Shameless self-promotion alert: a post I wrote for First Things’ blog “On the Square” about the recent vote within the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. on the ordination of sexually active gays and lesbians prompted me to reflect on a point that I could not include because of space constraints.
One of the responses from a joyous Presbyterian to the news that gays and lesbians could now be ordained in the PCUSA (though the constitutional process forward is anything but clear) was to the effect that homosexuals could be regarded as normal, or better as moral. Instead of regarding homosexuality as inherently perverted, the recent presbytery votes indicated, to this happy observer, that mainline Presbyterians are more willing than before to see that within the spectrum of homosexuality are standards that run the gamut from virtue to sexual license. In other words, a gay man can be part of a committed relationship and faithful to his partner, or he can live like most young men – gay or straight. The important consideration, accordingly, is not the sexual practice or orientation per se but whether a person pursues these acts modestly and responsibly.
I appreciate this distinction, especially since fans of The Wire are forced to confront a similar ethical dilemma in countless of the series’ characters. Jimmy McNulty doesn’t follow the chain of command within the police force but he is really trying to bring criminals to justice. Omar steals from drug lords but he has an honor code that only allows him to retaliate for just reasons. Avon Barksdale makes millions of dollars in dealing drugs and destroys many lives but is a man committed to his family (and only gives up family members for justifiable reasons).
In other words, the reality of the fall is that sinners are human beings and they do wicked things even while they retain the image of God in ways that endear them to friends, family, and writers.
This also means that sinners are not monsters. “Monster” was the word I heard repeatedly on CNN when the perky evening news anchor (I never once found her attractive, really!) interviewed various officials about the significance of Mr. Laden’s death. She kept referring to Mr. Laden as a “monster.”
This way of demonizing evil helps may help to make better sense of how ordinary people can commit such heinous acts. If we can simply chalk them up as deranged or as inhuman then we have a ready explanation for their wickedness and don’t have to reflect upon the extent of the fall.
But such demonization also shelters us from recognizing the sinfulness that afflicts each and everyone one of us. If only monsters commit wicked acts, and if I am not a monster, then I must not be so bad after all. Whew!
In reality, sin does not turn human beings into monsters. Some of the most evil figures in human history such as Adolf Hitler were real people with feelings, loyalties, reason, and virtues (see Downfall). In which case, the standard for sin is not the degree to which a person is a human being or a monster, but whether his or her acts conforms to the law of God.
Plenty of gays and lesbians are great people or characters (think Omar), and many are likely involved in very caring, faithful, and committed relationships. But none of this excuses the nature of homosexuality, nor avoids what the Bible (in the case of the PCUSA) reveals about sexual relations.
133 Comments
Craig,
No, I have never been excommunicated from a church I attended. I have seen church discipline abused and handled in what I thought were questionable ways though. And the self-righteous seem to get away with their sins more than the ones who have obvious behavioral problems. That is the main problem I have with it. Also, doctrinal errors do not seem to be disciplined as much as behavioral sins either. So, why not just throw out the whole discipline thing and just realize that wheat and tares do not get separated until the end. Discipline can occur with the proper teaching of the Law and Gospel and proper administration of the sacraments.
So, I guess my pastoral specifics get thrown out. Why did you bring up the question in the first place then?
No problem with the big fat warning.
But the emphasis on sex being the bond of unity is somewhat misplaced. The marriage bond takes place when the vows are said, not when the marriage is consummated. This is an important distinction! (pre-marital counselors try to get that across, right?)
Of course, I don’t want to minimize what happens in sex. Paul does after all say Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” So perhaps my post of 11:09 goes too far in rejecting any creation of unity.
But I think Paul is quoting Gen 2.24 as an analogy, not as an equation. He doesn’t say “sleep with a prostitute and you’ve married her.” Else Johns would have to divorce their dames.
So bringing it back around: Two men become “lovers.” Clearly, *they* have defined their relationship in terms of sexuality. But are they right to do so? It seems to me that to accept the term “lover” as the description of their relationship is to accept the premise that sex defines relationships. So far, I haven’t seen any biblical reason to do so.
Important? Yes. Creates or symbolizes some kind of unity? Yes. Defines the relationship such that all other factors recede into the background? That goes a bit too far.
Again: Out of our hundreds of relationships, sex is a part of only one (or none, for the single celibate readers).
But, P, it seems to me you set up a false dichotomy. I.e., if we don’t say everything about a relationship is evil, we can’t clearly condemn one piece of it as evil. We can clearly tell a co-habiting couple that their sexual practice is sinful without having to say it is evil for him to nurse her when she is ill or for her to patiently submit to him.
