Fast-Food Theology - A Case Study

On Men (and Women) and Sex

Listen to an AI-generated version of this article above. Playback speed can be adjusted by clicking the dial on the right.

---

Some years ago (almost six, in fact 😲) I wrote an article titled ‘The Problem with Soundbite Theology’. In it, I argued that theological soundbites on social media (often brief statements made without any or outside of their context):

“… encourage us to not “overthink” things. They are designed to give us pithy insights, warm and fuzzy sentiments or perhaps a briefly jolting challenge … but not much else. […] They are not designed to persuade us of a particular argument. They are not designed to help us trace through a line of logic. They are not designed to lead us through a sustained reflection. They are tl;dr punchlines that actively encourage us not to “overthink” things.

But is that how we want to do our theology? By just grabbing hold of the punchline? By not taking in a sustained argument? By not overthinking it?”

I guess we might say that soundbite theology is fast-food theology.

In this and my next post, I want to explore two different theological soundbites our algorithmic overlords delivered to my newsfeed in the last week.

The first—discussed below—was about men (and women) and sex.
The second—to come in the next post—was about women and marriage (and Christ).

Both of them were made on X. (Yes, yes… Musk’s evil plan is finally working. I'm calling it Twitter less and less, darn it).

Both received a lot of views. A lot of likes. A lot of shares. A lot of comments.

Both tap into our tendency to be increasingly comfortable with a “let’s not-over-think-it” fast-food approach to theology… and, by extension, to the Christian life.

Weaponised Wives

Without further ado, I present you with our first case study:

If you know me at all, you’ll probably know that I had a guttural reaction to that first line of that tweet. Though, to be fair, I think most women—married or not—would have had a similar guttural reaction. Here was my response. You’ll see the gutturalness really came to the fore in the last few words 😬.

And boy oh boy, did that kick up a hornet’s nest!

I spent the next 36 hours blocking countless men (and/or bots) whose courage and conviction were on display as they trolled me under anonymous handles, usually accompanied by a stock profile pic of some LOTR-type warrior dude. Hitting the ‘block’ button was basically my full-time job that day.

Amongst the scores of commands for me to “shut up and go have sex with your husband” (though, “go have sex with” was not the phrase most of them actually used), there were others who told me to “shut up and go read 1 Corinthians 7". Clearly, these men lacked some critical information: namely, that I do not have a husband, and that I’ve probably spent more time reading 1 Corinthians 7 than most pastors who have been in the role for decades.

In any event, the gist of both approaches was that, because the apostle Paul tells husbands and wives to have sex with each other (1 Corinthians 7:1-5), Will Knowland was correct—wives are God’s “main weapon” against porn addiction in men and they need to be reminded of the dignity of that role.

In amongst all the posts from Aragon wannabes, there were a handful of posts from good-faith interlocutors (here is one great example) who wanted to lean further into what exactly Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 and how that might mean that Will Knowland did indeed Knowsomething (see what I did there?).

I’ve written about whether we ought to think of (sex in) marriage as a remedy for lust/sexual immorality before (see here and here). I also discuss it in chapter 7 of my new book Single Ever After. But, of course, there is always more to say—especially in response to an “itching ears” post like that of Will Knowland, and also in dialogue with some of the better faith engagements on the topic.

So, let’s set aside the fast-food and take some time to slowly digest instead.

A Misdiagnosis and A Mistaken Remedy

Will Knowland (a high school English teacher who has decided to turn his attention from tutoring teenage boys in Shakespeare to tutoring Christian husbands on how to ‘master the Christian masculine virtues to thrive as the head of your family’) claims that:

“Wives are God’s main weapon against porn addiction in men”.

In a subsequent post, he explained exactly how God weaponises wives for this end:

Wives, satisfy your husbands lest they incline towards porn.

In other words, if wives satiate their husbands with enough good sex, those men won’t be inclined to watch other people having sex on the screen of their devices. If wives refuse to do this, well, we all know what those men are gonna do, right? And, really, who could blame them?

Now, those who are psychological and sociological experts in porn addiction will tell you that Knowland’s thesis is inherently flawed because porn addiction (in men and women) is not something simply or even primarily fueled by a person feeling they are not getting enough satisfying sex in their relationship. There are a multitude of complex and interrelated reasons why people turn to porn… and why people can’t easily turn away from porn. It’s called an ‘addiction’ for a reason.

