A few evenings ago, at dinner, my eight year old son admitted
that he had been using a word in his vocabulary, but wasn’t exactly sure he
knew what it meant or that he was using it appropriately. The word was “necessarily.” I would have never guessed he was
unsure of the meaning, because he had been using it correctly in context for a
little while. Turns out, he did
know what it meant… he was just checking.
I find myself in a similar situation. I’ve been hearing a word being used in
conversations about the church.
It’s a word I’ve heard used in other contexts… but I’m having a hard
time figuring out if it still makes sense the way it’s being used.
The word is ‘sexy.’
I know it has several meanings and isn’t being used in the most obvious
sense – of being concerned with sex, provoking sexual interest, or being arousing or
sexually exciting. Instead, I
think it’s being used as a substitute for trendy or glamorous. This makes sense to me in the world of
design, advertising, heath and fitness, and, of course, the bedroom. It’s not my favorite description, but
it doesn’t bother me much when it is used to describe a car, an ad campaign, a fitness program, clothing, etc. I recognize that
these contexts are already obsessed with sex, use sex to make money, and are image-driven.
In these contexts, something is either ‘sexy’ or not sexy… and I know
what is meant by those descriptions.
But when I hear the colloquialism used in relationship to the
church and the lifestyles and practices of its leaders, it confuses me. Because here, to use this word implies
an obsession with sex, making money, and being image-driven. This may be
exactly what those who use it in such a context are trying to point out… but in
that case, it just seems like a back-handed way to confront the issue. I sincerely hope that, no matter how
misguided a church’s strategy might be, they do not base their church practices
on the desire to be ‘a sexy church.’
Occasionally, I’ve heard people call things related to the
church ‘sexy’ in a positive way: a
sexier space, a sexy logo. But
most often, I hear ‘sexy’ used in the negative: faithfulness isn’t sexy, not as sexy as a big launch, church
planting is not the sexy new thing, nothing sexy about incarnational.
The way it’s used, makes it sound like ‘sexy’ is what we all
want, expect, and hope for. It makes it sound like ‘sexy’ is what churches
are shooting for. Sexy is the
ideal. Church can be seductive,
attractive, appealing, sensuous, exciting, arousing, glamorous… but, if we
choose to extend the mission of God outside the walls of the church building,
we might as well come to terms with the fact that we can’t have the ideal. Instead, living all of life as part of
God’s mission is plain, dull, and non-descript. So we might as well give up our ideal of ‘sexy’ and settle
for missional living.
My response to this underlying assumption is to be confused
and taken off guard… While being taken off guard can be really helpful at
times, in this case, it just makes me feel like I can’t relate.
Perhaps it’s because I don’t think of ‘sexy’ as the
ideal. I never wanted life with
God, life with a community, participating in God’s mission, or corporate
worship to be ‘sexy’. For me, the
description of any of these things as ‘sexy’ is just plain weird.
And so when someone suggests that I need to give up my ‘sexy’
ideal, I can’t relate. I DO desire intimacy in my life with God. I
DO want my life with a community to be mutually submissive. I DO find excitement in participation in God’s
mission, and it DOES involve all of me, including my body. And I DO think corporate worship can be
vulnerable and powerful and absorbing.
But ‘sexy’ as an ideal for the Church? Doesn’t fit.
Perhaps it’s because I’m a woman and I hear ‘sexy’ used
predominantly by men. This
reinforces the stereotype that many women live with… ‘all men think about is
sex.’ And so when I hear men
coaching other men to deal with the fact that they have to ‘settle’ for
missional living, when what they really want is ‘sexy’, it just reinforces the
stereotype.
Perhaps it’s because I wrestle with ‘sexy’ being used as a
dirty term to be turned against... like sexy is what we all want, but we all know it’s bad to want
sexy. Using ‘sexy’ this way seems
to vilify sexuality and make it something to be avoided, rather than something
to be celebrated in the way God intended within the mutual submission of a
marriage covenant.
Perhaps it’s because when I hear ‘sexy’ used in conversation,
I immediately feel like an outsider.
The moment the word ‘sexy’ is used, I feel less inclined to participate
in the conversation. I feel like
the kid on the playground who doesn’t know the lingo, the inside joke. Suddenly, I wonder if I am part of this
conversation… and feel like I would rather withdraw from the conversation than
try to talk in a way that doesn’t make sense to me.
I haven’t brought it up in any kind of seriousness before
because I felt like I was being the stereotype of a woman and making a bigger
deal out of this than it needs to be… I thought maybe I was nit-picking and
nagging. But it continues to
strike me as unnecessary and unhelpful… and possibly even damaging to the
conversations that are taking place.
And so I ask a similar question to the one my son asked at the
dinner table. What does this word
actually mean to those who use it?
And is it helpful in the context of the Church?
I welcome your thoughts…
