Controversy and Inconsistency

Last week controversy erupted over an e-book sold on Amazon by Phillip Greaves, a 42 year old man from Pueblo, CO. The book's title is The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-Lover's Code of Conduct.

There was such a public outcry, (including a big threat to boycott Amazon) that the book was pulled and is no longer available.

Just the thought of such a book makes me nauseous; I feel queasy just typing it. But the whole story raises some important questions:

In a society that is so open and affirming to people who consider themselves G, L, B or T, I find it interesting that most people are still quick to oppose those whose "orientation" is P. Don't misunderstand me. I'm glad that the vast majority of people decry pedophilia for the evil perversion it is. I just wonder what standard of decency people are appealing to when they do so, and how that standard applies to other types of sexual behavior. I know the first response is that pedophilia is severely damaging to children (which, of course, it is), though there are some advocates who argue that it isn't, and that it is only an "orientation" which is on equal footing with others which are more socially acceptable. I even read a quote from a gay rights activist once in which she referred not to pedophiles, but to those of a "trans-generational orientation," and argued that those who have that orientation are discriminated against just as homosexuals used to be.

All this makes me think of a quote from N.T. Wright:

"Having decreed that almost all sexual activity is good and right and commendable, we are all the more shrill about the one remaining taboo, pedophilia. It is as though all the moral indignation which ought to be spread more evenly and thoughtfully across many other spheres of activity has all been funneled on to this one crime. Child abuse is of course stomach-turninlgy disgusting, but I believe we should beware of the unthinking morlaism which is so eager to condemn it simply because we hate the thought of it rather than on properly thought-out grounds. 'Morality' like that can be, and often is, manipulated. Lashing out at something you simply know by intuition is wrong may be better than tolerating it. But it is hardly the way to build a stable moral society." (Evil and the Justice of God pg. 27)

Like Wright, I see a big inconsistency in opposing one type of sexual immorality and affirming all others. There has to be a higher standard of sexual behavior than the arbitrary criteria of that which takes place among "consenting adults." (as does adultery).

Certainly this is a discussion-worthy topic if ever there was one?

Mike

More thoughts on OT Violence

(I want to cite a long quote and wasn't sure if there'd be room in the comment section)

There's a well-thought-out article on OT violence from a Christian philosopher named Paul Copan. I posted it on my website: thoughtsifter.com. (Just click the "Violence in the OT" tab at the top). Here's a quote form that article I found interesting:

“All that breathes.” I observed in my previous essay that the lan- guage of total obliteration (“all that breathes”) is an ANE rhetorical device, an exaggeration commonly associated with warfare. For example, in Deuteronomy 2:34 (“we captured all his cities at that time and utterly destroyed the men, women and children of every city. We left no survivor.”) and 3:6

(“. . . utterly destroying the men, women and children of every city”), we come upon what is a standard expression of military bravado in ANE warfare. In 7:2–5, alongside Yahweh’s command to “destroy” the Canaanites is the assumption they would not be obliterated—hence the warnings not to

make political alliances or intermarry with them. That is, we have stock ANE phrases referring to a crushing defeat and utter obliteration in my earlier article, but this is what Goldingay calls “monumental hyperbole.”

Also, I think the Craleys hit on something that is key. We have to consider the radical difference in what we could call mental or cultural climate. We have almost no idea what it was like to live in such a radically different culture so many thousands of years ago. It's my understanding that, in ancient near eastern culture, warfare was often inseparably tied to religion. In many cases victory in war was taken as a sign of the superiority of a nation's God. This was the cultural climate within which God was communicating to people. This doesn't remove all the difficulty of the issue, but the more we consider different factors like this, the more we see how much more complex a thing it is to discern than it sometimes seems upon an initial reading.

Also, Gregory Boyd has a great chapter on this in his book Letters from a Skeptic. One of his main points there is that we should always work from the known to the unknown when trying to understand hard passages like these. We know that Jesus is the full revelation of God, so what ever else God is, his character cannot be contrary to what we see in Jesus. We may not be able to understand God's commands of violence in the OT, but we have more than sufficient grounds for believing God can be trusted in light of what we know in Jesus.

God-Ordained Violence in the OT

Pastor Jim's Monday night Old Testament study discussed the issue of God's commands to kill (apparently entire) gentile populations in certain areas like Jericho, as we read about in the book of Joshua.

Like a lot of people, I have always thought of this as one of the most difficult parts of the Bible to wrestle with, and I was wondering what types of questions came up in the Monday night group, and if any who weren't in that group have some thoughts about this as well.

