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.
Old Life 
Isn’t there a question as to the nature of the sinful act itself that calls into question the ‘kindness’ involved in the relationship? i think its too glib to say the ‘relationship’ is caring and faithful when the acts that are at the center of the relationship are sins.
Could you say of a family “they are a loving and kind family, and have the most caring of intentions when they burn their infant child to Moloch”? (i use this example because Leviticus puts these 2 sins on a plane together)
Maybe there is something objectively unloving and unkind about homoerotic physical relations that make the relationship that involves them dishonoring and monstrous.
Does a sadist actually live in a kind a loving relationship because he provides his masochist partner with what the partner desires sexually?
Can we call the actions of the drug dealer ‘kind’ when he gives heroin (say, even free!) to the addict to help him not go through the pain of withdraw?
Are a brother and sister being kind to one another in their relationship if it involves incest?
LikeLike
People don’t want to see how someone who is a fellow human being (especially not him/herself) can do truly heinous acts, so we have a two-tiered set of people in our society.
You described the “monsters” category perfectly, so I’ve no need to add to it. The real elegance of this category is that it allows “non-judgmental” people to focus half of their pent up judgement at the “monsters” (the other half of course gets assigned to all of those mean, judgmental people).
The “ordinary people” category is a perfect example of self-righteousness blended with the idea that life is graded on a curve. The mentality is that “we’re all in this together” and the goal is to be an “decent” person in terms of morality, but no need to actually be virtuous. By lumping such heinous sins as genocide, serial killings, sexual exploitation, grandiose fraud, public corruption, and other such behaviors as those of “monsters” rather than people like you and me, we allow ourselves to pad our own egos that “at least I’m not like him.” Unfortunately, it’s a wretched delusion that blinds most to God’s demands on us. In a nutshell, “most people are good and decent,” becomes the rallying cry. The controversy surrounding ‘Downfall’ for having the gall to portray Hitler and the Goebbels as human beings rather than monsters illustrates this point aptly.
To this view, monsters deserve nothing but eternal punishment with no chance of mercy, but for God would be unjust and cruel not to be merciful to all of the “good people.” If the thief on the cross had instead been a terrorist, child molester or slave trader, would most people find comfort in Jesus’s forgiveness of this man on the occasion of their joint execution or would they be appalled?
Hannah Arendt’s biographical work on the Adolf Eichmann trial is another chilling example of the banality of evil on display.
LikeLike
Instead of good/evil the fallen man says connoisseur/ monster? It is weird that the word “connoisseur” comes from the Latin word “cognoscitor” which means “knower” in light of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Throw that in with the belief that those who act wickedly only do it out of ignorance. Then we have a convoluted mess.
The whole monster label is convenient for those who wish for license in their dealings with their fellow fallen man.
LikeLike
“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?” – Solzhenitsyn
LikeLike
i think its too glib to say the ‘relationship’ is caring and faithful when the acts that are at the center of the relationship are sins.
Why can’t caring and sinning co-exist without having to say that the latter swallows up the former? If human beings really are complicated creatures then I don’t see how it can be otherwise. This reasoning seems to be another way to demonize the other, which seems really to be a function of making the uncomfortable complications of humanity easier to explain and handle.
But it also seems to me this sort of reasoning must work the other way: if the acts at the center of a relationship are objectively wholesome then it must be a caring one. The funny thing about some reasoning, though, is that reality has a funny way of stumping it. Unless you really want to maintain that every objectively wholesome relationship is ipso facto caring. But siblings who don’t incest can very often be dysfunctional and hateful, and fornicating couples can outpace married ones similarly. I know it’s popular to spin sinful relationships (and individuals) as categorically inhuman, especially the ones that might drive us particularly batty, but it seems to demand that we over-simplify what it means to be human post-fall. The upshot is to sound pretty douchey.
LikeLike
Completely agree Zrim. We have to be careful we do not go down the road of a sliding scale of sin. Or rather, that we do not endorse such a scale, as in practice it already exists Too many Christians are happy to confess to sins like pride, being too busy &c. Indeed, I think it makes them feel worthy to publicly (and often) confess such sins because it allows them to confess sin, thus illustrating their repentance, but it prevents any real embarrassment or judgement because most people are guilty of the same sins. All in all it makes them look and feel good without costing them anything. Which, by the by, is another issue one could raise against the accountability/small group phenomenon: it seems predicated on the assumption that everyone in the group is in pretty much the same situation and guilty of pretty much the same sins. I wonder what would happen if one person in such a group confessed to gross indecency or promiscuity, particularly of a homosexual nature, or domestic abuse. It might make the chat over tea and coffee slightly more awkward.
Back to point: we have to maintain that sin is sin and theft is just as deserving of God’s wrath and judgement as sexual sin, including homsexuality. I don’t want a straight, single minister running aroud with countless women any more than I want a homosexual, single minister running around with countless men. Nor do I want a straight minister in a long-term, loving relationship cohabiting with his partner anymore than I want a homsexual minister in a long-term, loving relationship cohabiting with his partner.
LikeLike
Confessionalists believe that redeemed man (those who believe in what Christ accomplished for them) is simultaneously justfied yet still sinful. Even as man applies the means of grace to his life each Sunday in Church man still struggles with his sin and will not get complete victory over it until he dies and his body of death gets re-made and glorified. This also causes a lot of controversy in the more popular forms of Christianity today. Man is simul iestus et peccator after coming to a belief in what Christ has done for him, that is, simultaneously justified yet sinful. This is a very difficult issue to deal with and confessionalists deal with it by returning to the means of grace each Sunday not through willful efforts that improve their morality (civic and civil religion) without the means of grace. That is another reason we have a high view of the church. It is the only place where we can get assurance for forgiveness for our on-going battles against our sin. The American religion functions in victory mode for the most part and a false sense of triumphalism over the evils in themselves and in a secular culture. They seem to turn a blind eye to the evils they still possess within themselves because of the sin that will not go away. They deal with this in a myriad of confusing ways. They also seem not to have a good understanding of the differences between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of man and how the Christian is to function in the kingdom of man. It is a realm we share in common with those who do not believe in Christ and we are not called to overtake it in Christ’s name like the Islam religion is called to in their beliefs. The only real difference between the believer and unbeliever in the culture is that the believer seeks to deal with his sin through the ministry of Word and Sacrament found in the Church established by Christ. The unbeliever turns to anything but Christ and the means of grace found in the Church.
