Learn about / Join the Flip Side Book Club for Mere Sexuality here.
I liked the introduction and first chapter of Mere Sexuality by Todd A. Wilson. I like Wilson’s writing style and feel I can respect him as an intellectual and theologian. In some respects, I can see Mere Sexuality as a book I would write if I were to write a book on sexuality. Particularly on the trend in the Church over the past 10-20 years to swing to other side of the pendulum on its stance on LGBTQ+ issues as they relate to Scripture. The church has kept pace with culture, following its lead and modifying the Bible to it. Whether you are “for” this swing or “against” it, you have to admit that it’s a pretty drastic swing in a very short period of time, which is a pretty fascinating concept in and of itself, and worthy of inspection. What I mean by saying that I could see this as a book that I would write is that Wilson and I are both heterosexual, married men who love Scripture, pastor churches, and love people. So there is a compassionate ache for those who struggle with gender identity or with same sex attraction, but also the conviction that Scripture is the inspired and authoritative word of God and you can’t pick and choose the parts you like and don’t like. In other words, you can’t put your own authority above God’s authority. But then you have to figure out how this plays out in the life of a man or woman who struggle with these issues and give them real paths of life they can walk down.
When I’ve written or taught on LGBTQ+ issues in the past, I’ve always said it’s not about this issue, like we are picking on people who are gay, it’s about your take on Scripture. I think homosexuality just became the dividing-line issue of our era where a person had to choose a “side” on if they were sticking with the long held view that the Bible is God’s authoritative view, or if they were instead viewing Scripture as a number of other options: a book of myths, a book of tradition, etc., believing faulty explanations about what certain words mean or meant, or using a hermeneutic (the method by which we interpret the Bible into today’s world) where things that were applied one way in the 1st century would be applied differently today because of love or other similar reasons.
It’s easy for all of this to stay in the land of theory, debate, and academia for a straight, married pastor such as myself or Wilson. It’s easy to point to gay marriage as the reason marriage has fallen apart, throwing stones at people who struggle with things we never will. What I love is how Wilson points us toward the sexual revolution of the 1960’s as when marriage and sexuality began to crumble away from God’s design in Scripture on a large cultural scale. Heterosexuals lost interest in God’s design for marriage (and were embraced by culture) long before culture adopted homosexual practice as acceptable. In fact, the first break from God’s design laid the groundwork for all the others that would follow. You see this in divorce, premarital sex, the hook up culture, and the myriad of other ways heterosexual sin has been widely embraced by culture and by the Church. I wrote about this 5 years ago when I got tired of Christians blaming gay marriage for destroying marriage, which I felt was our way of dodging the sins we struggle with and commit so we can point fingers and blame people who struggle with things we never will. A little too convenient, but also inaccurate in who should be getting the blame for what we are currently facing in society. Wilson quotes biblical scholar Luke Timothy Johnson, “There is more than enough sexual disorder among heterosexuals to fuel moral outrage.” I agree.
I’m excited to see what else Wilson has in store for us as we read Mere Sexuality. The book is not intended to convince or debate with someone who is passionately for homosexual sex being acceptable. I think Wilson knows his primary audience is the evangelical Church who already keeps to a traditional view of marriage and Scripture, though he does a good job of identifying and welcoming in each type of reader who might be reading the book. I think the book will be especially helpful to Christians who struggle with same sex attraction or gender dysphoria who have always believed the Bible is God’s authoritative word and that sex is designed to be within marriage between a man and a woman, but are now on the fence of what direction to go because of culture and the Church’s changing of the guard. I think there will also be plenty to challenge and strengthen a heterosexual’s walk with the Lord as each of us struggle with our own sexual sin, and needing desperately to be reminded of God’s design for our lives as sexual beings.
Discussion Questions for Book Club Members:
Answer two of the following questions in the comment section below. Answers are due by November 22nd. You also need to reply to at least two other people’s answers.
(REMEMBER THESE QUESTIONS ARE POSTED ON A PUBLIC FORUM. You are welcome to be as transparent and vulnerable as you are comfortable with about your own story, just be cognizant that your answers can be read by anyone.)
Please begin by giving a little bio information about yourself so your fellow book clubbers can get to know you a little and have some context.
1. Wilson says (p.14) that the questions “What does the Bible really teach about homosexuality?” and “How can we love homosexuals as Jesus would?” are both insufficient questions. What makes them insufficient? (or are they?)
2. Thinking of Wilson’s list on the bottom of p. 32, how would you prescribe the balance between grace toward a Christian living in sexual sin and a holding a Christian to what the Bible says?
