As Christians continue to process the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s supreme arrogance on the same sex mirage issue, one of the things we must continue to remember to do is review the basics. This of course will include constantly reviewing what the Scriptures explicitly teach on the matter of same sex sexual activity, but it is also important for us to go a layer beneath all that.
We also need to keep reviewing what the Bible teaches about the nature of man’s nature, and the nature of man’s choices. A hidden driver in a lot of what is going on around us is something that doesn’t appear to have anything to do with human sexuality. But it really does. The roofline is cockeyed because of blunders in the foundation work.
We have to identify, and reject, two false doctrines concerning man — one oddly mixes genetic destiny with Pelagianism, while the other oddly mixes heroic choices with absurdity — a form of existentialism.
One says that homosexuality is baked into the genes, nothing can be done about it, and hence no one is to be blamed for it. Blaming a homosexual for expressing his sexuality this way would be like blaming someone for having red hair.
The other existentialist option says that existence precedes essence. Whatever someone becomes is what they choose to become, and that choice is imprinted on the raw stuff of reality, which cannot be known, so we needn’t worry about it. Someone’s adopted persona, including their sexual persona, is a construct, and the one in charge of that construct is the individual making the choices. The painter moves his temporal brush over the ultimate canvas of absurdity. Sartre said that the only thing that mattered was to move your brush in good faith — as though there were any such thing. But in this scheme the only thing that really matters is the chooser choosing. The universe is bad weed, but everybody gets to roll their own.
One doctrine says that a man cannot be faulted if he had no choice. The other says that a man cannot be faulted if he made the choice. One says that nature is determinative, and that therefore it would be unjust to blame someone for what they are. (Unjust? What’s that? Blaming people is just in my genes.)
The other way says that choice is determinative, and once the choice is made by the sovereign individual, that decision must be respected by everybody, hear? This is why people are so hot to talk these days about gender, instead of about sex. Sex is what God did; gender is what we think we’re doing.
Now I am going to go into this luxuriant thicket of nonsense with the machete of Calvinism. Those Christians who know that we need to respond to the homosexual challenge need not be explicit Calvinists, as I am — though that would be jolly — but I do believe that the only cogent responses to these hidden drivers will have to come from somewhere in the Augustinian tradition. Here’s why.
The Pelagian assumption is that one cannot be blamed for what one cannot help. If that assumption is shared by conservative Christians (as it often is in the circles of evangelical semi-Pelagianism), it will be terribly difficult to answer the homosexual argument that this “is just the way they are.” And you can’t fault someone for that. This is why many Christians find these arguments strangely persuasive, and they don’t know why.
Now I happen to believe the research hunting for the gay gene is a lot of yelling up the wrong rain spout. I don’t think they are going to find it. But that is neither here nor there — it doesn’t matter to a Calvinist if they find it. Suppose they do locate the gay gene, and the research is conclusive, such that no thinking man can deny it. They bring me to the laboratory to show me the proof under the microscope, and as they do so, they are grinning widely. My response would be to acknowledge what they had proven, and say further that I did not think that I would live to see the day, but that I had. “There it was, with my own eyes I saw it! Scientific proof of total depravity. It was a little black twisty thing . . . just like what you might think.”
I would say something like this is because the Pelagian assumption is false. Pelagianism argues that obligation is limited by ability. They say to say we are by nature objects of wrath and to say we are also by nature creatures with a particular color hair is to use that phrase “by nature” univocally, and that this means we can no more be blamed for one than the other.
But sin is defined by the nature and character of God, as expressed in holy Scripture. He defines certain attitudes and actions as sinful, and so they are. He does not define hair color as sinful, and so it isn’t. See how straightforward life is? The phrase “by nature” must therefore be taken equivocally — in two different senses.