I had a few thoughts about this, but will wait until a later post.

Any thoughts?

Christians and Retirement Accounts

I made the comment in today's (Sunday, Oct. 10) sermon that, in light of Jesus' teaching on the rich fool in Luke 12, if someone is more than, say, ten or fifteen years from retirement age, and has enough money in savings to live comfortably if he were to stop working today, that person is probably not following Christ to the fullest.

Of course we must be responsible and save and manage money wisely to see that our families are taken care of. What I mean is a large sum of money saved back in order to secure a comfortable lifestyle once one retires from working.

A clarifying question would be, if a person has this large a sum of money sitting in an account (a decade or two before retirement)--what would be the difference between that person and the rich fool in Luke 12?

MM

The NFL and Moral Depravity

A few years ago a big story in the world of sports was the dog-fighting scandal centering on Michael Vick, who was then a star quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons and now the Philadelphia Eagles.



I wrote something about this on the personal blog I was keeping at the time, and the issue came up recently in a book study group at Bethany, so I thought I'd post the story again. It's three years old, but still very relevant:

________________________

By now most people have heard about the legal troubles of Atlanta Falcons quarterback, Michael Vick, who is charged with involvement in illegal dogfighting. He is in some serious, potentially career-damaging trouble and has become a punching bag for many public commentators. Apparently dog fighting is one of the most intolerable sins for many in pop culture.

But what really strikes me is the disparity between the Vick scandal and a recent news story about another famous NFL quarterback, Tom Brady, three-time Superbowl champion for the New England Patriots. Brady's story, which seems to be anything but scandalous to those reporting it, is that he got his girlfriend, Bridget Moynahan, pregnant, but then the couple broke up. As it turns out, nine months wasn't too short a time for Brady to find a new girlfriend, whom he's now with while the old one is giving birth to his first child.

Here's the link to an article on Brady's story in the Boston Globe: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2007/08/23/its_a_boy_for_bridget_moynahan_and_tom_brady/

Of course what Michael Vick did was bad, but if there is any such thing as chastity--if there is any standard of sexual decency and any value in a man and woman actually trying to live as husband and wife to the child they give birth to, then what Brady did was worse. I'm not saying either of these men should be demonized for their mistakes (though many have not hesitated to demonize Vick). I just can't understand why dog fighting is seen as such a perverse thing while fathering a child from philandering is smiled upon?

MM

Morals of the White Witch

One of my quirks is a curiosity about the real life moral characters of actors who play significant roles in movies I like. I have this naive but stubborn assumption that if an actor or actress plays a part in a morally moving story, that the person must, at least to some extent, endorse the lessons in the story and be shaped by them. How could any of the main actors in The Passion of The Christ not have been deeply changed by that story? How could anyone who played in Hotel Rwanda ever be tempted to be racist? How could Sandra Bullock or Tim McGraw fail to see the profound importance of family and sacrificial giving after playing in Blindside?

But this is, of course, a dumb and consistently false assumption. A good case in point is the Actress Tilda Swinton, who plays the part of the White Witch in the film versions of C.S. Lewis’ Chronicles of Narnia. If ever there were a series of fiction stories that convey the eternal importance of real virtue, of good sense, honor, and purity, and most of all of Christ, it is The Chronicles of Narnia. Though the movies (especially Prince Caspian) didn’t do full justice to the original books, it’s still hard to understand how anyone could play a main role in these stories and yet, on a personal level, reject the most basic ideas the author’s life was built upon. But Miss Swinton does this with gusto. She lives in Scotland with John Byrne, the father of her children (one of whom is ironically named Honor). And travels with and sometimes lives with her partner/boyfriend Andro Kopp. Though living in the same house, Swinton and her children’s father are not married, but are said to be good friends, even though the he is aware of her relationship with the boyfriend.

I saw her on Charlie Rose recently, and she seems to be an energetic, optimistic, happy person. Apparently a lifestyle of open marriage “works” for Ms. Swanton. And this raises an important question for Christians. What do we have to say to those of a libertarian mindset who suggest that if a certain behavior or lifestyle makes someone happy--even though the behavior has traditionally been understood to be perverse and immoral--we should live and let live and simply appreciate the fact of another’s happiness, as long as that happiness doesn’t infringe on someone else’s well being?

MM

More on Homosexuality and Abortion

(Below is my response to a comment posted on May 22)

Thank you for your candid comments. I hope everyone at Bethany thinking about these issues will voice their thoughts as you and the others commenting on the blog have.