3. What is Wilson’s definition of ‘mere sexuality’? Do you like it or no? Why or why not?
4. What philosophical cultural norms about authority did the 1960’s sexual revolution cause? (and/or what cultural norms about authority caused the sexual revolution?) — By “authority” here, I mean someone being able to tell someone else what to do or how to live.
5. What role does church history play in the authority of Scripture? (see mid-bottom of p.37 for context)
NEXT ASSIGNMENT: Have chapters 2 & 3 read by Dec. 6th. I will post my reflection and discussion questions for chapters 2 & 3 on the blog on Nov. 29th. Have your answers to those discussion questions posted by Dec. 6th.
Related posts:
He is:
Author of Beyond the Battle: A man's guide to his identity in Christ in an oversexualized world
Host of the The Flip Side Podcast
Join an online men's small group led by Noah and team at BeyondTheBattle.net
- Ep. 87: Dr. Peter Sung on the Post-Church Church - September 20, 2023
- Ep. 86: Cameron Horner on Disability in the Church and if God Still Heals - August 25, 2023
- Ep. 85: Dr. Terence Lester on how confronting buried racial history can build racial solidarity - August 9, 2023
Hi, my name is Andrew Bingham. I enjoy reading, thinking, and discussing. So here I am.
2. I struggle with this balance. I heard a sermon once that focused on John 1:14, specifically that Jesus was full of grace and truth. Jesus, being God in flesh, never erred one way or the other, but as humans we will find ourselves erring on either the side of grace or on the side of truth in the way we approach others. We sacrifice one for the other. We tend to either overlook sin in an effort to show grace, or to call out sin in adamant opposition, forgetting to reflect any of the grace that Jesus modeled for us. We miss the mark on being full of both grace and truth. The preacher ended the sermon advising us that it was better to err on the side of grace. I don’t know that I agreed with that sentiment, but in my experience, modern Christians certainly err on the side of grace, perhaps a little too far.
I also think of 1 Corinthians when Paul addresses the church about a congregant who was sleeping with his father’s wife. In the second verse of chapter 5, he chastises them for being proud of that behavior. It’s clear that for whatever reason, the Corinthian church is celebrating this man’s sin rather than mourning it. Paul goes on to instruct the church to disassociate with this person while he continues to boast in his sin.
I think that the balance between grace toward a Christian living in sexual sin, and holding a Christian to what the bible says, lies in the attitude toward the sin. Wilson’s list includes premarital sex, cohabitation, divorce, children out of wedlock, college campus hookups, and pornography. These are things that culturally are often celebrated. A Christian’s response should have an element of mourning. Whatever the temptation in the response, a Christian should not celebrate the departure and should not “gracefully” ignore it. In instances where the culprit is unrepentant and proud, we must challenge them.
3. Wilson uses the word “mere” in somewhat of a reference to C. S. Lewis, to mean common and basic beliefs that most of the church has traditionally held through the years. We live in a culture that is ready to discard traditional beliefs and values without much thought. I appreciate the importance Todd puts on the long-held teachings of the church.
Wilson describes his use of the word sexuality as a more general use than most usually understand it. He defines sexuality as being biologically sexed. It’s an interesting definition of sexuality, to be sure. I’ve never really considered the “sexuality” of Jesus and am interested to see what the next chapter says about it.
Hey Andrew! Really appreciate your insights. I’m definitely with you on thinking his definition of mere sexuality is a little strange in regards to only being one’s biological sex.
Thanks for the great response Andrew. I think you spell out well the needed balance between grace and truth. I also think the Church, generally speaking, has erred too far on the side of grace. Notable exceptions being those who were raised in “hell, fire, and brimstone” type of churches and/or very legalistic environments. Those certainly still exist, but I think the most popular forms of evangelical Church, and the cultural trend of Christianity, has gone too far in the other direction. This is one of my main points in chapters 2-3 of Beyond the Battle, as this leads us to entitlement, feeling like God is holding out on us and owes us something because “we aren’t that bad” and/or God isn’t really that bothered by sin. So we tend to sweep sin under the rug, while never really getting to enjoy God’s mercy because we think he owes it to us, rather than the proper response of being blown away by it because he lavishes it on us even though we could never earn it or deserve it. I think you articulated this balance well. I like Wilson’s list because he includes such commonly accepted things like divorce and premarital sex in with the conversation about homosexual practice. That needs to challenge the Church, otherwise we are hypocritical in our use of Scripture.
