A tawdry marketing gimmick

Dan Burrell: The Latest in Pastoral Challenges — 7 Days of Sex


I personally find this kind of trendy, flavor-of-the-month, pop-psychology type of “religion” distasteful and immensely irritating. To me, this fits in with other “trends” in emergent-driven churches like wearing too much gel in one’s hair, wearing shirt tails out, giving away shot glasses with the church name on them out in bars, shocking signs (Flamingo Road Church recently had a huge banner on their building asking people to “Flip Someone the Bird” this Thanksgiving. It was part of a Thanksgiving food drive. Please excuse me while I roll my eyes.), Starbucks franchises in the lobbies, one-word church names and worship franchising. None of these, on their own are intrinsically evil or always unBiblical — it’s just that if I were an unsaved person watching all these gyrations to get me to give them some attention, I’d be laughing hysterically at the antics and the seeming desperation. In fact, I do laugh hysterically at it sometimes. Other times, I just throw up a little bit in my mouth.

Comment: God’s creation has managed to propagate without bill-boards, campaigns, and pulpit messages.

‘7 days of sex’ is a cheap marketing gimmick. I personally would not be comfortable worshiping with the kind of fools drawn into this.

HT: Dan Burrell


  1. When people suggest 30, 100, or 365 consecutive days of sex, my thought is that whatever man is suggesting this is completely obvlivious to his wife's physiology and why she might not be in the mood--it's more or less a confession that the man has no clue about the tenderness that ought to characterize marriage.

  2. To make sex merely mechanical does a disservice to the love and intimacy of marriage.

    We live in perilous times (2 Timothy 3:1, "But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come ..").

    When the church is not pure and perverts the gospel, the world mocks us!


Any anonymous comments with links will be rejected. Please do not comment off-topic