-Sermons may translate into eviction notice from school
The “third installment” mind you.
Like many churches across our land, New Hope Church, where these sermons have been given, meets in a local elementary school. The local elementary school has a “Risk Management Department” (The “RMD – can we scream “Orwellian” any louder?) who are not pleased with the literature this church has produced in order to advertise the series. Most troubling for the RMD is the title for the series, “Great Sex for You!, accompanied with a picture of a pair of intertwined naked legs peeking out from the bottom of a sheet. They also have a snazzy flash animated website that goes by the same name.
A RMD spokesman stated they believe the literature is inappropriate for elementary age students, and they find the material obnoxious and in poor taste. I couldn’t agree with them more, and rarely, if ever, do I agree with bureaucratic public school administrators.
Two things are in play here.
Yes, the RMD people are more than likely effeminate, if not for the most part women, who hand wring over whether or not 6 year old Billy should be listed as a sexual predator after he kissed the cheek of his 6 year old class mate, Bethany. I understand those absurd and extreme over reactions could be at work.
Yet on the other hand, if you watch the brief video of the pastor preaching, the information he provides isn’t even close to being as graphic as Mark Driscoll’s material. In fact, the stuff he was describing I have heard taught at my Church in appropriate contexts, and any one who knows anything about my Church, knows where we would stand on scandalous language in the pulpit. Now, the pastor might have gone on to describe human anatomy in graphic detail, but I didn’t hear any of that.
What seems to be the main objection of our RMD robots is the literature used to advertise the series, and here is where I agree with them. I completely agree sex is a beautiful thing God gives to mankind, but why is there a need to produce provocative and tantalizing advertising that borders on the type of stuff a person may see in Vanity Fair magazine just to say so? Are naked feet, bare shoulders, and clothes strewn across the floor a necessary image for a Church to show people? How exactly is it “being relevant” and in “good taste?”
I am all for local churches addressing sex. I would even say this is one area in our society many churches have failed in providing a biblical perspective to frame a Christian worldview in the hearts of the people, particularly their young people. But there is a propriety in how a Church goes about instilling a biblical perspective on sex. That is why older men are to teach younger men, and older women to teach younger women (See Titus 2). But when robotic administrative bureaucrats from the local school, and remember, they tend to be more left of center in their values, are concerned a Church is acting irreverent with their programs, we may want to re-evaluate our testimony before the watching world.