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

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...

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...

Wax and Wright on the definition of "mission"

Trevin Wax has written a clear, simple, and charitable introduction to a debate about the nature and boundaries of the kinds of Christian activities that validly should be called "mission." In brief:  Should we use a broad definition, where "mission" encompasses all the various purposes which God calls Christians and the church in general to perform, e.g. being ethical at work; general acts of care and charity; standing against systematic oppression and working towards justice instead? If so, "evangelism" is only one part of the church's mission - a central, necessary, and irreplaceable part, but only one part nonetheless. The latter kinds of activities don't save anyone for eternity, but they do genuine good in this world which please God. And that kind of good makes a real difference in many parts of the world which have not benefited from the kind of Christian moral transformation which the West benefited from - the kind of moral transformation...