Sin is not defined by what I have the ability to stay away from. Why all the fuss and bother to find a homosexual gene? We can already illustrate this excellent principle using heterosexual desire, which is of course genetic. The fact that sexual desire is indisputably genetic does not mean that the subject is not responsible for his lustful thoughts and actions. God’s Word says he is responsible, and so he is responsible. He doesn’t get to point an accusing finger at the (genetically caused!) testosterone flood that derailed all his innocent boyhood activities, those which involved his paper route and his Lego collection, to a thought life that was uniformly girlz, girlz, girlz. There is absolutely a genetic basis for all of this, and he is still being a freak show.
In other words, God faults us for certain aspects of what we are. We are by nature objects of wrath. Jesus does not just point to the sinful actions we do, that rotting fruit on the ground, but He also points to the kind of tree we are. The kind of tree we are can do nothing but produce that kind of fruit, and far from eliminating our moral responsibility, it heightens it.
When Jesus called the Pharisees snakes, He was not showing them an argument to use to get off the hook. “Hey, we never asked to be snakes.” No, they didn’t, but He was going to crush their head anyway.
In short, moral responsibility is defined by our relation to God. It is not defined by our inabilities because there is such a thing as a moral inability, which is culpable. Physical inability — such as my inability to fly to Hawaii by flapping my arms — does remove obligation. Nobody blames me for not doing so. But there is a kind of inability that we do find blameworthy. Take, for example, the well known inability of orc chieftains to participate peacefully in flower garden tours.
The Pelagian argument is valid, which means the only way to deal with it is by denying the truth of one or more of the premises. Some form of the Augustinian tradition is the only real way to do this. And by participating in the Augustinian tradition I do not include drawing a paycheck under false pretenses from a wobbly Augustinian institution.
Since the point is to carve out room for our lusts, and not to be intellectually consistent, as soon as it becomes obvious that fate won’t deliver the goods, we will turn to choice — raw, unbridled choice. Genes be damned! What matters is that I self-identify! And as I do, as soon as I do, all you haters who want to keep me out of the women’s restroom, which is the only place I find any solace anymore, must learn to respect my choices. Does this eyeliner work with the pink contacts?
In order to make choice sovereign in this way, it is necessary for reality, if it has a nature, to keep that nature to itself. We expect nature to keep quiet about it, and it was Kant who most helpfully bolted and padlocked that door for us. A reality that expressed itself would necessarily intrude on our choices. So we pretend that we have no access to things-as-they-are, which leaves us here with . . . Yay! Choices!
In this blunder, for all intents and purposes, nature serves as a blank screen on which we project what we have going on. Nature brings no authoritative information to the game — that would be too constraining and way too off-putting. So we “retreat to commitment,” which is to say, we retreat to our faith community’s projector, which we then point at the screen of who knows what.
But Sartre at least had enough sense to know he was being absurd. Without an infinite reference point, every finite point is absurd. Our current crop of sophomores just got here, which is why they think this is a party where the cool kids still are. But if there are any cool kids left, which is actually uncertain, they are passed out drunk in the back yard.
Who is vulnerable to what? Pop evangelicalism is vulnerable to the first irrationalism, while the academic Reformed are vulnerable to the second. Pop evangelicals have a long history of semi-Pelagianism, and so they have real trouble learning how to give the answers of hard Calvinism. The academic Reformed had just enough hard Calvinism as an undergraduate to be inoculated to it, but they feel they have read more than enough Barth to make up for all that now.
After the reception, the new head of the biblical theology department looked across the seminar room at his new intern, his chest heaving with barely restrained emotion. “Troy, Troy . . . You had me at perichoretic . . .”
So hold your peace, rebellious pot. The Lord is God, and you are not. God is God, and His majesty applies in two relevant ways here. His majesty and person define what the word good means, and His majesty as expressed in creation defines what nature means. This requires that it also defines what against nature means.
…and we have impact, with the mass of a thousand moons and the speed of a thousand comets, which is to say, with the approximate momentum of reality, landing upside the grinning mandrill-face of self delusion.
