Orthodoxy, Sex Ethics, and the Meaning of Nature

August 9th, 2017 | 13 min read

James K.A. Smith’s recent criticism of those who have made a particular sexual ethic a criterion of ‘orthodoxy’ has generated a minor kerfuffle, as these things go. My friends and Mere Fidelity collaborators Derek Rishmawy and Alastair Roberts have both weighed in, Alan Jacobs has offered a characteristically concise yet helpful clarification, and Wesley Hill has offered a sober and elegant reflection on related themes.

Want to keep reading?

Subscribe for free to access this article and all of our archives.

Matthew Lee Anderson

Matthew Lee Anderson is an Associate Professor of Ethics and Theology in Baylor University's Honors College. He has a D.Phil. in Christian Ethics from Oxford University, and is a Perpetual Member of Biola University's Torrey Honors College. In 2005, he founded Mere Orthodoxy.

Topics:

Featured

Orthodoxy, Sex Ethics, and the Meaning of Nature

Want to keep reading?

Time is Always Time: Christopher Nolan, T. S. Eliot, and Creatureliness

The Four Quadrants of Church Life in the Gray Zone

How to Value Caring Work

Cats and Sixty Foot Whales: Reflections on Children’s Books

Markets and the Strangulation of the American Family

The Market Made Me Do It: The Scandal of the Evangelical College

Tethered Still

Guns and the Shaping of Character

Against Textbooks: Why We Need Bigger Stories

The Cost of Food in America

The Austen Years: A Review in Six Movements

The Danger of Respectable Christianity

The Church Amongst the Counter-Institutions

Dignity Beyond Accomplishment

When the Therapeutic Replaces Sin

When the Ad Replaced the Icon

Following Christ in the Machine Age: A Conversation with Paul Kingsnorth

Imperial Migrations

Teach Them Friendship

The Church Will Not Be Consulted

Os Guinness: The Christian Public Intellectual After Jacques Maritain

The Case for Pew Bibles

Once More, Church and Culture

Why People Don’t Leave Social Media

60 Questions for Pro-Choice Christians