Let’s consider this cohabiting couple for a minute. They repent; they separate then get married and live together once again. Are you going to tell them that nothing they did before should be continued? Are you going to say, well, the same acts were evil then but now they are good?
If all acts in the first relationship are evil, are all in acts in the second relationship good? I say there is a mix in both.
Craig,
Pastoral specifics also forces one to clearly see the implications of his beliefs about the Law and the Gospel and how to deal with sin. That was the point I was trying to make.
Craig,
I have been disciplined by my own brother at our family business and have laid out the scenario with my pastor who has not seen the need to excommunicate me from the church. So, I am in good standing with the church but still not OK with my brother for a variety of factors that work in his favor. He is a flaming arminian too and proud of it. In my estimation, the sins he has commited at the business far outweigh my problems and sins. And he is in a postition of authority and power over me. So, issues of discipline do tend to set me off a bit. I have learned to accept it though and deal with it as best I can even though I think his action was a crock of you know what. Life goes on!!!
“While what we know from the 2nd word is that those who do this HATE God. There is no “loving relationship” to God that just needs a few tweaks. The relationship to God is VOID.” -p duggan
So, are you suggesting that most Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, and many Anglican Christians really hate God because of their use of icons in worship? While we in the Reformed tradition generally view Scripture as condemning the use of iconography, I sense that you’ve taken a step or two beyond the main.
Also, if sex is the sine qua non of marriage, should impotent people not marry? Should the church be discipling couples if they don’t have sex enough?
Also, you seem to be undergoing a lot of theological gymnastics to deny that there’s any redeeming aspect to a same-sex marriage. What’s to be gained by such a per se denial? Does sodomy overwhelm God’s image in its entirety? If so, why isn’t God’s image similarly overwhelmed in a heterosexual relationship where a man rapes and beats his wife?
Aren’t we beginning to sacramentalise sex? To be sure, sex creates a very special form of intimacy. That is why it is an important, or significant, aspect of marriage and why it is to be confined to marriage. But surely its intimacy is an expression of the intimacy of marriage and not the other way around. The coming together in one flesh is marriage itself, or do we want to read that verse as describing Adam and Eve having sex? Similarly with Song of Solomon: it is a poetic, ecstatic exploration of the profound intimacy of marriage, and that certainly (and I agree usually does) include sex. But it’s not- as the crop of sex-obsessed he-men wannabes keep telling us- a sex manual. Is a marriage where a couple have sex every day more of a marriage than one where a couple have sex once a week, or less? Do marriages decay as they progress, just as our bodies do? That would be strange since couples who have been married for years and years exhibit an intimacy and unity that far transcends mere sexual coming together.
I’m not saying that sex isn’t important, but it’s not the be all and end all. Marriages survive beyond sex. Unless you argue that they do so because of the shared memory of all the sex they used to have. But am sure no one would since that would be stupid:) As to vows: it depends on what vows a couple take. And there’s nothing necessarily sexual in any vows I’ve heard.
Jeff: apologies, missed your post and kinda stepped on your point. My bad.
Michael, and to add to your point, can sex trump hatred of God in diagnosing a relationship? Every single unbeliever is at enmity with their maker, we confess. So if sin is total, that would poison all relationships more profoundly than sex because the motivation of the heart (sorry to go Edwards here) pervades everything we do. For that reason I don’t believe that illegitimate sex is the best way to evaluate a relationship, and if it is used as the best way, then I would be tempted to think the evaluator has sex on the brain.
Alexander, for what it’s worth, my sense is that playing the illegitimate sex card is a way to demonize the other side. It’s also an easy way to analyze the culture wars. But if we wanted to be completely virtuous on sex, we really should consider the morality of contraception and in vitro fertilization as well.
Alexander, thanks for pushing in the same direction.
DGH: But if we wanted to be completely virtuous on sex, we really should consider the morality of contraception and in vitro fertilization as well.
Who says we don’t?
So then, what needs to be said to capture the moral concerns related to contraception and in vitro fertilization?
Joseph, if I were an individual thinking through these two issues, I would reason like this.
Ground
It needs to be repeated that the foundation for our moral decision-making is the fact that we are already viewed as righteous in God’s eyes. That is: We want to make the right decision here not because of fear of judgment, but because we love our Redeemer and therefore desire to do what pleases Him.
We have to repeat this often because our hearts easily betray us into a judgment-flesh-law model for decision making.