There was of course a brief and feeble reaction from the heterodox, which shows up -there- as a sort of minor dimple on the seismic charts, but as always, it didn’t change anything.
It’s more likely a gay germ than a gay gene:
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2012/02/16/depths-of-madness/
http://westhunt.wordpress.com/?s=gay
(BTW Cochran is a devout Christian who writes for The American Conservative, though he’s more into Darwin than you are.)
We make choices–“Choose life,” said Moses, “Repent and be baptized,” said Peter–so it is Biblical to exhort to right choices (“Repent!” is the law, prophets, and a vital link in the gospel; the rest is commentary.) We Calvinists know God is behind this (so to speak). We humans make sexual choices: however genetic Doug + Nancy, or Andrew + Wendy, is, we make all kinds of choices about how to express this. Homosexuals make sexual choices: an utterly controlling “gay” gene would never breed (credit: letter to Credenda years ago.) And they need the opposite sex to breed, and still… Read more »
Doug, this is an excellent article. Thank you for posting it. I believe you are saying that Kant bolted & padlocked the door so that nature would keep quiet because Kant said that you can’t know things (e.g. nature) in themselves. Yet, as needing a freebie, Kant amazingly, as if supernaturally through his natural reason, knew the nature of the limits of knowledge, which does, of course, still involve an aspect of nature that he said he couldn’t truly know. We are to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect (Mt 5:48). No man with flesh & bones… Read more »
Doug, would you please help me as I think through this issue. I am struggling with the idea that pagan sinners who either deny God or worship another god have been marrying in our states since the founding of our country. It strikes me as similar to the Boy Scouts finally allowing gay scouts. They have been allowing Muslim scouts and Jewish scouts and Hindu scouts for ages. Why the fuss? In fact, isn’t homosexuality the by product of the denial of the triune God? Romans 1. Isn’t the greater sin the rebellious nature of man as he suppresses the… Read more »
Small correction on some of that “gay gene” stuff. Sorry Andrew, but of course an “utterly controlling” gay gene could breed. Any recessive gene, for example, could keep itself in the gene pool indefinitely even though every time someone showed up with both genes recessive, they might then not breed. Dominant genes can be breed out entirely fairly quickly, but recessive genes are far more resilient. That, of course, is in the case of a single gene causing it. I don’t think that any scientists believe that homosexuality is caused by a “gay gene”. If it is genetic, it is… Read more »
Small correction on some of that “gay gene” stuff. Sorry Andrew, but of course an “utterly controlling” gay gene could breed. Any recessive gene, for example, could keep itself in the gene pool indefinitely even though every time someone showed up with both genes recessive, they might then not breed. Dominant genes can be breed out entirely fairly quickly, but recessive genes are far more resilient. That, of course, is in the case of a single gene causing it. I don’t think that any scientists believe that homosexuality is caused by a “gay gene”. If it is genetic, it is… Read more »
(One aspect I forgot to include – I think most researchers believe that homosexual orientation can be developed via more than one factor, sort of like how there are a number of different paths to end up very very tall. Some people may end up with a homosexual orientation primarily via genetic factors and there may be more than one combination of genetic factors that result in different expressions of homosexual orientation. Others may only be partly genetic and more conditioned by intrauterine development. Others may only be partially genetic/intrauterine, and end up with homosexual orientation via childhood development experiences… Read more »
A gay gene or equivalent is a complete non-starter. In the words of Greg Cochran, it’s just hell on reproductive fitness. Even the most died in the wool creationist believes in natural selection to that degree.
