tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335351134343746038.post1198553641987930025..comments2014-07-27T22:20:15.423-05:00Comments on Joy on a Journey: Church isn't Sexy?Cyd Holsclawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10453750868046912299noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335351134343746038.post-35955603088185444292012-02-07T18:27:05.131-06:002012-02-07T18:27:05.131-06:00I'm glad. I was also going to say something ab...I'm glad. I was also going to say something about the difference between 'desire' and 'sexy,' but the comment was already long enough. James K.A. Smith says it better anyway!Andy Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012413250508548601noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335351134343746038.post-38575417773395030742012-02-07T15:35:31.142-06:002012-02-07T15:35:31.142-06:00Andy,
I really appreciate the way that you differ...Andy, <br />I really appreciate the way that you differentiated between the 'thin' sexy that we hope to name and turn away from and the rich beauty that we hope to embrace and invite others into. This definitely helps to clarify!Cyd Holsclawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10453750868046912299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4335351134343746038.post-77234409986811433352012-02-07T11:50:26.093-06:002012-02-07T11:50:26.093-06:00Cyd,
Thanks for this post. I freely admit that I a...Cyd,<br />Thanks for this post. I freely admit that I am guilty of interjecting 'sexy' into conversation referencing the church, faithfulness, mission, incarnation, you name it. Most of the time, I use it in the negative. Contrasting ideas or institutions with a hyper-materialistic, consumeristic attractiveness. <br /><br />My tongue-in-cheek usage is an attempt--perhaps feeble--to point out the 'thinness' of pursuing the immediate gratification and public affirmation that too often describes ministry success in evangelical America (the sliver of Christianity with which I'm most conversant). 'Sexy,' in that respect, signifies a manufactured, overproduced, nearly virtual experience or expectation designed to fabricate some result or another. Taking that meaning of 'sexy,' I don't want a faithfulness, a missionality, or an incarnationality that is 'sexy.' <br /><br />But my narrow usage of 'sexy' presents a problem, doesn't it? By capitulating to a purely materialistic, humanistic (and admittedly 'snarky') application of 'sexy,' I make it nearly impossible to also use the term in a redemptive, positive manner. I find my wife 'sexy' but not at all in the ways that I tend to bandy the term about when using it to negate attractional church designs. <br /><br />I must say, I don't quite arrive at the conclusion that turning away from a thin sexiness necessitates that one 'settle' for missional living (or faithfulness, or incarnation, or what have you). I would argue that to turn away from a thin sexiness is to pursue the richness of beauty. While beauty certainly encompasses that which is sexy, it is much more broader and deeper than that which is merely 'sexy'. Certainly one does not settle for beauty, but aspires to it.<br /><br />In that regard, your post challenges me to take a positive, constructive view toward faithfulness, missionality, etc. Rather than describing what it isn't, I ought to spend more time talking about what it is. And what it is, is beautiful.Andy Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08012413250508548601noreply@blogger.com