LikeLike
Quick question:
Can a son be in a very caring, faithful, and committed sexual relationship with his mother?
Complicated…but very caring, faithful, and committed?
LikeLike
Craig,
Is that supposed to WOW us with its profundity or what? So what is your solution?- the death penalty or preaching the Law and the Gospel in the hopes they will repent, turn to Christ and live?
LikeLike
John,
it’s a legitimate question. A simple “yes” or “no” would suffice.
LikeLike
Craig,
What’s the underlying poser motive for the question?
LikeLike
Dear John,
I am motivated to learn the answer.
Sincerely,
Craig
LikeLike
Dearest Craig,
What is your answer to your question?
And what do you think about a minister who publicly defames an officer in the church? Do you think that this minister cares, is committed, and faithful to the officer he defames?
Complicated?
LikeLike
Oedipus seems to have been in a very caring, faithful, and committed relationship with his mother Jocasta.
(http://www.amazon.com/Theban-Plays-Oedipus-Colonus-Antigone/dp/048645049X/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1305734962&sr=8-5)
Sophocles’ brilliant point in that play is that right and wrong, justice and truth, are objective categories which the gods determine, whether our subjective thoughts and feelings on the matter agree with them or not. To me this is a remarkable affirmation of Romans 2.14-15 and a startling insight into human nature. In fact, Sophocles makes the case for divine justice more starkly and thoroughly than many Christians would be willing to do. Oedipus doesn’t even know that what he does is wrong but rather does in each case what all of us would likely declare is moral. Yet he is objectively guilty in the eyes of Apollo and his punishment is just in the eyes of all. This is a point lost in much of contemporary Christian discussion of sin. Affirming that non-believers are often more truly moral and virtuous than Christians reinforces the point that we are saved by grace alone.
LikeLike
Darryl:
Question 1: My answer is “No”.
Question 2: I don’t approve of any minister “defaming” another. That is, sullying the other minister’s *good* character.
Question 3: No.
Question 4: No.
If you are willing, please answer my question. So far I’ve received a total of eight questions in response to my one.
LikeLike
Craig, then why do you allow the Baylys to defame other ministers in the PCA? Or why don’t you call them on it?
Following David Noe’s lead, I do think it is possible for an incestuous relationship between mother and son to have some admirable features. The fact that Paul does not call for the execution of such incestuous Christians in Corinth would suggest that though sinners and in need of repentance they had not stopped being human.
LikeLike
A brief response here:
It is pretty easy to draw a straight line to horror at child sacrifice, since it is indeed horrifying. But I think we’d be remiss if we didn’t ask why parents would sacrifice their children to Molech in the first place. I think the Molech cult shows us the dark underbelly of paganism. Humans were caught in a constant game of trying to placate the gods so that they could secure survival amid the uncertainties of the world. I could easily imagine a scenario where parents worried sick that their crops would fail, and they would be then faced with the horrifying prospect of loosing most or even all of their children. They probably simply believed the religious rhetoric of the day, and were placed on the horns of a terrible dilemma – risk displeasing Molech and see the failure of their crops and face death or enslavement, or placate the god by offering one of their children.
It’s easy to say that the parents hated the child they sacrificed, but I don’t think this was the case. They were deeply deceived, and believed that they would be risking worse than the death of one of their children if one wasn’t sacrificed. I think we need to temper moral outrage with pity, and try to understand what desperation and deception would drive people to such drastic and final ends. This doesn’t make the act of child sacrifice any less evil, but it does underscore the tragic deception of sin and idolatry. If we had been raised in such a culture without the benefits of God’s electing love, I am not sure any of us would have chosen so differently.
This reply should be instructive for some of the other scenarios and questions raised here, like Craig’s. The fact is that human affection can be genuine even if depraved. Without a sense of how sin twists people, making all of us act in shameful ways, we will never pity or empathize with those ensnared in sin. Ask the son who has a ‘loving, committed, sexual relationship’ with his mother, and he may feel a deep sense of shame, but he could at the same time in his own twisted way love his mother. It would be tragic to hear any young man who has such a story, to see how depraved and distorted his affections are, and how they were probably borne out of deception from a mother who didn’t have her son’s best interests at heart. His love for his mother wouldn’t be less shameful or vulgar or sinful. But we would have a better sense of the tragedy of human depravity, as even good affections such as love can be twisted to evil expressions.
It is always easy to summon up moral outrage, and indignation toward human evil. It is much harder to be moved to pity.
LikeLike
“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!”
“Demon” “Douche” “Viper” “Fox” “Devil”
I understand the latter three as be righteous/just in their usage by virtue of Christ’s usage. Is the demonizing being evil stem from the ends of the statement (i.e. a write off on the giver of the name part and/ or the receiver’s part)? I guess the issue in this post is a person’s goal. To either absolve from responsibility, or to call attention to the problem of God’s wrath against sinners.
LikeLike
…er…God’s wrath against sinner’s and the inhumanity of sin. Sorry.
LikeLike
Jed,
I tend toward your explanation here:
“The fact is that human affection can be genuine even if depraved. Without a sense of how sin twists people, making all of us act in shameful ways, we will never pity or empathize with those ensnared in sin. Ask the son who has a ‘loving, committed, sexual relationship’ with his mother, and he may feel a deep sense of shame, but he could at the same time in his own twisted way love his mother. It would be tragic to hear any young man who has such a story, to see how depraved and distorted his affections are, and how they were probably borne out of deception from a mother who didn’t have her son’s best interests at heart. His love for his mother wouldn’t be less shameful or vulgar or sinful.”
LikeLike
For about a year we sheltered a boy whose first three years were rough. He saw his father assault his mother. He saw sex acts, both live and on video. He saw drug abuse. By age three he was well versed in profanity. He was already assaulting adults. He was hurting animals. He already had an uncanny ability to read people so he could manipulate and hurt them according to their vulnerabilities. He mock-raped a girl before he was ten.
But that’s not the whole story. This was a bright, athletically gifted blonde boy with blue eyes. He was, in his way, intensely loyal to his sister, and even to his father who was undeserving of loyalty. When he wasn’t assaulting parent-figures, he had a fondness for them. He almost glowed when he put on his green and gold T-Ball uniform to get ready for a game, finally getting to do something other kids could do. He submitted to the children’s catechism, spoke of God, and said he wanted to be a preacher some day. He actually said “I need a new heart from God.”