“The Pelagian assumption is that one cannot be blamed for what one cannot help. If that assumption is shared by conservative Christians (as it often is in the circles of evangelical semi-Pelagianism), it will be terribly difficult to answer the homosexual argument that this “is just the way they are.” Actually its the easier answer: that is NOT the way they are. Those who have the most difficulty answering the homosexuals are the Calvinists who themselves make us of the “born that way” excuse for their sins. Born totally depraved, Born homosexual — what’s the difference? If you are truly… Read more »
Absolutely, pastor Wilson. Just like with evidential apologetics. Which is useful and even successful, but it depends on whom you are dealing with. You need to go presuppositional when all the evidence just bounces off them, and a more radical challenge needs to be made. Likewise “natural law” is useful and good, but apparently takes you only so far with self-conscious, sophisticated, matured evil. We told them about the plumbing, and the design, and the purpose. It’s good and even essential that we did. Christian ethics is not detached from the hard facts of nature, from the way the world… Read more »
Doug is absolutely right that Calvinism is an internally consistent belief system that allows for condemnation of homosexuality even if the homosexual had no choice about being a homosexual. But what mystifies me about it, is that Calvinists then have the audacity to claim that their God is loving and benevolent.
If God exists, could he be the God of Calvin? Of course; that would merely make theism unpleasant, but not necessarily untrue. But he would also be a sadistic monster. I really wish Calvinism would acknowledge that necessary conclusion to its premises.
Eric, you want to use God-defined words in one hand (loving, benevolent) and then supplant them with your own definition with the other.
If you love God and have seen the beauty of his purpose in creation, then there is no problem. If you want to be your own king with your own purposes then of course the (just) judgment that He declares will seem quite…mean.
Zack, I’m not assigning moral values to the words loving and benevolent. I’m simply pointing out that there are words to describe someone who creates sentient living things for the explicit purpose of torturing them for all eternity, with no opportunity on their part to escape, just so he can show the universe how powerful he is. Those words are not loving and benevolent. In fact, if I did something even remotely comparable, I’d be hustled off to the nearest psych ward or jail cell. Why do you praise God for conduct that would not be acceptable in a four… Read more »
They have stopped looking for a gay gene when it was pointed out that it could be then be tested for at Planned Parenthood.
Eric, Four year old’s are part of the creation, and are distinct from the Creator Whom made that creation. You are employing a fallacious false analogy here. What applies to man does not necessarily apply to the Creator; Biblical Calvinism teaches this – (e.g., man is not to worship other men, angels, stars, or any other created thing, but only God, the eternal uncreated Creator). An internal analysis/critique of Calvinism or the Bible ought to analyze/critique what all of that system of thought (worldview) teaches. Biblical Calvinism ought not to make what you desire Calvinists to acknowledge because these conclusions,… Read more »
But if God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, why does he continue to create so many of them? Isn’t it entirely predictable that most of the people being born will end up in hell? So if God hates sending them there so much, then, like a responsible pet owner who has his pets spayed and neutered, wouldn’t the responsible thing be to lower the birth rate? And that’s even before we get to the next obvious question, which is this: Since God has the monopoly on giving people the faith necessary for salvation, how can he… Read more »
My theological training is sympathetic to Doug’s argument – but in the end Jim (if it really is James Jordan) has a valid point. In all this though… I am noticing an alarming turn in Doug’s blog postings (over say the last two years of so) and the people who parlay their “prowess” in his comment threads… Why is it that the reformed are so prone to hate… why is it that they refuse to see sin as concrete-relational (offending a person, straining a real relationship)… why do they keep dealing with divine justice and right and wrong as if… Read more »
Read this the other day — forget who it was from… someone commenting on Colin Gunton’s witness in his personal life (amazing how the libs and the aberrant just get it somehow)… “Theology done properly must be cheerful work. How can we speak (read; write) of God’s infinite grace poured out without limit in the gift of Jesus Christ, and not find our hearts warmed, our sorrows comforted, our failures rendered into proper perspective? How can we not be basically, joyful, if to do this is [part of] our life’s work.” * I inserted “[part of]”* What if – Doug’s… Read more »