I’ll respond to each of your questions separately:

“If I have relatives or friends who are gay and I love them and don’t try to change them I’m not a Christian? There are members of our own church who are gay, do we not love them as our own?”

We must keep in mind, the moral issue of homosexuality is not about “orientation.” It is about behavior. It’s not about the way gay people are born, but about how they choose to respond to the way they were born. The Christian view on human sexuality, as clearly and unambiguously given in scripture, is that our capacity of sex is a morally significant thing. Sex was designed by God as a means of procreation and spiritual/emotional bonding between one man and one woman in the context of a life-long marriage. Any time sexual intercourse happens outside that context, it is sin. Not only is this point made clearly and consistently in the Bible, it is the position that has been held by all of the most influential and trustworthy Christian leaders for the past 2,000 years.

Regarding your question about gay friends or family members whom we love. Loving someone necessarily means seeking that person’s best interest. If we have loved ones who are openly practicing sexual sin (be it homosexuality or open marriage or legal prostitution--each of these takes place among consenting adults) because they do not think it is sin, it is not in their best interest to refuse to tell them that it is sin. This would be like refusing to tell them there is poison in their favorite food for fear of hurting their feelings.

As for those in the Bethany family who are gay--(first of all I’m very uncertain about labeling people “gay” or “straight.” It seems to me an odd thing to identify people by their particular sexual desires. It’s also my understanding that this is a fairly modern distinction.) But in any case, if there are people in the Bethany family who, because of the way they were born, are sexually attracted to those of the same sex, then I gladly embrace them in solidarity. They are people who are seeking the grace of God to overcome the sinful tendencies they were born with, just like me.

I don’t struggle with same sex attraction, but I do struggle with lust. I am very happily married, but even so, every time I see a skimpily-dressed woman, I have to fight against the desire to look at her lustfully. This desire is completely natural. I was born with it. And it is also completely sinful. It is a cross I, and most Christian men, have to carry. It is something we constantly struggle with--often painfully. It is a part of me that must die, so that Christ can lead me into the type of life he has called all of us to live.

But how could I say, “No. This is my identity. I was born with a tendency for sexual lust, and there’s nothing wrong with that, and I want people to accept and affirm me for who I am”?

If there are people who are a regular part of the Bethany family who unrepentantly practice homosexual behavior (or open marriage, or legal prostitution, or promiscuity) then they should be confronted about that. It should be made clear to them that such behavior is sin, and that they should repent. They are no better or worse than the rest of us. All of us are called to repent of the sinful things we do naturally, and they are no exception.

“If I made a decision many years ago to end a pregnancy and don’t regret that decision, I can’t be a Christian?”

I want to be quick to say that I realize a woman’s decision to have an abortion is a profound one and one accompanied by many deep and complex emotions. Please don’t take anything I say as trivializing that.

The first thing that must be considered in answer to this question is what is said in the two passages from Jeremiah 1 and Psalm 139 I cited in an earlier post:

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;”

“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.”

The foremost question is, if someone believes that these passages are true--that they are inspired from God, how can that person believe that ending the life of an unborn child is a right decision. What does it mean to be a Christian if one has no obligation to submit his or herself to the authority of scripture? How could Christian morality have any meaning if we judge our moral actions only by how we feel about them afterwards?

To answer your question directly. If someone chose to abort an unborn child (not just a pregnancy) and does not regret it, she should.

But please, please understand. I am no better than a woman who’s had many abortions. I am someone who has chosen to do sinful things in my past as well. But if I have truly signed over my life to Christ--if I truly believe he is who he’s portrayed to be in scripture, than I must repent. I must ask his forgiveness and ask for the grace to keep from continuing in my sins. If I were to refuse to do this, what meaning could following Christ have?

With all this in mind, the one central thing that those who practice homosexuality and those who have had abortions and those, like me, who struggle with lust and narcissism, need to know is that God loves you. And the fact that he loves us necessarily means that he wants to purify us of the sinful urges we naturally struggle with, and redeem us from the sinful acts of our past. God loves us and there’s nothing we can do about it. And his love is a perfect and purifying one, and there’s nothing we can do about that either.

I want to reiterate how valuable it is to be able to discuss important issues like this in a candid but mutually respectful way. Such discussions are rare but desperately needed.

Please don’t hesitate to post your comments in response.

Mike

Homosexuality and Women Pastors

(The post below is a response to a comment posted to the previous article on homosexuality.)

Thanks for keeping this discussion going. I wish more people were compelled to discuss things as thoroughly as you.