Method
First, I would consider what norms are relevant here. Clearly, the Scriptural norms about marriage (one flesh, do not withhold yourselves from each other) are relevant. Is command to be fruitful and multiply individually relevant? I would need to think through that.
But also, both birth-control and IVF can shade over into the command not to murder. So this also is a relevant norm.
Second, I would consider what the facts on the ground are. The Pill, for example, has been shown in studies of horses (not humans) to have a secondary pathway of preventing implantation of a fertilized egg. Hence, the horse zygote dies. I would need to think through (a) whether killing a zygote is in fact killing a human being; and (b) whether the 1% rate in horses represents an acceptable risk level.
Likewise, some IVF methods encourage potential moms to fertilize up to 10 eggs and then implant only the two or three most promising-looking ones. Other methods involve implanting all fertilized and viable embryos. I would need to think through whether either method has 6th-commandment implications.
In other words, I would be trying to establish how and to what extent the norms apply.
Third, the process of wrestling through norms and situation can expose the motives and idols of the heart. I don’t mean relentless introspection, but rather a healthy awareness: *Why* am I drawn to contraception or to IVF? What does this say about my heart?
Or perhaps even the hearts of others. For example, the 10-embryo method leads to greater fertilization rates than the 3-embryo method. This is helpful for the woman who wants to get pregnant, but it is also a good business model. A high fertilization rate is a feather in the cap for fertility clinics. I would want to filter my doctor’s advice through an understanding of “what’s in it for him?”
That’s how I as an individual would process the questions.
—
As an elder, I would encourage this process without trying to steer too much. I would try to articulate the norms very clearly, and I would encourage wise and careful decision-making, but I would not try to bring the couple to my own conclusion unless their decision had a high probability of violating a norm. (For example, the 10-embryo method has a very high probability of making, then killing, several people. But the Pill represents a risk rate that the couple really has to juggle for themselves).
—
As a member of session, I would not entertain a charge against an individual on either of these individuals unless they really did clearly violate a norm (for example, using Mefipristone as a birth-control method).
Thanks Jeff. That’s helpful direction in a complicated area. Have you read VanDrunen’s book on this topic?
Jeff, does your pastor actually preach against contraceptives or in vitro fertilization?
Jeff and Joseph,
At the less than sixth commandment level, I’m thinking of the mechanization of sex in the case of IVF. I’m not a fan of industrial tomatoes. Why should human beings be produced that way either?
And contraceptives have contributed to the (dangerously personal here) idea that sex is for pleasure. It’s hard to see that in the confession’s teaching on marriage and that at a time when sex was at best pleasant for the male partner.
Jospeh: No, I haven’t.
DGH: No, he doesn’t.
DGH: And contraceptives have contributed to the (dangerously personal here) idea that sex is for pleasure. It’s hard to see that in the confession’s teaching on marriage and that at a time when sex was at best pleasant for the male partner.
Couple of thoughts:
(1) We don’t believe that the Confession holds the sum and total of everything that the Bible teaches about anything. It’s not too hard to see in Scripture the idea that sex is for, among other things, pleasure. Song of Solomon, e.g., or Prov. 5.15 – 20. And those at a time when sex was highly regulated. To my mind, that overrules any silence in the Confession.
(2) I would basically agree that contraception has distorted our view of sex. I might put it like this: contraception has contributed to a separation between pleasure and oneness in sex.
How did we get on this topic, anyways?
Darryl,
I’m not a fan of industrial tomatoes, but it’s probably not a sufficient basis to bind another’s conscience?
Isn’t the main problem with contraceptives that they make sex less pleasurable? (Just a thought.) Even if not down right pleasurable-by-design, it must at least call for satiation in some like nicotine withdrawal or even more like hunger (an innate human condition).
Jeff,
By contraception has contributed to a separation between pleasure and oneness in sex, are you suggesting that contraception often strips sex of pleasure? Or are you saying that sex with contraception is still pleasurable but does not bring oneness?
Yes, I’m suggesting that contraception makes sex outside of marriage a more plausible option for many. The pleasure and the oneness are decoupled: We can have one without the other.
As if on cue, the Baylys posted this gem today:
“In the same way, men in the Christian world who promote the use of women’s gifts and so on should automatically be suspected of liking women in more ways than those apparent on the surface of their high-flown rhetoric about women’s callings and women’s freedom.