One sunny day he and I went out in the yard and saw monarch butterflies flitting about by the hundreds. Many of them alit on a row of bushes, and the two of us tiptoed toward them. As I pointed to a particular butterfly up close, his eyes grew wide an amazement. The next moment a darker look came into his eyes, he raised both hands up and smashed the butterfly. It fell to the ground tattered. Reflecting on that moment, he seemed anguished, as if the violence were something he had to do but wished he didn’t have to.
That boy is now a teenager and he will someday become a man. He will likely do something awful and go to prison for it. People will see the headlines and a mugshot of a hardened, dead-eyed man and call him a monster.
But is he a monster, Craig? If he is, I guess we can all feel superior and be a little smug in our self-assessment. The point here is not to downplay sin, but to deeply feel “there but for the grace of God go I.” If we can for a moment see the continuity between “the monster” and our sinful acts and inclinations, we can with greater depth say “God have mercy on me, a sinner.”
LikeLike
Michael,
Where did you get the idea that I think sodomites are “monsters”?
I have not taken issue with anyone on that item…I am susceptible to sodomy and incest. As far as sin natures go, we all have the same disease.
When you look at where I agreed with Jed, it is even more baffling that you suggest I think sinners are “monsters”.
LikeLike
Craig, I find your recent blog posting so odd I don’t presume to know what you think. The juxtaposition of your apparently taking the moral high road while uncharitably slamming an officer in a sister denomination is, I don’t know, “ironic”? Certainly if I went to a thesaurus trying to describe it I wouldn’t be looking at the positive adjectives.
LikeLike
Craig, why not come clean here? Your own blog post calls this one “sad,” yet you also want to align yourself with Jed’s words which seem sympathetic to the sad one. So are you happy or sad? Maybe both, but then that seems to be close to the point of this post, namely that human beings are complicated. But maybe you’re just confused?
LikeLike
You do realize I asked a singular question…a “yes” or a “no” question. I answered it “no”.
No an incestuous relationship can not be a “loving, caring, and faithful” relationship.Likewise, neither can a sodomite relationship be so.
That’s my only point. I don’t see how that is an uncharitable “slam”. It’s almost like you’re reading me uncharitably…
LikeLike
^ the above comment was directed toward Michael.
Zrim,
I didn’t disagree with all of Darryl’s post. He took a correct principle and applied it wrong. While sodomites are not “monsters” while heteros are “human”, it is not true that a sodomite relationship can be “loving, caring, and faithful”.
LikeLike
Craig, in order to prove my point I would have to quote you and bring further attention to you. That I am not willing to do.
LikeLike
Craig: I think you may have misread the paragraph of the article that begins with “One of the responses…” DGH was not agreeing in full with “this happy observer” (though it might have been more clear if he had said “that happy observer”). Rather, he was trying to fairly articulate the point of “this happy observer” and then pivot to a point of his own: that gays, like the rest of us, have relationships with others that are characterized by sin *and* by kind acts at the same time.
He’s not saying that homosexual behavior isn’t a sin.
Nor is he saying that the “loving” part of their relationship validates or covers over their homosexual behavior (though “this happy observer” seemed to be saying that, which might have contributed to your confusion).
Instead, DGH’s point is (seems to be) that two different, separate things are going on at once. On the one hand, you have homosexual behavior. Clearly a sin. On the other, you have relationship that *really do* have acts of kindness within them. Gay couples are capable of domestic kindnesses just like the rest of us: taking out the trash without being asked, giving care if one person is sick, and so on.
Put another way, there are a lot of different components to a relationship: Material provision, courtesy, friendship, and so on. Sexuality is one of those components. If that one component is askew, that fact doesn’t automatically make the rest askew also.
So: are gays capable of loving and caring relationships? Not in the sexual component. But in the all the others … why not?
You and I and the rest of the straight world are capable of having relationships that are askew in one component but not in others. Why not gays?
LikeLike
I’m confused. Craig linked to this (Darryl’s) blog post, but no ping showed up. How did that not happen? [Sorry, I’m a bit new to the whole blog-O-sphere deal.]
LikeLike
Craig,
I am confused here, you say that you agree with me when you quote my initial statement:
“The fact is that human affection can be genuine even if depraved….he could at the same time in his own twisted way love his mother.
If you are holding up a biblical standard, I think we can agree that these affections are depraved. But what you seem to vascilate on is, from the human level, the sincerity of affection here. Monogamous gays really believe that they love each other, and have each other’s best interests at heart. You won’t get anywhere with someone with depraved inclinations by attacking the sincerity of their affections, by telling a lesbian that she doesn’t ‘truly’ love her partner.
You would be well served to acknowledge the sincerity of the affections they feel. This will at least gain you a hearing if you were so inclined, for why you believe these affections, however sincere, are wrong, and against God’s law, and evidence of their alienation from him. The effect of sin in any human heart leads to all sorts of justifications and self-validations.
I can’t help the impression that you want it both ways here, you want the moral outrage, and the opportunity to score points against a 2ker who you can barely hide your contempt for, but you also want to show compassion and understanding. Which way is it for you here, because I don’t think you can have your cake and eat it too. It is always easy for any of us to throw around harsh labels such as ‘sodomites’ as if to twist the sword in further, to let the sinner know that he is in a lower class, or a worst kind of sinner, it is hard to show compassion with gays in a way that upholds both the truth of God’s word and the dignity that is still theirs as image-bearers. If we are to testify to the grace of God, it might be best to take our cue from Christ’s own earthly ministry, as he had a compassionate way of taking sin seriously without rubbing the sinners face in it.
The moral outrage bit seems to me to be the easy way, that doesn’t bother to account for the complicated nexus of human dignity and depravity that is manifested in us all.
LikeLike
Jed, good to see you back in the queue. I was wondering where you were.
LikeLike
Joseph, The Gospel Coalition’s long skinned thin arm must be responsible.
LikeLike
Jeff, well said. Thanks.
