Another thing to remember is that all of this is old news. No generation or culture quite gets it right and there is no reason to think we will either. The same issues and almost the same arguments have been put forward again and again for hundreds of years and just answered in different ways. Knowledge of this is a calming and also humbling experience.

One thing we have not done enough is to make a distinction between chastity and discretion. Being careful about public sexualization is needed only to guard chastity. If we were unfallen or fallen in a way that did not so much involve the corruption of the sex instinct we would not need it as much. Discretion is like a sheath. It guards the sword and keeps it from cutting the owner's leg but it is foolish to mistake sheaths for swords or to think swords should be thrown away because they must be carried in a sheath.

There is harm in this modern reaction simply because not everyone has "really great sex" and a lot of people who deserve to have it simply don't. In a way some of the wildest talk among the sexual revolution crowd has a point-everybody has some point. Rules really are a prison and the reason they chafe is not evil; they are a sign of evil elsewhere but we are right to think rules chafe for rules are a sign of the fallenness of the world and the fallenness of ourselves from which we should want to escape. Where the mistake comes is in thinking we can escape such things in this world. In heaven we shall dance like the fair folk but here we must labor, march, drudge, and moan and groan like fallen humans in a fallen world.

I'm not sure exactly what Lisa Miller is saying, but I am glad the Church is at least starting to try to shed the disgraceful teaching (or lack thereof) that has caused this reputation. In truth, it doesn’t matter what Lisa Miller thinks or anyone else. The Church’s current teaching on sex and any other related matters (marriage, relationships, etc.) is so unbiblical; it’s hard to see how we’ve gone so wrong.
Obviously, we get one thing right; sex is for marriage only. Of course, we only get this right in theory since 80% of Christians don’t actually practice this for various reasons. But after this, we barely get anything right and the teachings are so scattered it’s hard to even summarize. And that of course assumes your Church even talks about the subject except to condemn the occasional adulterer. We fail to recognize the tragedy of any type of sexual sin or the Biblical ways of avoiding it. We don’t even seem to understand the reason for and the extreme importance of sex.
The Bible on the other hand is not prudish in virtually any way. The same book that tells us not to let unwholesome talk come out of our mouths, describes sex in a way that belongs in Playboy (or so we think). Now I understand, the point of discussing difficult topics is not to embarrass or alienate people. We need to respect our society and not start using sex as a cheap ploy to get young people’s attention. The problem is the Church is largely responsible for moving the bar so far to the right, that everything is off limits, and then condemning those who break the unwritten rules because someone might be uncomfortable. I think it’s high time for a massive dose of Biblical truth on a subject that has been neglected for a long time. I’m all for preaching this from the pulpit Sunday morning, but it at least should be taught to married people and those planning on marrying.
The Bible teaches us that faithful sex is not just good or important, but essential for a Biblical marriage. We get this in the negative (aka. No adultery), but beyond that we see sex as optional and often distracting from spiritual things. We torture our young people by ignoring their clear passionate desires and telling them to suppress them until they are older, wiser, and well established. We ignore the clear teaching of the Bible fulfill their burning desires and get married.
It’s hard to say, but I believe the pagan’s have a better and more consistent view of sex. They teach that sex is good and we should enjoy it to its fullest in a relationship with someone we love. The only part they get wrong is the whole marriage part, but in the end they are about as faithful in keeping their vows. It’s no wonder we have failed in this area so much and alienated so many people that are simply trying to meet their God given desires. May God have mercy on us and give us the chance to fix this.

I saw the ending of her article at the beginning: "Evangelical Christians want to talk about sex. And not in the same old punitive way. They want to talk about hot sex — as long as it’s between a man and a woman who are husband and wife."

I honestly don't think Lisa Miller was asking, "Is the church going too far in the other direction from its former prudery?" Seems her point with her final remark, "But with their clinical frankness, these leaders are giving real sex to Christians the way “The Joy of Sex” gave it to the masses back in 1972," is that Christians are beginning to move toward the realities of sexuality, but are still wearing the dunce cap with their ideas of heterosexual marital monogamy.

I had a seminary prof (for Cultural Anthropology) who had been a missionary in Cameroun, and he suggested that missionaries had better get over a degree of squeamishness when dealing with the topic, because the people they encountered would likely have no such squeamishness, and might see the prudery as just plain odd. (Curious, isn't it, how this kind of circumspection might ironically become a bad testimony, rather than a good one?)

On a related note, I have long felt that the more appropriate adjective to describe the squeamishness is "Victorian" rather than "Puritan." I believe it was the Victorians who started covering the legs of pianos and referring to the chicken's parts as 'dark meat' and 'white meat.' But perhaps I am wrong in this.
Anyone else care to share their thoughts on this? (In saying that, I feel like I am tossing ground-up mackerel into a frothy gathering of sharks!) ;-)

Considering this discussion is about a religion whose Scriptures include perhaps the first (and best) erotic ballad in recorded history, the surprise shouldn't be that Christian pastors are starting to talk about this openly again, but that this writer finds that unusual.

Also, the last paragraph pretty much shattered all of this writer's remaining credibility in my mind.

"Is it uncomfortable? Yes. Do Keller, and Warren, and others fall short by failing to include gays and lesbians in their vision of married love? Yes."

Obviously, someone has bigger issues with Biblical illiteracy than never having read the Song of Solomon.