private lives of other Christians.
Nothing is sexier than having sex every day because your pastor told you to. Nothing gets me in the mood like a church program.
On a more serious note, I propose the following thesis: Abstinence in the realm of sexual ethics is analogous to pacifism in the realm of political ethics.
1. Both abstinence and pacifism are minority positions in their respective realms.
2. Both abstinence and pacifism are dismissed by their opponents as being “unrealistic.”
3. Abstinence is the conservative way of being “countercultural” and “faithful to the gospel”; pacifism is the progressive way of being “countercultural” and “faithful to the gospel.”
4. Jesus never directly addressed either issue, but when he spoke of sexual ethics he at least leaned toward abstinence, and when he spoke of political ethics he at least leaned toward pacifism.
What if, despite being considered “unrealistic,” the truly countercultural, faithful response to Jesus’ teachings in our time was to abstain from both sexual activity outside of marriage AND abstain from violence? That would be a narrow road indeed….
Good point, Andy. Reminds me of that generality that liberals are worried about violence in movies and conservatives are worried about sex. Not true for everyone, I’m sure, but it still bears out a lot, and has caused me to try to understand both sides out more than once.
My roommate and I liked your point because it is fun to see people who emphasize their differences all get called on the carpet for some version of the same thing. I guess that’s how I’d define Christian fellowship — it’s what happens when wildly different people unite over the fact that we’re all wrong somewhere.
It’s an interesting experiment. When I heard it about it a few weeks ago on a radio rock station, the dj mentioned that the idea was inspired by a study that showed it takes 30 days to create a habit. So the pastor framed it as a Lenten discipline that he hopes will affect couples beyond the 30 days because they now have a habit of either having sex or not having sex.
In theory, I suppose it could work. Not sure nor am I sure if it’s something a pastor should focus on. Although you’re explanation of how the pastor’s point was to help people’s relationships rather than make a point about morals, makes me think that in this case, maybe it’s ok that he came up with the challenge. Still, I’m not totally 100 percent on it.
I’d be interested to hear comments/reflections from the folks who tried to meet the challenge.
Ugh. This is horrifying.
No one tells me when to have sex. Especially not some pastor.
I think it’s good to be openly addressing the issue of sex in the church, particularly MARITAL sex. Seems like there’s an overwhelming preoccupation with not having it before marriage, but not much about what to do after marriage when life starts to be overwhelming.
But I have a problem with encouraging people to have sex for 30 days straight, simply to have sex. My husband and I have self-imposed this kind of goal on ourselves, and sometimes found that having sex just to have sex is not really that intimate at all. We love sex, but there are days when life gets hard, work was exhausting, and you can’t give it everything you would like to. On those kinds of days, working together to clean the house, cook dinner, or do some other mundane task together has brought us a lot closer than half-hearted sex would have.
It’s an interesting idea, but maybe just needs to consider all the angles.s
I had no clue about this challenge until today BUT the other night while laying in bed I realized that I have lost something about myself since I have had my baby and I want to get that old spark back in my life SO I asked my husband if we could have sex for 30 days straight…. I figure if you dont use it you lose it and maybe thats it. So we are doing the challenge and I am hoping for success…. Can’t hurt right?
Church should be the one place for folks to be comfortable talking about sex and my husband and I are starting this challenge and we are very excited. It is so easy to let that part of our relationship slide with 3 kids to take care of so far it’s been great and we are only on day 2. Already we are smiling more and giving each other the “eyes” over the kid’s heads at dinner. It’s exciting, and we feel great each morning.
{ 2 trackbacks }