LikeLike
Craig, here is how the sequence went. Jed said, “The fact is that human affection can be genuine even if depraved.” You seemed to indicate you “tend toward” this explanation. Then you said “…it is not true that a sodomite relationship can be ‘loving, caring, and faithful’.” You initially asked for a straight answer, and I think you’ve gotten one. You claim you’ve given one to your own question, but the more you speak the more confusing your answer is.
So, can a depraved sexual relationship include genuine human affection or not? The answer from this side is yes.
LikeLike
Zrim,
I never said depraved sexual relationships excluded human affection. I did say a sodomite relationship could not be “loving, caring, and faithful”. Those are not merely human qualities. In so far that such qualities are displayed between two men engaged in a sodomite relationship, those qualities are *accidental* to the relationship.
The relationship itself betrays those qualities. So the sodomite may *feel* like his relationship is loving, etc…it is not, however. He really feels it is true, but he is wrong.
LikeLike
So, Craig, is the key word here “genuine,” as in there is human affection but it is false? That’s what my Fundamentalist family would say of one of their own who is homosexual and his partner. But it seems to require quite a bit of denial in the face of genuine care and affection they can have for one another, which looks an awful lot like the sort of care and affection heteros can have for each other. So I guess what you and the fundies are saying that when one member of a homosexual pair shows the sort of advocacy, friendship, commitment and sacrifice for the other that I show for my wife it’s not what it appears. It’s really the opposite of all those virtues. And so when the homosexuals invite the fundies to their place for Thanksgiving, despite all the sustained efforts that suggest their sexual depravity swallows up their humanity, that really isn’t noble but a twisted way to brainwash everyone into thinking their depravity is normal?
LikeLike
Would one of you fellows care to answer “yes” or “no” to the following:
Are the following qualities *merely* human:
Love……………….Yes or No
Care……………….Yes or No
Faithfulness…….Yes or No
These aren’t trick questions…so there’s no need to speculate about my intentions or whether I would pass the the green beans to a sodomite at Thanksgiving.
My only intention is to take you all on a linear path… I fail to see how lumping me into the Fundamentalist camp in any way relates to the comments I’ve raised nor do I see how Thanksgiving dinner speculations offer anything other than amusement to the commentor proposing it. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost suspect some of you are reading me in a most ungracious light…dare I say, monstrous?
LikeLike
Craig, my fundies passed the greens as well (it wasn’t speculative but real). But even though they don’t behave as poorly as their ideas would seem to suggest, they maintain that depravity swallows up humanity and that the human affection shown isn’t real. I understand and agree that the sexuality is illegitmate, immoral and totally out of accord with creational norms. But I don’t fathom how that means the other aspects of the relationship are illegitimate. My guess is that this owes to some particular and collective irritation with homosexuality and is a way to really drive the point about creational norms home. But fornication is my own personal irritation (I know, it’s supposed to be the gay thing but what can I say?). Still, I don’t see how suggesting a co-habitating pair is ipso facto incapable of virtue helps anything. Behaving like children instead of adults, sure. But unable to show genuine care? Huh?
LikeLike
Craig, I don’t know whether you had a chance to look at the post above, but the short of it is that sexuality is but one component of any relationship.
One of the central idols of our time is to make sexuality the defining component of relationships. I think this is probably a self-evident point, but if not, consider: When was the last time you saw a magazine article on “Is it OK to talk about finances on the first date?”
My concern as I read your words,
Craig: I did say a sodomite relationship could not be “loving, caring, and faithful”. Those are not merely human qualities. In so far that such qualities are displayed between two men engaged in a sodomite relationship, those qualities are *accidental* to the relationship.
is that you seem to be making sexuality the defining component of the relationship. That is, while rightly recognizing homosexuality to be a sin, you are nevertheless giving an intellectual nod to the idol that lies behind homosexuality (and adultery, and fornication)!!
I would ask you to reconsider. Consider that the wrongness of homosexual behavior does not obliterate the other components of the relationship, and that those other components are not “incidental”, but essential.
LikeLike
Jeff: “One of the central idols of our time is to make sexuality the defining component of relationships.”
Me: No. Sexual anarchy is the idol.
Zrim,
as per usual, you commented in my direction…but missed the target completely. I have not said sodomites are incapable of exhibiting virtue (in a fallen sense like all sinners are capable). I said their sodomite relationships cannot be in any respect virtuous.
That doesn’t mean a sodomite is incapable of rescuing puppies.
LikeLike
Craig, so when Jed says, “The fact is that human affection can be genuine even if depraved,” and you say you agree, what does “…sodomite relationships cannot be in any respect virtuous” mean? But I’m still getting that depravity swallows up humanity by the latter type statements.
Jeff, good word on the idolizing of sexuality. Oh, the ironies of culture war.
LikeLike
Zrim,
you’re equivocating between “genuine human affection” and the qualities of “loving, caring, and faithful”.
Many pedophiles genuinely enjoy having sex with children…I wouldn’t say their relationships with children are “loving, caring, and faithful”. Perhaps you disagree with me?
LikeLike
Craig,
I see that you’re a fan of some of the Doug Wilson marriage/family/relationship books. And then I realized that perhaps the reason that you and the rest on this thread have seemingly reached an impasse is due to differing views of romantic relationships. Here’s why.
I once heard Doug say: “Whenever a man talks to a woman he’s trying to get into her pants, either honorably or dishonorably.” Do you agree with that, Craig? Is that you?
If so, then I can see why you might think that homosexuals (at least homosexual males) cannot show real love, care, and affection for one another. In your mind their deviant sexual passion floods every interaction that they have. If one of them brings the other breakfast in bed, it’s only because he wants to sneak in a perverted quicky before work. If one of them washes and folds the laundry for the other, it’s only because he knows it increases his chances of getting a corrupt sexual payback. If one for the other picks up a prescription at the pharmacy it’s only because he is motivated by a homoerotic quid pro quo. So from that vantage the nasty has nastified every area of their lives. But not yours! For under this view, while your own motivations are similarly situated, your sexual cathexis is hetero ipso facto rightly ordered even as the motivating force behind your relationship with the most significant female in your life.
Somehow though I don’t think Mrs. French or your daughter would be very pleased with this approach. They might even find it disordered.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
Jed, good to see you back in the queue. I was wondering where you were.
Blame it on my toddlers.
Craig,
I said their sodomite relationships cannot be in any respect virtuous.
