After reading this post I purchased the book. I was disappointed to find that it isn't really about evangelical Christianity, but primarily about Lutherans and Episcopalians. The author seemed to deliberately be using sexual language and imagery to describe things like communion, worship and so forth which seemed contrived to me. Also, nearly all the stories, even the ones where the person wasn't struggling with their sexual orientation, had a moment where they realized the new sexual ethic should include embracing the LGBT community. That said, these are real stories of real people and we can learn from them. What I saw were a few overarching themes: 1) Young people often feel they can't go to the church for authentic discussions about sexuality. 2) Often young people are taught sex in a way that's shaming and they view their bodies and sexuality as negative. 3) The church's teaching on sexuality does not adequately answer the questions and issues people deal with today. These are big issues the church needs to consider. One part that I think the author handled beautifully was the title of the book: See Me Naked. At the end of the book she talks about doing a photo shoot naked in a chapel. She says, "for the chapel to see me naked, to see that I dared, for once, to bring my whole self to church." I think this idea really encapsulates the issues of sexuality that the church is dealing with. The church is a scary place to be vulnerable, especially about sexuality, and for people to find healing in Christ that's got to change.

"American Christianity promises a life lived happily ever after to anyone who waits for sex until marriage, marries a religious person, and raises children in the church." I heard it over and over in "youth group" when I was a teenager. And then I heard about how AMAZING sex was after one got married (we know that's not always true) and how guilt-inducing and crushing it was before one got married. I heard how I would be damaged goods, irretrievably damaged, and undateable if I ever had premarital sex. Didn't really stop people from having sex, though. It only increased the public shaming if they were found out. I'm sure there would have been a better way to educate teenagers about sex than fear-mongering.

Making an experiment out of God's will is evil in itself, let alone seeking to justify sin. It is a choice to repent of sin, or to continue in it. When Christ told the adulteress woman to "Go and sin no more", it wasn't an experiment, it was an offer which leads to salvation; but repentance is voluntary. For this cause does Christ require of any that would follow Him that we must deny our own will, but if we are unwilling, then we do not belong to Him, its that simple. There is no such thing as "We cannot live without our darling sin", but rather it is in simplicity, that if we are unwilling to repent, then our sins shall remain left untouched, and we shall be without excuse. God deals with us exactly according to the law of equity [fairness], and when we know what is right and wrong according to Him, then we are inexcusable if we defy His will, that our will be done.

For anyone not completely repulsed by anything Catholic, I heartily recommend the late Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body" as the best avenue for understanding the Christian vision of sexuality as God's authentic "yes" to the deepest desires of the human heart. The question is not "How far can I go before I break the rules?" but rather "What is the truth that sets me free to love?" Mike Allen (Catholic convert from evangelicalism)

This approach to Christian sexuality is not new (it is at least twenty years old), and it is not the solution to what ails the church in North America. It seems many Christians—just like people in the culture at large—are more interested in blaming “Dawson McAlister” (without giving him a chance to respond, by the way) or “the rules” for their problems than in taking responsibility for the choices they have made. This fact explains why so many churches put so much emphasis on standards of sexual conduct. Those standards have been under attack, and sentiments expressed in this essay do nothing but re-enforce that perception. That is not to say that all is well with how the church has talked about sexuality. The dichotomy between “flesh” and “spirit” is not an invention of the modern church; it is an essential element of the Apostle Paul’s thought-world. Nevertheless, contemporary churches have very often pursued the neo-Platonic agenda of making all that is material out to be evil. This practice must end. We owe it to ourselves and to our children to present a balanced appraisal of life in the body. Nevertheless, we are not doing anyone any good by throwing the Christian ideal of monogamous heterosexuality overboard. As McAlister has often done, we have an obligation to offer people compassion and forgiveness for what they have already done, and we have an obligation to stand in solidarity with those who have had things done to them. But we also must remind people that monogamous heterosexuality is God’s good intention for their lives. Being realistic about our own failings and about the difficulties that accompany life in the body is not incompatible with uncompromising commitment to God’s standards. One final point needs to be made. This essay should not be judged on the basis of whether or not its content is offensive. Frankly, life is offensive, and we in the church must engage life in all of its offensiveness if we are to impact our world for Christ. Rather, it should be evaluated for its correspondence to the teachings of Scripture and for the soundness of its arguments. Doing otherwise only re-enforces the perceptions of feminists, advocates for homosexuality, and other postmodern types that their opponents are bigoted, destructive, hypocritical, and/or naive.