The comparison you make between the Bible passages on women in church leadership and homosexuality is probably the strongest argument to be made in favor of the moral acceptance of homosexuality. However, I think when these two issues in Scripture are thoroughly examined it becomes clear that they are not parallel.

The passage you cite in 1 Timothy 2, along with 1 Corinthians 14:33-35, definitely seem to be as stark and uncompromising as the prohibitions against homosexuality in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, but there are a few important mitigating factors:

1. One of the reasons some conservative Christians believe these prohibitions against women leading in church only applied to those in the specific contexts Paul was writing to is because there are other passages that seem to indicated that women do have a role in leadership or teaching. For example, in Peter’s Pentecost sermon he quotes the OT prophet Joel saying:" 'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams. Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”

Also, Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 11 that women should cover their head when prophesying. He also uses the word “Apostle” in Romans 16 to describe someone named “Junias” or “Junia,” who some very reputable NT scholars believe was certainly a female. (NT scholar, Ben Withierington III has a lot to say about this)

2. It’s also a big question whether or not the Greek word for woman in the 1 Corinthians 14 and 1 Timothy 2 passages refers to women in general or specifically to wives.

3. Also, something I think a very important consideration is the inherent nature of the issue in question. As I said in a previous post, a fundamental question in any discussion on homosexuality must be this: Is sexual behavior an inherently moral thing? When we talk about women church leaders, we are talking about what Scripture says is the right role for women in the Church. Those who argue against women in Church leadership don’t say that it’s wrong to be a woman, but that it’s wrong for women to assume roles that are contrary to the identity and function God intends for them. So the argument would say there’s nothing wrong with being a woman, but rather with women working in the wrong context. The same is true (not that I’m arguing against women in leadership) for heterosexual sex. What makes sex between a man and a woman right or wrong is context. The behavior itself is not wrong or perverse, but it is if practiced in a wrong context--out side of marriage.

By the way, this is why arguments that pair homosexuality with racism are not valid. Race is amoral; it is not wrong or right to be black, white or Asian. In contrast, it is wrong to practice certain sexual behaviors.

The thinking behind the prohibitions on homosexuality is not that it’s practiced in a wrong context, but that it is behavior that is itself inherently perverse. Certainly, the practice of homosexuality between two people who are in a committed, monogamous relationship is better than it being practiced promiscuously, but the act itself is thought to be perverse, regardless of its context.

The exact same would be true about incest. In fact, I don’ t think there are any prohibitions against incest in the NT that are nearly as strong and clear as the one’s against homosexuality. And yet there’s not much disagreement on whether that constitutes sexual perversity. And this behavior would not cease to be sexually perverse if it were practiced in the context of long term, committed relationships. I know this might sound absurd to even apply the phrase, “long term, committed relationship” to incest, but it probably would have sounded equally absurd sixty years ago to apply this phrase to homosexuality.

In turn this raises some important questions:

If homosexuality does not constitute sexual perversity, what does, and how are we to know?

If the context of a long term, committed relationship makes homosexuality morally acceptable, why is the same not true for incestuous or polygamous relationships? (Would churches who want to be “open and affirming” to practicing homosexuals also be open and affirming to a man and his three wives? If not, why not?)

Response to Controversies

For all who read the Bethany blog, I humbly apologize for my very long delay in responding to two comments posted a few weeks ago. I got distracted the first week and didn't check the blog as I should have, and then was recovering from surgery for a week and a half. I hope the blog will generate more frequent discussions, and I promise to do my best to respond promptly to any posted comments from now on.

One of the comments posted on the previous post was in response to the controversial issues of homosexuality and abortion which I focused on in a sermon. I have posted my response below on the main blog page because I thought it was too long for the narrow column in the comment section. In any case, please feel free to share your thoughts on this.

________________

Concerning homosexuality, Christians should not be concerned with the issue of “orientation.” I can’t say for sure whether or not people are truly “born gay.” (Though I tend to think at least some are). But this is irrelevant. Almost all heterosexual men are born with a promiscuous or polygamous “orientation,” in that most men have natural urges to have sexual relations with many different women. What matters is not the urges or orientations we are born with but how we respond to them--by praying for the grace to die to those urges and live a new life in Christ, or to give up the struggle and embrace the urges as “just who I am.” And by the way, the Christian standard of behavior for someone who has same sex attraction is the exact same for unmarried heterosexuals: celibacy. A celibate homosexual is, by far, living a more Christian lifestyle than a promiscuous heterosexual.

