This story from the Odd News is certainly odd. A Florida church is in trouble for a 3-week series about “great sex.” No, the problem is not the denomination, or some stuffy members upset about such a scandalous thing.
The problem in this case is the “risk management” department of the local school board. The controversy revolves around the 25,000 mailers sent to homes in the target area of the church.
This implies a few things, which really aren’t true.
First, that the mailers were geared for, and sent to, children. Elementary school children to be precise. I seriously doubt they were sent to elementary school children.
Second, that elementary school children don’t hear about sex from … the school. Yes, there could be some hypocrisy at work here. It is okay for the kids to hear about sex, including certain deviations from normalcy portrayed as normal. But not okay for a church to instruct adults about God’s good plan for sex within the confines and freedom of marriage.
Churches should be teaching people about sex- not just the when not to part. A certain famous pastor has been attacking another certain famous pastor for doing just that using the Song of Solomon which last I checked was in the Bible, and about …. sex (among other things). Most churches don’t have elementary age school children in the service for the sermon however. So, I’m not sure how this would ‘damage’ the children who attend the school (which is the risk the risk management board should be assessing, though they might need to look at their own curriculum). Nor should it damage the children who attend the church.
This is an off-hours, voluntary event that is not contiguous with normal school hours or any other school event. So what is the problem here? I just don’t understand how this could even be an issue. But I guess it shows that the world is even more inconsistent when it comes to sex than the church is.
Cavman Considers 
Depends on how that certain pastor talked about sex. I’ve heard folks on both sides say what was right/wrong but haven’t seen the actual text/video of the sermon. Seems to some he was implying the S of S commands certain activities.
I don’t know…. I haven’t listened to that series. Was he addressing permissability rather than mandating certain acts? I’ll have to listen some.
What little I’ve picked upon the internet is that the other pastor seemed upset that he didn’t interpret it like John Owen (its about Christ and the church), and that we shouldn’t address such topics.
I’ve begun listening to the series. He encourages married couples to discuss what they like/don’t like sexually. This is what he mandates, not particular sexual acts. He, quoting Dillow, mentions oral sex as referred to in SoS. He does not say people must have oral sex, but talk to one another.