The reviews I have read inform me that stories in Frykholm's book deals with "homosexuality, abuse, exploitation, repressive rules and shame". Each describes a process of reconciliation and the discovery of a "new sexual ethic". I am also informed that the persons whose stories are told manage to maintain a "Christian identity". As I see it, the main question being asked about sexuality and faith today is not what does the Bible say, but how can I be comfortable in the "sexual expression" that I have chosen either voluntary or otherwise. However, like it or not there are "rules" in the bible. The bible requires that we "flee fornication". It also warns that those who live a life of sexual "impurity",will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Any "new sexual ethic" must conform to this or it is not "Christian". The fact that in our sexually saturated Western culture sexual purity is becoming more difficult to maintain does not mean that Christians should give up on purity. And if abstaining from sex before marriage is what the Christian faith truly requires, and it does, then there is no point in trying to fashion an "ethic" which leads to the abandonment of that ideal. I see no purpose in belittling the fact that 'True Love Waits' participants only abstain from sex for a year and a half in a culture where sex is only a "click" away. Nor would I berate those who "relapse" after eighteen months, since we all know that being sexually "good isn't always easy". Whether we operate under law or grace Christians must live by a biblical ethic. And while it may be difficult to construct one that is easy we must certainly fashion one that is true to the Bible.

As a brief aside to those who are bothered by the phrase "Christian mythology", I would like to note that "mythology" here is being used as a literary designation, meaning "a story with a meaning that transcends the narrative", NOT, as in the popular sense, "fiction" or "untrue". C.S. Lewis often spoke of the "myth" or "mythos" of Christianity, and he clearly believed the Bible was both true and relevant. Sorry, former English teacher here. This type of misunderstanding always brings the lecturer out in me!

I just finished this book and all of you who are raising issues and concerns really ought to do the same before going any further with your critique. The author does a magnificent job of telling these stories, placing them in a historical and cultural context, and using them to raise important questions about the message that the Christian media is putting out about sexuality. As a woman who grew up in a suburban non denominational megachurch in the 80s, I resonated deeply with many of the stories in this book. I feel like anyone who is working with teens should read it. To me, I think it is vital that we understand that the purity ethic ad taught by so many public figures is not working. It replaces gospel with law and sets up an us bs them dynamic that prevents teens from developing a healthy sexuality and leads to a schizophrenia that is more likely to cause risky sexuality. In all of these comments, I didn't see a single one that engaged with the content if the book. I see a bunch of straw men being attacked. This book is fighting the good fight.

"American Christianity promises a life lived happily ever after to anyone who waits for sex until marriage, marries a religious person, and raises children in the church" I have heard that all my life. And yet, now in middle age, I can no longer keep track of friends and former classmates who did exactly that and have now split, most after 25-30 years marriage. I've been tempted to set up a betting pool at class reunions as to who will be next. I don't know the whys of this, but I can guess. We were all told exactly what the above quote says but there was little discussion beyond that and it seems to have proven to be a bit of magical thinking. We can all blame "the world" but we are the world, aren't we?

This isn't so much a matter of "rules"; we all need some in order to behave as a civil society. The challenge is that the "world" offers a set of rules that are simply candy-coated ways of rebelling against God. Worship your own body, or someone else's, and watch your God-blessed sexuality break into wretched pieces infected by STD's and burdened by pregnancy without commitment and perverted by what the unGodly consider "normal" behavior. As the church we need to receive such broken people with compassion and caring and a commitment to helping them heal into a whole person - based on rules that honor God and His creative intent, rather than rules which worship creation. One barrier to that approach is the segments of the church that simply enable the continuation of unmarried sex and homosexual activity; they say such behavior is OK because we're so much more "sophisticated" than in 1st century Palestine and it is the "new normal". Those who preach that message are, themselves, badly in need of healing - but first they must acknowledge they are as broken and sick as the people they think they are helping.