Wilson is the 3rd author-type I’ve heard define sexuality in a much broader definition than I have ever thought of it before. Ruth Haley Barton and Deb Hirsch being the others. Talking about sexuality essentially as all of who is a person is (my rough paraphrase), rather than exclusively what Hirsch calls “genital sexuality” in her book Redeeming Sex (Which we might do next in the book club, tbd). Whereas I’ve typically defined it as what would fall under that genital sexuality category only. So that’s a good insight to point out by you, and echoed by Cody below. Barton was the first person I heard use the broader definition, it was at a retreat I was attending that she was leading, and I thought, “wow, we’re talking about two different things here… two different definitions.” So I think it’s really important for an author to distinguish between the two. I too am interested in where Wilson will go with Jesus’ sexuality. Hirsch had a section on that in her book as well.
Thanks for reading for the post Andrew, great stuff!
My name is Cody Raga and I’ve been invested into the topic of sexuality and learning about the SSA Christian community for the past 6 years.
1. I think that the two questions are insufficient in and of themselves. They are questions that are shallow and shaped by narrow 2 lane answers. They need to be informed by what sexuality even is in order to avoid these narrow answers fueled by bias.
2. I think first there needs to be the recognition that heterosexuals are just as broken and prone to sexual sin as Timothy Johnson points out. Acknowledging all of us regardless of our orientation struggle with sexual sin is the 1st step. It can’t just be other categories of sin, it must step into the recognition of sexual sin and brokenness. It is in this admission of brokenness that we are able to speak into each other’s sinful behavior. This must be done delicately as the human need for sexuality itself is a massive part of what it means to be human. Bringing that into its proper context is no easy matter.
3. I’m not sure I 100% follow his logic here, it sounds to me like he’s reducing sexuality down to ones biological sex which seems hollow to me.
4. The idea of subjectivity and the idea of any absolutes coming from within seem to dominate here. Becoming ones own authority seems to echo to me the refrain of Judges 17-21 “and all did what was right in their own eyes.”
5. It depends who you ask. But it would seem most of the church through history gives primary authority to the Scriptures alone. Now, what translation or exegetical work of said Scripture is most accurate becomes the question of the day here in order to avoid shallow surface readings.
Thanks Cody!
With #1, I think Wilson is pointing toward good / helpful books written by evangelical Christians. One being “What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?” by Kevin DeYoung and the other “People to be loved” by Preston Sprinkle and/or books like them. I think Wilson would acknowledge both as good and helpful books –I’ve read them both and think they are– but that they alone are insufficient. I think in some ways packaged together, back to the grace & truth convo in Andrew’s post and my reply above, they make a pretty complete picture. We need the biblical truth and we also need the gracious empathy / friendship. But I think Wilson is making the point that a historical look at the Church’s theology and understanding of sexuality is a key piece missing from even that package. That there’s been this huge cultural shift away from biblical authority and toward personal autonomy (question #4) that is getting lost in this conversation.
I love what you say about #2. We are all broken sexually. Christopher Yuan does a great job of pointing this out. I haven’t read his new book “Holy Sexuality and the Gospel”, but I’ve heard him speak on this and it sounds like his new book is a lot like the talk I heard him do on this.
For #3, see my reply to Andrew above. I think what Wilson is doing is not excluding what Hirsch (in my reply) calls “genital sexuality” but is expanding it to a broader view, one that still talks about and includes sex, attraction, etc., but brings in more of a person’s identity and personhood as well.
Great observation for #4. Huge shift in culture that has affected SO much in the area of sexual norms and trends.
For #5, I thought Wilson made a great point on p.37 that points out our current era’s “postmodern uncertainty, where sincere Christians disagree about a growing number of things they used to take for granted,” and pointing out that evangelicals have lost the historical consensus we used to have. He mentioned believers today being committed to Scripture but skeptical of tradition. That today we believe in “Scripture in isolation” (nuda scriptura) rather than “Scripture alone” (sola scriptura). I thought this was a really profound connection between the era of postmodernity, how we view Scripture today, and thus where we’ve ended up as Christians with sexuality where everyone seems to be able to define it how they want, making Scripture say what they want it to.
Hey y’all, sorry I’m late, but I’m here! My name is Jayson, and I was surprised with the first chapter, and really resonated with the content.
1. From what I read, Wilson isn’t saying that these are irrelevant questions (as a blanket statement), but they are fairly irrelevant as far as our convictions on the biblical immortality of homosexuality. I think what he is taking about is touching more on the fact that we tend to get stuck on those questions, because many younger people are first presented with the questions of social conduct before knowing the biblical stance, and therefore the social conduct questions takes priority. Also, this could be a multi-variated question, which should not be studied with a single variate analysis, or base the response only on that single variation. For example, our conduct towards others with any differing fundament moral belief, is dependent on if they also claim to follow Christ. One can’t claim God’s law as their moral foundation, and at the same time believe that drunkenness is moral, but another moral foundation may.