I think you are misapplying the standard of righteousness and virtue here. If you are taking a divine view of the issue here, any distortion, especially one as stark as homosexuality which is so contrary to God’s purposes for companionship in creation, would automatically disqualify a homosexual relationship as virtuous. On one level this is true, but it would necessarily apply to all human relationships because all are distorted. Friendships, collegial relationships, marriages, and every other possible facet of human relating would be in no respect virtuous since all are tainted by sin.
But, the point of Dr. Hart’s post here was not to argue that gays in committed relationship measure up to God’s righteous standard. This seems to be the erroneous stance of the PCUSA. However as confessing Christians, we can, on a human plane recognize elements of good and sincerity even in the most depraved relationships or individuals. I think this is the issue that you are being inconsistent on. I don’t think it is wrong to bring the divine standard to light, with respect to any sin issue. But, and this is a big but, on the human plane we also owe even the worst of sinners their due respect, and it would serve us well in our everyday lives to have a more well-rounded view of the virtue of sinners along with their fallenness. To vilify sinners, in this case homosexuals, makes it impossible for us to live at peace with them, and cuts of any meaningful testimony to the grace we have received.
LikeLike
To buttress Jed’s point, Jesus said “even sinners love (agape) those who love them” (Luke 6:32). Our Lord recognized human love among sinners, so should we.
LikeLike
Joseph,
Thanks for raising on of the most disturbing points I have heard in a while.
“Whenever a man talks to a woman he’s trying to get into her pants, either honorably or dishonorably.”
I’d be inclined to laugh if it weren’t for the fact that there are x-ians out there who honestly believe this. The problem is, along with Wilson’s theology, this premise is absurd.
Are we to understand that whenever a pastor councils a female congregant between the ages of 18-60 his true intention is to bed her?
Does this run true in the office where Johnny Christian tries to clarify with Sally V-neck whether or not the TPS reports need a cover sheet?
I amazes me how much Wilsonites and so many like-minded conservatives are absolutely obsessed with sex. Sometimes it is borderline creepy.
LikeLike
Hi Jed,
Thanks for your comments.
I think you may know my daughter and son-in-law in Temecula. If you get a chance, drop me a line at billc@clip.com. Thanks!
LikeLike
Jed,
Agreed. It is creepy. Hence my concern for their wives and daughters.
LikeLike
How in the world did this go into Wilsonville? I’ve read a few books by Wilson, and one I didn’t even like (Reformed is Not Enough).
Joseph, I have no idea if Doug said anything like what you wrote, nor do I know the context…so I won’t comment on it. On it’s face, as you’ve stated it, it’s obviously wrong. Given the way my comments are misread, I can’t put much stock in your regurgitation of Wilson.
Jed, you and Jeff seem to be the most reasonable. You are correct that by saying:
“But, the point of Dr. Hart’s post here was not to argue that gays in committed relationship measure up to God’s righteous standard.”
While not the point of the post, Darryl did say: “Plenty of gays and lesbians are great people or characters (think Omar), and *many are likely involved in very caring, faithful, and committed relationships*.”
It is the second half I particularly disagree with.
LikeLike
Craig,
About that second part — you particularly disagree with it because of your own empirical findings or because of your definitions of the terms gay, faithful, caring, and committed?
LikeLike
Dr Hart
“The fact that Paul does not call for the execution of such incestuous Christians in Corinth would suggest that though sinners and in need of repentance they had not stopped being human.”
But Paul does say elsewhere that if he did something worthy of death he would submit to it. So a lack of a call for execution is not sufficient grounds to conclude an act is monstrous enough to discolor the relationship in which it occurs, because even execution is not used only on those who have ‘ceased to be human’
LikeLike
Joseph:
Are the words “faithful”, and “caring” merely human conventions?
LikeLike
Craig, yeah we invented them ex nihilo.
LikeLike
I agree Jed Paschall, that pity is the right response in such a case.
I think the focus on the wonderful people that gays and lesbians might be and the ‘apparent’ kindness and care of their relationships tends to obscure the pity we should rightly feel at their entrapment and objective abuse of each other. That’s my main concern and point.
As a side comment, it does seem that the bible is happy to describe some people as ‘sons of belial’ which apparently denotes worthless, degraded people. ‘trash’ as it were. So there may be some validity to demonization. Maybe better or more complete word studies or looks at the phenomenon of sons of belial exists that I need to be made aware of.
LikeLike
Patrick,
This is true, there is also the language of the potter and the clay, and the worthlessness of unworthy vessels. However, we have to hold that in balance with Psalm 8 that speaks to man’s dignity by virtue of being God’s image bearers. God seems to recognize the inherent value of the human, otherwise why would he expend so much as such a great cost to save even a few of them?
LikeLike
…you’re equivocating between “genuine human affection” and the qualities of “loving, caring, and faithful”. Many pedophiles genuinely enjoy having sex with children…I wouldn’t say their relationships with children are “loving, caring, and faithful”. Perhaps you disagree with me?
Craig, a relationship can be loving even if objectively depraved. Contrariwise, it can be hateful even if objectively wholeseome. So I wonder if you allow for the latter if you don’t allow for the former. For my part, I think any combination is possible: loving/hateful and objectively wholeseome/depraved.
LikeLike
Do you believe a pedophiliac relationship between a man and a child can also be wholesome?
LikeLike
Craig, I’m taking any sexually illicit relationship to be fundamentally depraved but also able to be otherwise either loving or unloving.
But I’m still curious if you think an objectively wholesome relationship is also always fundamentally loving (since it seems you think that an objectively depraved relationship is always fundamentally unloving).
LikeLike
Zrim,
You keep shifting on terminology…can a pedophiliac relationship between a man and a child be “wholesome”? I wonder if you see how wicked such a statement is…which is why you now say “loving”.
Shift if you like, but please answer my simple question a few comments earlier: Is love defined merely at the human level?
LikeLike
Craig, part of the problem is that you are assuming some western mores. Men (over 18) marry what we consider children (under 18) all the time; are these instances in other times and places considered illicit? But if by “pedophiliac relationship” you mean something illicit, as in fornication or adultery or homosexual, then it is fundamentally depraved (i.e. not wholesome). And my point, which call you shiftiness, is that even in illicit sexual relationships there can be loving elements. I don’t know why this is so difficult.
I don’t really know what you mean by asking if love is defined merely at the human level. What are you driving at here?