Though the prohibitions in scripture against the practice of homosexuality are unmistakable (Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6), there’s another line of reasoning that I think also shows it to be immoral. If we believe sexual behavior is an inherently moral thing (in contrast to amoral behaviors like breathing or walking), then there has to be moral parameters around it--to be moral necessarily means there is a right and wrong way to go about it.

If a person believes in a personal, Creator God, from whom we get our sense of morality, then it’s hard to understand how that God would have no concern about how we behave sexually. If a person were to believe that God does care, but his main concern is that we simply respect each other's wishes so that mutual consent is the ultimate moral rule, then not only should we have no problem with mutually consenting homosexual practice, but neither with open marriages, polygamy, pedophilia (or as a gay rights activist called it “trans-generational orientation”), and prostitution.

If homosexual practice is acceptable, I see no reason why any and all types of sexual behaviors shouldn't be affirmed as long as all involved are agreeable. There are a number of celebrities and public officials who openly, actively practice a homosexual lifestyle, and many people have no problem with this (some are quite proud of it). But many of the same people who celebrate the "diversity" represented by people like Barney Frank and Ellen Degeneres, would be disgusted if there were a congressman who owned one of the legal brothels in Nevada, or a talk show host who was polygamous or who had a twelve-year-old "partner." But why, if all involved are consenting? How can one "orientation" be privileged above others?

But, all this aside, at the end of the day, if we are to be faithful Christians, we must be faithful to scripture. Saint Paul clearly believed the practice of homosexuality to be sinful, and for us as Christians to say he was wrong on this would be to presume that we are more reasonable and more in tune with the spirit of God and the teaching of Jesus than he was.

_________________________________

As for abortion, I agree with you about the importance of the Catholic priest’s consistency. He certainly should not isolate one sinful belief or behavior and treat it as if it were worse than others. However, I think the central issue here is not denying communion to people who have sinned, but rather denying communion to someone who uses his power as a public official to promote sin as a cultural norm. I think most Catholic priests would respond the same way if there were some, supposedly Catholic, public official fighting to promote the use of birth control or the right to quick, easy divorces. These are things the Catholic church is squarely against. Giving communion to someone who holds positions that are diametrically opposed to the Catholic Church, and who uses his authority as a public official to encourage others to do the same, would take all meaning out of communion. This would be little different from saying, “Communion is for those who believe in Christ...and for those who don’t...and for anyone who thinks it’s nonsense but feels uplifted by it...”

And regarding the whole issue of abortion, I must be candid and say I simply cannot understand how any Christian (Or anyone who believes in a personal God at all) can believe that it is a good thing for women to have the right to abort a pregnancy. Of course, in cases where the mother’s life is in danger, this is not a clear issue, but such cases make up a fraction of abortion situations, and the pro-choice political argument is not based on that.

How could we ever say that one person has the right to end another’s life because that other person’s life is too difficult or inconvenient for the other? It is also true that if we hold that a woman should have the right to abort a child prior to birth, there is no rational basis to say she does not have the right to end the child’s life after birth. (In fact, Peter Singer, a professor of “Ethics” at Princeton, believes that women should have that right. If the right to an abortion at will is acceptable, we really have no argument against him.)

And if one were to argue that we don’t know when a fetus becomes a person, this (which I think a true statement) is just as much to the point. If we don’t know when a fetus becomes a person but allow an abortion anyway, we are no better than a hunter shooting into rustling bushes; maybe it’s a person, maybe not. We don’t know, but we’ll kill it anyway?

I must also add, as one with three adopted children, I cannot see how anyone could believe that abortion is a better option for the child than adoption.

But as is the case with homosexuality, and every other moral issue in our lives, if we are to be faithful to Christ we must be faithful to the scripture he revered. How can we hold a pro choice view in light of passages like Psalm 139:13-16:

"For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother's womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place.
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be."

And Jeremiah 1:4-5a:

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying,

'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;' "

Christian Views on Controversies

In last week's message I made the point that there are some beliefs and behaviors that are clearly incompatible with authentic Christianity (e.g. abortion as a normal option for birth control, or the willful practice--as distinct from the "orientation"-- of homosexuality)

This week I said people are shocked by certain beliefs or behaviors only when those beliefs and behaviors are different from what they consider to be "normal," and normal is only defined by what the majority of people do the majority of the time.

With this in mind, here are two important questions:

How should Christians determine which issues are nonnegotiable and which allow room for disagreement among equally authentic Christians?

How are Christians to go about finding the difference between what is "normal" and what is right?

MM