2. It depends on the heart of the person. Are they actively waging war on sin? The problem comes when we sometimes believe our worldview is best, despite what scripture says. But you are to “lean not on your own understanding”. As far as our conduct towards a professing Christ follower, those are hard conversations, and sometimes they have to happen… I have been on both ends, and like I said, it depends on the heart of the person.
3. I understand what he is trying to say, and how he’s defining it, but I’m not yet sure on how is supposed to give any clarity.
4. I’m not sure of what to think about the sexual revolution of the 60’s. Could it be that the morals of many were only hindered by the repercussions? The introduction of things like the birth control pill gave the appearance of no repercussions. I guess it highlights when we are given the opportunity to ‘get away with it’, it’s a lie… We tend to deprioritize the authority of God for our own.
5. The church has had the responsibility to spread the gospel, undiluted. This spans to the authority question, and when what we feel, is contrary to scripture. Who’s authority am I going to trust, mine or His?
First off I, I agree that the Church tends to walk on eggshells when talking about the topic of sexual interaction, or how archetypal Christian sexuality should present itself.
As the chapter described, I have been challenged with the opportunity on a number of occasions, when working with people who identified as other than heterosexual. The one relationship that stands out the most is when a new manager was hired in at a cell phone shop that I worked for. I remember even having the conversation with her about sexuality in Christian theology, as we eventually got to know each other fairly well, because there were many low traffic times at the store, and all we did was talk to pass the time. She knew many personal things about me, and I also did about her. She knew that I was involved with my local church, and she genuinely wanted to know what I thought about her choices. Because this wasn’t something I had studied or dwelled on much, up to that point, I didn’t have many good biblical insights into the topic, so there were a lot of “I don’t know” situations. On the other hand, I did know what scripture says about how we are to conduct ourselves, as representatives of Christ, towards everyone… 1 Corinthians 13 stood out. This was also a better time than any to dig in, and see what scripture had to say about sexuality. The idea that I kept coming back to me was, what I saw as foundational for Biblical sexuality (marriage), and how it was to represent the image of Christ and the Church. To me, this had implications that should be cross referenced, with any nuanced ideas about biblical sexuality. By the time I left the job at the cell phone shop, I had begun to solidified my convictions on what God had to say about sexuality, and had opportunities to discuss it some with my manager. With her better understand my moral foundation, we were enabled to have some constructive conversations about the topic, despite fundamental disagreements. I hadn’t seen any evidential change come from those conversations, but as they stuck out to me, I hope they’ll stick out to her as well.
I guests my point here is that it is hard to have these conversations, and I find myself shying away sometimes, unfortunately. There is always the risk of hindering the relationship with whomever, despite the level off mutual respect, but good conversation is worth it. Some will see a conflict of their ideas of sexuality, as one denying their most fundamental aspect of their identity, and not knowing how God defines them. I strive to have a conversation whenever I can.
Hey Jayson, thanks for the reply! Good point regarding younger people being presented with the social conduct before knowing the biblical stance, so the social conduct takes priority. And/or I’d observe that the social conduct dictates how the Bible is interpreted and read. I heard Christian Yuan once say that traditionally the Bible has been interpreted where we figure out what the Bible says, then we base our experience on following that. Whereas today with sexuality, we figure out what our experience is, then we form the Bible to fit into that experience.
Check back on my replies to Cody and Andrew, as a lot of what I wrote there will apply to your 1-5 as well. And I agree that birth control played a big role in all this, including what’s become the total deconstruction of marriage as the foundation of society. When you can prevent pregnancy (and abort it if the prevention didn’t work), you take out the ‘risk’ of having kids so you can have sex without the repercussions, no marriage needed to support the child, because the child isn’t in the equation anymore. So approaches sex no longer requires a thought of, “Is this something (raise a child) that I want to commit to with this person for the rest of my life?” –Now the question is simply, “Do I want an orgasm with this person?” And we’ve built our society around that second question.
That’s a cool example of your conversation with your manager at the cell phone shop. I think it’s essential that we can have loving, but informative, conversations about sexuality with people. It seems today, particularly in the avenue of social media, blog comments, etc. that you are an immediate bigot for disagreeing with someone, as if you can’t love and disagree. It’s a sad state in our culture as a whole.