Eric, I do not want to turn this into a 150 post/reply kind of thing. I will try once. Here is how I understand your position: You want to describe God as “loving and benevolent”. You do not want to use God’s definition of what those terms mean, and instead want to use an autonomous (which said attribute of autonomy remains regardless of the number of people subscribing to it) self-declared definition. You say that a God who does not meet your standard and definition is “a sadistic monster”, but this said labeling is still based upon your autonomously declared… Read more »
Eric, God is not responsible for man’s sin. Man’s purpose is to glorify the Creator whom he images, and he has no excuse to attempt to thwart His Creator’s purpose in sinning against Him (Lk 7:30). On the contrary, pets are not voluntarily sinning against God against His purposes when they multiply (Ge 8:17). So, your pet owner analogy just on these grounds is a fallacious strawman, neglecting these precepts that the Bible teaches about God’s purposes for His creation. Also, please recall what I wrote by relying on generally fallacious analogies that fail to make the Creator-creature distinction. Since… Read more »
The offense of sodomy is in the violation of the image of God. Its personal. The offense of of what I will call (for broad generalization sake) Doug’s reformed internet groupies is twofold. Lack of love of self indulgence. Both are personal… both violate the intended image of God. Nikon of Optina said, “Our salvation and our ruin – is in our neighbor… our “salvation” depends on how we relate to our neighbor… Don’t forget to see the image of God in your neighbor!” Brian. RFB. What in the hell are you guys ranting on about. We get it. You’re… Read more »
George,
Is using courteous speech and avoiding ad hominem also included in “how we relate to our neighbor”? Neighbors such as “Brian. RFB. What in the hell are you guys ranting on about.”
I think that Pastor Wilson is astute enough to moderate his house as he sees fit, and I think that for the most part, the majority of posters try to conduct themselves as Christian gentlemen and ladies.
Thank you.
Excellent post, Pastor Wilson. Thanks for it.
George, as with the Calvinists here, I don’t believe in free will (except to a very limited extent). The real difference between me and the Calvinists here is whether human nature and behavior is caused by a personal force (God), which is the Calvinist position, or by the impersonal laws of physicals, biology and chemistry (determinism), which is my position. But essentially, Calvinism is determinism for theists, and determinism is Calvinism for atheists. So we actually have more in common than you might think. And by the way, as a child I was given Calvin’s Institutes with mother’s milk, so… Read more »
Typo alert: Fourth line in my previous post should say “laws of physics”, not “laws of physicals”.
“Eric, you want to use God-defined words in one hand (loving, benevolent) and then supplant them with your own definition with the other.” Zack, Eric might not always have the right idea about what is loving and benevolent, but the meaning of those words HAVE to have some clear connection to what humans think they mean, otherwise they’re pointless to use. This is especially true since “loving and benevolent” are English words, and if the Hebrew/Greek words in the Bible don’t match the current definitions of “loving” or “benevolent” in English, then perhaps you should be using different English words… Read more »
RFB, you are missing only one thing. The point. Oh yeah and love. That too. Doug is a big boy and can (and does?) moderate his own discussion. And Doug uses strong words too. He’s made many stumble in the 15 years I’ve been following his writing and speaking. There’s a time an place. Actually, I think there’s a bible verse and a song about that. My point what that your rants seemed self indulgent (self gratifying)… AND more importantly, they lacked love. Any Christian (not just Doug) has the freedom to point that out. People like you (and me)… Read more »
To eliminate confusion, let me say that the “James Jordan” who has commented on Pelagianism above is not me, James B. Jordan
I realized yesterday why conservative Christians have already lost the argument and lost the war: It’s not because there’s a gay gene that causes homosexuality (there probably isn’t). It’s simply because 40 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association determined that homosexuality is not a mental illness or a character disorder. Now all the relevant major professional scientific and medical organizations agree with this determination. This immediately undercuts any attempt to argue that homosexuality is destructive, unhealthy, etc; that is, that homosexuality has the attributes we expect of sin. So once the scientific and medical community decided that homosexuality is normal… Read more »