And so, by suggesting there is an obvious and easy way to overcome a porn addiction, Knowland is offering Christian men an overly simplified and ultimately false hope. But he also places a responsibility on those men’s wives that a) is not theirs to meet in the way he asserts and b) that they will almost certainly not be able to meet in the way he asserts. His thesis isn’t only flawed. It is also likely to prove personally and relationally destructive.

However, more to the point of this article, Knowland’s assertion is also deeply theologically flawed.

He (and many others) have misdiagnosed the theological reason why many men (and women) struggle with a porn addiction. It is not because they aren’t having their sexual needs adequately satisfied, but because sin has corrupted and twisted their sexual nature, desires and longings.

See, here is what Paul DOES NOT SAY in 1 Corinthians 7:

² But to ensure you are adequately sexually satiated, as is the need of all human beings, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ^[…]. ⁵ Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because your spouse isn’t giving you enough of the orgasms you need (and deserve). - 1 Corinthians 7:2, 5 (read the full passage here)

Here is what the apostle DOES SAY:

² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. […] ⁵ Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. - 1 Corinthians 7:2, 5 (read the full passage here)

A porn addicted man (or woman’s) “problem” is not that they aren’t getting enough good sex as per their human right, due or need.

It’s that they are a sinner.

It’s that their sexual desires and appetites have been corrupted. It’s that they love the lure of sex being used for purposes other than God’s intention. It’s that they are addicted to the illicit pleasure of looking at other people doing all kinds of wicked and destructive things with their bodies. It’s that they enjoy fantasising about doing it themselves. It’s that they lack self-control. Getting to have more frequent and more satisfying sex in marriage is not a magic cure to what really feeds porn addiction: sin.

The men Knowland speaks of don’t need to be sexually satisfied.
They need to be sexually sanctified.

On the same day I was blocking all those Aragorn wannabes on X (Twitter, darn it), I was also writing on 1 Thessalonians 4:3-8 for my forthcoming commentary on that epistle and its companion letter. Here is what Paul writes there:

³ It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; ⁴ that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, ⁵ not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God - 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5

According to Paul, sexual immorality is profoundly linked with not “knowing” God (cf. Romans 1:18-32). But the new believers in Thessalonica DO know God! They have turned away from pagan idols and now serve the true and living God (1 Thessalonians 1:9). Serving him means pleasing him by living according to his will. And here, that means living as those who are sexually holy. Not so long ago, they were pagans who exulted in their sexual immorality. But now they are to be people who avoid it entirely.

This means they must learn to control their own bodies in a way that is holy (towards God) and honourable (towards others).

Any Christian man who has a porn addiction (or is actively engaged in any other form of sexual immorality) does not need a wife who is willing to give him more regular orgasms. He needs to learn to love others by not lusting after them. He needs to learn self-control—that fruit of the Spirit and foundational mark of discipleship.

And as per my original response to Will Knowland, that can only happen by the grace of God as it “teaches us to say ‘No’ to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age” (Titus 2:12).

Having Sex As God Intended

OK. So you may be thinking “Yeah, I agree with all that. But doesn’t 1 Corinthians 7:1-5 seem to suggest that having regular sex in marriage does in some way help solve the issue of sexual immorality and/or a lack of self-control”.

Well, let’s take a look. Here’s what Paul says in full:

¹ Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” ² But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ³ The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. ⁵ Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

Note a few things:

• Verse 1 is likely to be a quotation from the Corinthians that Paul is responding to. That is, they say, “Yo Paul, married people should be abstinent, right? Cause that’s more noble and stuff!” Paul says, “Not so fast, guys”.