LikeLike
Craig, by your definition of wholesome, can any unbeliever, who is at enmity with God and who ultimately hates his neighbor, be in a wholesome relationship with anyone? If not, why single out sexually immoral people?
LikeLike
We can speak of men being “good” in a relative sense, but when a relationship is in itself evil, such a relationship cannot be described as such.
I don’t have to single out sexually immoral people. The relationship between a murderer and his victim is not wholesome or good in any sense…regardless of whether the murderer bought his victim a drink (equipped with a mickey) that led up to their demise.
LikeLike
This discussion does bring up many confusing and complicated emotions about human relations which we have to deal with on a regular basis. It seems that the ideas we hold of sin and how to deal with it determines how we respond. I was reminded while reading some of the posts of how Rushdoony interpreted that passage in Corinthians about the incestuous relationship that was going on between members in the Church there. He interpreted “handing over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” as the death penalty. And that the mention of it in 2Corinthians is a different case. My point is that some take a strict Law and punishment approach to sin and others take a Gospel and grace approach. Both seem to have a biblical warrant to them. It is very difficult to deal with issues like this, ie., what is the best way to deal with each situation. Some people’s repentance can seem so sincere too but then find themselves entrapped in the same sin again soon after.
I suppose I am getting off track here because the original dilemma was can an unredeemed sinner be involved in relationships that convey true love, care and faithfulness even when the foundation of the relationship betrays God’s Law (incest or homosexuality). But we are not sure if the incest described in Corinthians was by unredeemed people. So, these things do get quite complicated. The issue boils down to how do we deal with these things in our everyday lives and encounters with others. We either take a law and punishment approach or a gospel and grace approach. When to apply either is where the dilemma and confusion lies. I do not see any easy answers to the problem.
LikeLike
I might add that I would rather err on the side of gospel and grace in this not yet side of the eschaton. If anyone goes through the gospel of Mathew and sees how the Pharisee’s continued to be blind to the Gospel in the Old Testament but very aware of the Law there then I think the answer to the problem should be obvious. It is better to err on the side of the gospel and grace. The hounding on the law and punishment is just another form of moral reformation. The true reformation was a recovering of the gospel and grace and putting the law in its proper secondary place.
LikeLike
I also would add this, the application of the law or the gospel can be summarized in the immortal words of the songwriter- you have to “know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away and know when to run.”
LikeLike
Craig: We can speak of men being “good” in a relative sense, but when a relationship is in itself evil, such a relationship cannot be described as such.
What I was trying to get at above is that you are defining the relationship solely based on the sexual behavior of its participants: “The relationship IS in itself evil” — rather than “X behavior in the relationship is evil.”
Why?!
Why is it that sexuality, for you, defines the relationship? That seems more like an assumption that comes out of the sexual revolution, than from Scripture.
LikeLike
At this risk of beating a deaf horse, I’ll give this one more try.
Craig, you are being very reductionistic and I wonder why. A marriage relationship is conversation, humor, child raising, oath-keeping, religious, etc., and also sexual. If one of these is dysfuntional that doesn’t make all of them dysfunctional. If one is fundamentally sinful, that doesn’t make all of them fundamentally sinful. Have you never had a relationship that was positive in some ways but not in others?
What is at stake here from your point of view? What is the upside of reducing relationships to one aspect and calling it purely evil?
LikeLike
I see Jeff said it first…
LikeLike
Jeff
Isn’t it obvious? Sex is the special sign and seal of the character of the relationship. A marriage without sex is unconsumated. Paul even says if you use a prostitute you become one flesh with her.
if my wife is otherwise kind to me, but serves me arsenic in every meal, it pretty much means that all the kindness is COLORED by the poison she’s giving me. But good meals are a sign and seal of a good
I can have a kind and loving relationship with you, and an kind and loving relationship with my wife. I have sex with her, and that makes my ‘kindness and love’ of a particular kind. I fi have sex with you, the kindness and love i had for you suddenly changes its character. What it seals has changed.
It seems pretty basic, and I’m surprised to find you questioning it.
LikeLike
Paul, interesting point. I’ll chew on it.
From the hip: It strikes me that if the relationship is *defined* by sex, then a sexless marriage is no marriage and can be annulled …
LikeLike
Jeff,
The sexual as defined as the relationship goes back to Freud (and even Sophocles) not just the sexual revolution. And I think the point that Darryl made about sin as defined in scripture is different than how a movie maker like the Coen brothers might see sin working itself out in the life of an individual person. Sin still breeds complications and confusion into our “theories.” So, we are still left with no easy answers to the dilemma except Christ and Him crucified (the gospel). And the Gospel trumps the Law even though the Law needs to act as a deterent to our sin and used in some cases to put the sinner to death. Knowing when to apply the law or the gospel is the complicated and confusing part, in my mind anyways. And there an really no clear answers in the scriptures.
LikeLike
(Or in other words, is sex a *symbol* of oneness, or is it oneness in itself? It would be a shame to overliteralize 1 Cor 6)
LikeLike
The upside is not being fooled, like, i’m sorry, but Misty Irons was by Will and Grace, (of all things), into thinking that the way people trapped in homosexual relationships are pretty nice people who we just happen to have a difference of opinion on as to what sex parts go where.
Theres more to it than that. But there is a slippery slope that Irons fell down that seeing how the relationship itself is colored by this sin (NOT “reducing relationships to one aspect and calling it purely evil?”) will help prevent.
LikeLike
David & Bathsheba: adultery, murder. A purely evil relationship?
LikeLike
Jeff
That’s the ‘traditional’ view, and while annulment seems to be a Pharisaical sham in the RC church, I would kinda hope that a woman coming to elders and saying, BTW, Bob keeps refusing to, like, have sex with me since day one would understand that Bob is not really acting married and his vows were a sham. Something like annulment seems reasonable in such a case if there is no repentance. But maybe i’m wrong.
And I think the current (?) reformed (pace Piper) understanding that a marriage which has come to refuse sex is probably some kind of divorce grounds as abandonment is the right one. (maybe I’m wrong that that’s the current understanding)
LikeLike
David and Bathsheba? Yes, pretty much until 2 Samuel 12:24
That consolation was allowed by God to happen after the death of their first son is pure grace. I’m pretty sure David repented of every single second of what happened up until then. He didn’t say, well, at least I let her live in my nice palace, that was generous and kind of me.
