Skip to main content

The need for a Biblical, Evangelical sexual anthropology & ethic

Orright - enough messing around & hilarity - time to get back to some serious theologising. Series of posts on sexuality coming up.

Sexual identity and behaviour lie at the core of self-identity and self-worth. When a baby is born, the first question we ask is “is it a boy or a girl?” Issues of masculinity, femininity, love and romance pervade all aspects of life: young boys run around with plastic machine guns while the girls have a tea party; teenage years bring an outburst of sexual self-awareness and activity; and sexual relationships, whether stable or casual, have a huge impact on people’s physical and mental health.

Our sexuality is, therefore, visibly at the core of our human identity. For the Christian Church, this means at least three things. This post will explore the need for a Biblical, Evangelical sexual anthropology and ethic. The next two points will explore how that anthropology & ethic helps us love all people, and points to the gospel.

First, it is imperative to develop a Biblical, gospel-focused, Christ-centred understanding of ourselves as sexual beings, and of how we should conduct our sexuality. To use theological language: we must develop a Biblical, Evangelical sexual anthropology (who we are) and ethic (how we should behave).

As Christians, we know the creator God of the universe, who made all things good, and who has affirmed the basic goodness of this creation by incarnating himself in the person of his Son, and who has given us his Spirit that we may walk in his ways. We have the Bible, which is God’s revealed will (his “law”), contains the whole counsel of God, and is useful for training in righteousness. Of all the people in the world, then, we Christians should have a healthy and realistic understanding of ourselves, and healthy, realistic ways of behaving – including sexual self-understanding and behaviour.

This healthy realism comes from the fact that we are in touch with God, the foundation of all reality, who made our bodies and this world that we live in. It also comes from a right understanding of our relationship with him – created by him; fallen from him, therefore subject to all manner of bodily and relational dysfunctions; redeemed in Christ, therefore able, truly if imperfectly, to enjoy created goodness in the manner intended by the creator; and looking forward to a glorious future which will both fulfil and transcend the pleasures of this creation. Ignorance and inability in such a core area of human life denies the God we worship, the gospel we preach, and the Bible we obey.

Comments

Kendrick B said…
Lovely blog yoou have

Popular posts from this blog

A better understanding of nonbelief

The Nones Project is an ongoing study into the belief systems of people who call themselves non-religious. A few weeks ago one of the project leaders,  Ryan Burge  of Washington University,  posted some really interesting preliminary results  on his Substack.  1. We've probably heard of people who are spiritual but not religious (SBNRs). SBNRs were "the largest group of nones" in the sample. They believe in the supernatural realm but not necessarily in "a God." They are "deeply skeptical of religion but highly interested in spirituality," therefore individualistic and anti-institutional.  2. But this study differentiated SBNRs from people they called Nones In Name Only, NiNos. They different to SBNRs by being religious about their spiritual. They believe not just in the supernatural but in "God." And they tend to engage in traditional communal religious practices while SBNRs practice individualised eclectic bespoke spiritual practices. The s...

The different distractions of secularity and spirituality

There has been a lot of discussion about the recent 'vibe shift' away from radical atheism back towards an openness to the supernatural. I don't think this new spirituality is necessarily an openness to the unique claims of Christ. It will more probably replace one set of commonly-accepted misunderstandings about Jesus with another.  Under radical atheism, people dismissed the Biblical claims about Jesus' resurrection because they 'knew' that it was impossible. Jesus hadn't really died. He just passed out (after being beaten and whipped and crucified) and then woke up in the tomb (and rolled away the stone himself and overcame several guards). Or the disciples hallucinated that they saw him (even though Jewish beliefs of the time didn't expect one person to rise possessing eternal life himself; they expected a general resurrection at the end of time - see John 11:24 ). Or something else.  The so-called 'explanations' of Jesus' non-resurrectio...
TGC Australia recently published an analysis by Dr Sarah Quicke of whether we are experiencing a 'quiet revival' of interest in and/or conversion to Christianity  here in Australia. It does it a good job of describing the difficulties involved in both gathering and interpreting data about religious beliefs and behaviours, e.g. the difference between the 44% who (still) call themselves Christian and the 8% of people aged 18-35 who actually "believed and lived out the gospel."  Quicke refers to the very insightful McCrindle report An Undercurrent Of Faith , released in March 2025, which uses an analytical method called cohort analysis to try and work out how a particular group of people tend to behave over time. The purpose of this post is to draw attention to one element of that report which agrees with Quicke's analysis but also adds some detail to it.  Here is what the cohort analysis showed about different age groups' identification with Christianity:  As y...