A man who wants to open doors for women is all too often thinking of the bedroom. He has abandoned honor, care and protection for opportunism–all in the name of respect for women. Give me an old-fashioned chauvinist any day when it comes to real respect for the women we love.”
http://www.baylyblog.com/2011/05/sexual-immorality-is-of-a-fabric-too-1.html#tp
So Christian men who promote the use of women’s gifts should AUTOMATICALLY BE ASSUMED to have surreptitious motives. Not only is this about as uncharitable as one can be, it again reveals an unnerving obsession with sex on the part of the Baylys and their Wilsonian ilk.
How does this relate to the current thread? Well, it goes back to the idea of demonizing certain actions, or as Tim Keller would put it, “caricaturing” flawed people into outlandish monsters. While “promoting the use of women’s gifts” hardly seems wrong to begin with, even outright egalitarians may have sincere motives other than bedding the newest pastorette. Surely we can call egalitarianism wrong and sinful without automatically assuming its proponents have sinister motives, can’t we? And can’t we maybe find motives other than sex? Please?
How quaintly Freudian.
Zeke, one thing to keep in mind is what drives. By their own admission (see below link), for the Baylys it’s the doctrine of man. Evidently, back in the olden days, it used to be the doctrine of justification. But now things have changed and it’s about creational norms. The irony is how new schoolers sound more like each other than either would be willing to admit: how to be right with God is old, how to live with others is where it’s at. And the demonizing is an equal opportunity affliction. To say that homosexuality is contrary to nature is latent homophobia and to suggest women have gifts is latent piggery. I wonder if the Baylys have ever heard of the difference between a male chauvinist and a male chauvinist pig? But distinctions have never been the long suit.
http://clearnotefellowship.org/WhoWeAre/DefiningPositions/GapIssues
Jeff, then we need to revise the confession to include the idea that sex is also for pleasure. I dare you to propose that overture to your presbytery.
Joseph, who’s talking about conscience. I’m only talking about wisdom and I do think it is wise to draw down expectations for pleasure in sex.
Zeke, it would also suggest that the BB’s reduce a lot of human existence to sexual relations.
Darryl,
See what I’ve done by assuming. Sorry.
Dgh- I can’t really see that the Confession excludes the idea that sex can be for pleasure. I agree that of the (positive) reasons it identifies for the creation of marriage, creating a legitimate forum for a couple to enjoy sex isn’t one of them. It clearly doesn’t identify (pleasurable) sex as a reason in and of itself for the creation of marriage. But that doesn’t mean that the act of sex itself can’t be pleasurable, or shouldn’t be pleasurable, even if it were only for procreation.
And then there is the clause “and for preventing of uncleanness”, which suggests the acknowledgment, I believe it can be argued, that people find sex pleasurable and have a desire to do it and therefore they should do it within the confines of marriage. The proof text of 1 Cor. 7:2 backs this reading up I think. So one could look at this as a nagative reason for the creation of marriage. (I mean positive and negative in the sense one talks about positive and negative liberty, i.e. there were certain things marriage was created for, and certain things it legitimates (sex) or mediates against (fornication).) To be sure, saying “if one has to have sex, at least keep it in marriage” isn’t the same as arguing that sex in and of itself is a good thing, but I think, as has been mentioned, other texts in the Bible- like Song of Solomon- tell us that sexual intimacy (as one aspect of marriage) can be a positive.
Whether or not this means that contraception is acceptable or whether we should take the Romanist position that all sexual acts should be able to potentially produce children is a different question. My own view is that the Confession is silent on this point and this, combined wth my own thinking above, would lead me to conclude that preventative methods of contraception (i.e. those which aren’t arbotofacients) are ok. But perhaps I’m taking my thinking too far.
Alexander, I was not saying that sex is unpleasurable. How could a living breathing man ever say so (what women say is a different matter). The point is that if you make pleasure the point, you lose sight of its other reasons, especially the reproductive ones. And it sure seems to me that our culture has lost sight of reproduction thanks to the idea that each partner needs to be “fulfilled” in the act.
DGH: Tell you what. We can have an overture-off. We can each propose separate revisions to the Confession:
JRC: The Bible teaches that God’s purpose for sex in marriage includes pleasure.
versus
DGH: Contraception contributes to an unhealthy interest in pleasure in marriage.
The winner is determined by the motion that gets the greatest number of votes divided by the volume of nervous laughter in decibels.
Loser buys Rita’s Italian Ices for the winner (the standard wager in my family).
Jeff, that’s cute, but not nearly as sarcastic as Monty Python:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s
I am glad Zrim finally brought this bizarre discussion to rest- it belongs in the Monty Python absurd category.