• The reason Paul gives for why husbands and wives should “have” (i.e., have sex with) each other is “since sexual immorality is occurring” (v. 2). Now, we need to pay attention to this. He’s not here addressing the theoretical possibility of temptation to sexual immorality. He’s not simply saying “Guys, if you don’t have sex with your wives, you’ll find it hard not to have sex with someone else”. (Think about this: he’s about to repeatedly encourage everyone who isn’t married to consider remaining unmarried. If he thought people were doomed to give in to their sexual impulses if they didn’t get to have regular marital sex, then that would be a supremely foolish thing for him to repeatedly urge them to.) In verses 1-5 Paul is addressing the fact that actual married people in Corinth are actually engaged in sexual immorality (as would have been very normal in Greco-Roman society, especially for men whose sex lives were mainly located outside their marriages). After all, he’s just spent the previous two chapters talking about exactly that.

• Paul echoes this reasoning again down in verse 5 when he refers to their “lack of self-control”. Again, this isn’t simply some theoretical concern that they won’t prove strong enough to resist sexual immorality in the long run. He’s writing to a bunch of people who aren’t resisting it, who aren’t exercising self-control. And even if not everyone in the church is failing at this themselves, chapter 5 evidences that the whole church is indicted by their response to this extra-marital immorality.

Paul is writing to a bunch of new Christians (most of whom were from a pagan background) who were thinking they could be all noble and godly by not having sex with their wives, all while having sex with people who were not their wives (or condoning others who were doing that).

Context matters. And in this context, Paul is telling the Corinthians to put sex where it belongs—in marriage.

He says a very similar thing down in verse 9 when he writes that unmarried members of the church who are not exercising self-control—note: the verb is in the present tense. He is speaking about single believers who are actively engaged in fornication—should marry, for it is better for them to marry than to burn. He’s saying, “Don’t kid yourselves that you’re being all noble by remaining single, all while you are having sex with someone you are not married to”. There too, he is telling them to put sex in its place—marriage. (For more on verse 9, see chapter 7 of Single Ever After).

In 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, Paul is not saying that the reason to have sex in marriage is because it will eventually cure you of wanting to have sex outside of marriage (see the bit about sexual sanctification and self-control above). No, Paul is telling married Corinthian Christians that sex belongs in marriage, and so married people should be having sex.

Now, having said that, let me be clear about something else.

I’m not saying that putting sex in its place—spouses giving bodily of themselves in love to and for the other—doesn’t have anything at all to do with growth in sexual holiness.

When we live and love God’s way, we become more and more enraptured with living and loving God’s way. As we become more like Christ, we become less like the world. As the Spirit teaches us to control our bodies in holiness and honour, we learn to resist Satan and flee from sexual immorality.

And so that’s why I would agree with this particular statement from one of my good-faith X interlocutors:

“When spouses offer a reciprocal gift of self in love through the body—when they have sex according to God’s design—they strengthen themselves against their sinful natures’ threats.” Chase Krug

But note, that what Chase says there is a very different thing from Will Knowland said.

You see, putting sex where it belongs—in marriage and only marriage—is not so much about resisting temptation as it is about embracing our sexual sanctification. Yes, one of the results of our ongoing sexual sanctification is that we are more and more spiritually equipped to say no to temptation. But that is a wonderfully inevitable secondary implication of our putting sex in its place… not the reason why we put sex in its place. We say no to temptation because we first and foremostly have said yes to God’s will.

Put another way, we Christians don’t have sex in marriage so that we stop having sex outside of marriage. We have sex in marriage because God designed sex to belong to marriage. Because God designed sex to serve the purposes of marriage.

That is a very different thing to asserting that God weaponizes a wife by giving her the “dignified” responsibility of regularly satiating her husband’s sexual desires such that his edges are dulled enough that he’ll be able to resist the lure of watching other people having sex on his computer screen. For that he needs God’s grace to teach him to say no to ungodliness and to exercise self-control instead.

---

Dealing in soundbite fast-food theology is very profitable for those trying to build their platform, raise their profile, or sell their training courses.

But here’s the deal:

“Most of us like a little bit of fast food every now and then. But it is no substitute for a nutritious, healthy diet of real food. Knowing Christ; knowing who we are in him; knowing who each other is in him; knowing this world which finds its end in him; knowing the next world over which he already reigns—none of these things are ours through quick, chomping gulps of the fast-food soundbite. Why would we be willing to settle for a steady diet of that, when (like the prophet in Ez 2:9-3:3) we could be digesting long, slow, unhurried, nutritious mouthfuls of Scripture instead?”

The Problem with Soundbite Theology