LikeLike
And we still are left miffed with the underlying poser question that Craig laid out in the beginning of the post and his underlying motive for asking. I think Jed was correct in his assumption about Craig’s distaste and abhorrence for 2K theology. And the fact that general revelation when mixed with our sin can work itself out in rather bizarre, twisted, loving, caring, and confusing relationships.
And why wasn’t David put to death after his fall? And why didn’t Jesus put the woman caught in adultery to death? I have heard the reconstructionists try to squirm there way out of those questions in often bizarre interpretive twists and turns.
LikeLike
I should add I’m excepting from my claims about sexless marriages medical conditions that would impair a couple’s ability to consummate.
LikeLike
p duggan, let me ask you the same question:
“you are being very reductionistic and I wonder why.. . . What is at stake here from your point of view? What is the upside of reducing relationships to one aspect and calling it purely evil?
LikeLike
Paul said: “I can have a kind and loving relationship with you, and an kind and loving relationship with my wife. I have sex with her, and that makes my ‘kindness and love’ of a particular kind. I fi have sex with you, the kindness and love i had for you suddenly changes its character. What it seals has changed.”
EXACTLY. Said simply, and much better than I have been arguing.
LikeLike
I don’t have to single out sexually immoral people. The relationship between a murderer and his victim is not wholesome or good in any sense…
Really? I know of a woman who shot and killed her son whom she had nurtured for about 16 years. To my knowledge they weren’t incentuous. Are you suggesting, Craig, that their relationship wasn’t wholesome? But isn’t there a category for wholesome-but-dysfunctional, or is all of life either only wholeseome or depraved? In other words, what your black-and-white view (and duggan’s) seems to end up doing is trying to uncomplicate human existence and reality. I get it since complications make for big headaches, but a mother killing her son is enigmatic precisely because she previously and uniquely generated and nurtured his life. She wasn’t just a murderer. She was also a mother.
LikeLike
Craig & P, so I understand you to say that sexuality is a particularly profound act that infuses everything else? Or something like that?
But if one aspect can overwhelm and annul what would otherwise be virtuous aspects of a relationship, I would think that violations of the first couple commandments would be even more overwhelming. So then anyone who fails on those commandments is purely evil? Or what?
How many different ways are there to reduce people and relationships to one aspect?
LikeLike
Michael: “How many different ways are there to reduce people and relationships to one aspect?”
Eleventy-five. An absurd answer to an absurd question resting on absurdities.
I won’t speak for Paul, I don’t know all of his thoughts, so here are my own:
1. I have not reduced individuals to “one aspect”. I’ve said this a number of times (I’m not saying you can’t do this, even…Satan is the father of lies, after all…God seemed to think one aspect defines him. Nabal received his name because of the overarching character he displayed regardless of his business success, scategories skills, and godly wife).
2. Obviously relationships can be defined by one aspect. In fact, I think our lives and relationships are to be defined by one aspect (love) which is why sodomy, for example, can in no sense be anything than a counterfeit.
Some of you want to legitimize what is counterfeit…perhaps Satan’s relationship to God is “wholesome”? Perhaps you gents can find some virtue there.
LikeLike
Michael Mann, ding ding ding ding!!!
LikeLike
Paul, you seem to be conflating “refusing sex” with “not having sex” (think of couples who are unable to …).
LikeLike
Craig, what do you mean that some of us “want to legitimize what is counterfeit”? Hasn’t been clearly maintained that sexual deviations are depraved? The point hasn’t been to make licit what is illicit, it’s to say that sin can co-exist with righteousness, depravity with wholesomeness. Or don’t you affirm the simul justus et peccator formulation of the Protestant Reformation?
LikeLike
Zrim,
let me spell this out for you…follow me carefully:
A. My stance has been that certain relationships are ,by their very nature, wicked. Therefore, sodomy (or pedophilia) can in no way be “loving”, “caring”, or “good”.
B. You guys have maintained: The sexual act of sodomy (for example) is sinful, but the homosexual relationship may not be characterized as such.
C. Therefore, I am NOT saying you are legitimizing the sexual act which is sinful, rather, you are legitimizing the counterfeit “good” of the *relationship*.
I have NO idea how some of you can convolute a simple point so frequently. Apparently my singular point is somehow related to John’s intuition of what my motives are, Michael’s reading of Doug Wilson which I’ve never read myself, but seeing that I’ve read something of Wilson’s, therefore…there’s a connection, and now leap to an illogical conclusion that I would deny we are simul justus et peccator because you have forgotten the origin of the present discussion.
LikeLike
Careful, Zrim: justus et peccator is in reference to justified Christians, not humanity in general.
—
Paul, having chewed on it, I think you’re making too much of 1 Cor 6. The sex act symbolizes unity, but it does not create it. I don’t think Paul is saying that it creates it.
For if sex *created* unity, a person would have to get a divorce certificate from everyone he or she had ever slept with, before having a valid marriage. This is not the case even in the church.
—
I think part of the problem here is that we’ve all (me too!) slipped into the parlance of our culture in speaking about “a loving relationship.” Relationships aren’t “loving”; people are “loving.” When we speak in common parlance of “loving relationships”, we *mean*that the people in those relationships are loving towards one another.
Distinguishing in this way helps shed a little light on things. If two people act illicitly with each other in regard to sex, but properly (humanly speaking) with regard to other matters, then they are being unloving in some ways and loving in others.
And that seems to end the story, as far as I’m concerned. The quest for the “loving relationship” is a red herring; what purpose does that label serve?
In the world, that label serves to legitimize homosexual relationships.
In the church, the inverse of that label (“unloving relationship”) serves to cast a shadow on the other aspects of their relationships.
Either way, the label is a kind of propaganda. Down with label! People are loving, relationships are not.
LikeLike
Clarification on B. you guys maintain that the relationship itself may be virtuous in certain respects.
Let’s see if any of you can return the favor of accurately representing my own view. I’ve been reading some of you for about a year now…so I won’t hold my breath…but go ahead and surprise me.
LikeLike
Craig, so when one member of a homosexual pair does something at once selfless and nonsexual for the other it really isn’t selfless, it’s selfish (since selfish is the counterfeit of selfless)? But I don’t think anyone has maintained that a homosexual relationship isn’t sinful. It is, but it can also be characterized by virtue. I know that makes your skin crawl, but I think only because everything is sex for you.
But how is it so illogical to conclude that if loving and depravity cannot co-exist that one cannot be at once saint and sinner?
LikeLike
Craig, correction noted.
Jeff, re justus et peccator, don’t overthink it. The point is simply to say that two realities which are at odds can co-exist in one relationship and one person. (But also, your point about people/relatipnships is well taken. But interestingly it’s also one I’ve tried to use in the GR/SR disucussion: the Bible speaks to people, not their relationships, etc.)
LikeLike
Aside: Zrim: But interestingly it’s also one I’ve tried to use in the GR/SR disucussion: the Bible speaks to people, not their relationships, etc.
Sure. But there’s a big difference here.
Relationships aren’t “loving” or “unloving” because the people in those relationships act both in loving and unloving ways towards the other person in the relationship. The common parlance is problematic because it takes a mixture and speaks of it in pure terms.
But when you argue that “the Bible speaks to people, not issues”, you seem to be trying to make the point that the Bible doesn’t “speak to” money or family or relationships, and that therefore the Bible is not the book of the common sphere.
But for Christians, at least, the Bible most certainly *does* speak to (or about or of) money and family and relationships. And it therefore governs their behavior in those common-sphere activities.
So … I find that the “speaks to people not issues” slogan obscures the fact that the Bible has things to say about common-sphere activities. The slogan clouds instead of illumining the issue.
LikeLike
Craig, in re A,B,C: My stance is to cut the knot by ceasing to speak of relationships as “loving” or “unloving.”
Can one homosexual legitimately *love* another? Yes, most definitely. In a sexual way? No, most definitely not. But as we readers of Lewis all know, “love” is not limited to sexuality.
LikeLike
Craig,
So lets get down to pastoral specifics here. If you were a Pastor of a church and had to deal with the incest of a mother and her son at the church how would you handle it? And if there was a homosexual in your congregation who had hidden it successfully for many years, yet was caught by some member in a gay bar and confronted with it and repented, yet later was found at the bar again, how would you handle that? And perhaps there is a regular adulterer in the congregation who has not been caught yet but you are suspicious of. Or, you have a adulterer who was not particularly repentant (and you excommunicated) but stopped his affair when caught? Perhaps he wanted to be reinstated but was not allowed due to his lacked of perceived repentance. One could go on and on with scenarios like this. That is the reason I have trouble with church discipline and why I have come to the conclusion that the proper preaching of the Law (which is not easy to do) and the accurate Gospel (which is often not clearly preached either) should deal with most of the issues that are often hidden from clear view. Allowing the sinner to clear his conscience through the sacraments also can often do a better job than church discipline in regards to repentance. At least that has been my experience. And even then we still struggle with our besetting sins.
LikeLike
Jeff: it SEALS unity. that’s different. It places a big sloppy marker on the chaos of life.
LikeLike
(Jeff, sorry, I don’t see the difference. Both points seem to be that people animate things, e.g. relationships and institutions. I do understand that often people speak of “loving relationships” or “the Bible speaks to X” as a sort of short hand, and that’s fine as far as it goes. But I still think it a worthy point that the Bible speaks to people, as worthy as it is to say that people do the things of loving and depravity.)
LikeLike
John,
I’m not sure how answering incomplete, theoretical situations in any way relates to anything I’ve said.
Were you excommunicated by a church? You’ve brought up your “problem” with discipline on more than one occassion unprovoked.
LikeLike
Paul,
If you would, say more. The sacraments, for example, are God’s royal seal on the promise of the Gospel.
Sex is the seal from whom to whom on what?
And importantly, why does *sex* get to define the relationship? Sex really only defines one relationship that I have out of many. Are you suggesting that once sex occurs, it *becomes* the defining characteristic of that relationship?
LikeLike
Michael Mann
I take it as an axiom that sin is decpetive. What I’m concerned about here is a bit of falling for the deception.
“Joe really loves Jesus, he just is tempted by bowing and kissing statues of Jesus. He doesn’t think he’s reverencing the block of stone, he thinks he’s reverencing the God behind the stone. He loves god in his heart, and is well intentioned, he’s like the rest of us who know idolatry is a sin, and just needs to repent of this one little thing”
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.
Ezekiel reveals that the temple that looks fine on the outside, engaging in valid outward worship is actually DEMONIZED, filled with creeping things. God says to the people that he has nothing to say to them until they get the idols in their faces out of the way. He doesn’t want to commend them for some good they do and gently wean them off the BIG SIN in their lives.
I think its dangerous not to view homosexual sin, adultery, porn, or actual idolatry this way. Its not loving to the people trapped in it.
LikeLike
I think sex is the sine qua non of an ORDINARY marriage relationship. Its’s the reason the marriage relationship is described by Paul as one flesh (because the prostitute is the bad mis-sealing of one flesh, but all that goes on there is sexual (and monetary))
I don’t know what this is really controversial. I’m just saying what I think i picked up from 27 years in the OPC, reading Murray on principles of conduct and G I Williamson on the WCF, going to summer camp at FCBC and being warned about premarital sex because it creates a mystical bond.
There may be exceptions, etc, but there is a norm, and the norm is explained by the bible which puts a big fat warning over gay sex. (and other things too)
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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!!!
LikeLike
“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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Jeff: apologies, missed your post and kinda stepped on your point. My bad.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
So then, what needs to be said to capture the moral concerns related to contraception and in vitro fertilization?
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
Thanks Jeff. That’s helpful direction in a complicated area. Have you read VanDrunen’s book on this topic?
LikeLike
Jeff, does your pastor actually preach against contraceptives or in vitro fertilization?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Jospeh: No, I haven’t.
DGH: No, he doesn’t.
LikeLike
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? 🙂
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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?
LikeLike
How quaintly Freudian.
LikeLike
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
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
Zeke, it would also suggest that the BB’s reduce a lot of human existence to sexual relations.
LikeLike
Darryl,
See what I’ve done by assuming. Sorry.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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.
LikeLike
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).
LikeLike
Jeff, that’s cute, but not nearly as sarcastic as Monty Python:
LikeLike
I am glad Zrim finally brought this bizarre discussion to rest- it belongs in the Monty Python absurd category.
LikeLike