“But respectfully, you are in error as to my motivation. This is not sport. I believe that your theology kills people, hurts people, and causes much unnecessary pain and suffering in a world with far too much of those things to begin with. If I thought you were merely harmless cranks, I probably wouldn’t bother, but I’ve seen far too much pain and suffering inflicted by people who think like you. So no, this is not sport; this is outrage and indignation.” But Eric we can’t help it. Our behavior is determined by the laws of physics. We were born… Read more »
If it is “loving” for God to create people in a manner that “displeases” Him with the sole purpose of torturing them for all eternity, then it is also “loving” for a man to beat his blind child with a rod because they couldn’t see the toys they were commanded to pick up. Why should man behave “better” than God? So fine, let’s just jettison all of our ideas of right and wrong since they apparently mean nothing. Let’s bury people in sand and smash their heads in with rocks as a human sacrifice offered to God for their having… Read more »
Eric the Red wrote: “I’m simply pointing out that there are words to describe someone who creates sentient living things for the explicit purpose of torturing them for all eternity, with no opportunity on their part to escape, just so he can show the universe how powerful he is. Those words are not loving and benevolent. In fact, if I did something even remotely comparable, I’d be hustled off to the nearest psych ward or jail cell. Why do you praise God for conduct that would not be acceptable in a four year old?” Ya, who does God think He… Read more »
Neither Calvin nor Augustine discovered the doctrine of ancestral sin. From the beginning of Christian history, the Church have taught that we are all born corrupted. Long before Augustine, the Greek Fathers taught that we are born contaminated by mortality, and a corrupt nature. If one is born homosexual, and that has yet to be proven, it is a manifestation of ancestral sin. One does not have to be a Calvinist to believe that a Christian can resist the temptation to sin with the help of God’s grace, which also makes us holy and liberates us from the corruption that… Read more »
Seth B wrote: “But Eric we can’t help it. Our behavior is determined by the laws of physics. We were born this way. Surely you wouldn’t tell someone what they’re doing is wrong if they can’t help it?” Well said. I’ve personally never come across a materialistic determinist who would even attempt to be consistent once they set themselves up for their own argument to be tossed back at them. It indicates that they don’t really take their own determinism seriously. It’s mostly about shifting blame. Guilt manipulation tactics, sentimentalism, etc. Eric is dripping with emotional appeals against God for… Read more »
Doug writes, “Pelagianism argues that obligation is limited by ability.” I would say, rather, that moral obligation (and guilt) are “proportional” to *knowledge* (and the implied ability to will (and act) in light of that knowledge). Consider, for example, John 15:22, 24; Matt 25:24-27.
What would a Calvinist say is minimally required for one to be morally obligated?
George-
You are seriously killin me.
Love ya brother, but you’re killin me.
Seth, and katecho, exactly right: You can’t help what you are, and neither can I help what I am; it’s basic Calvinism or determinism, depending on whether one is a theist. A rattlesnake can’t help what it is either, but that doesn’t mean you allow rattlesnakes to set public policy, nor does it mean that you don’t object if the rattlesnake claims to be benevolent and loving. And katecho, you seem not to grasp the basic concept of atheism: I can’t be mad at God, or try to punch him, because I don’t believe he exists. It would make no… Read more »
John, the minimal requirement for moral obligation is for God to hold you morally accountable.
Eric the Red wrote: “You can’t help what you are, and neither can I help what I am” “if not for that, I wouldn’t be wasting my time.” So is Eric trying to help us change what we are, or is he wasting his time? Which is it? His own philosophy seems to have rendered his agenda on this blog an utter waste of time. My conclusion is that Eric is a closet Pelagian, and doesn’t actually believe his deterministic philosophy at all. So he attempts to persuade us to resist the laws of physics that are acting on our… Read more »
Eric the Red wrote: “The only reason I even care about God is that people like you, who do believe in him, continue to wield entirely too much political power for my comfort; if not for that, I wouldn’t be wasting my time.” This is odd. The Christian faith is objectively at its lowest condition of public influence in the history of our nation, yet Eric is roused to action because of our political power? Huh? His timing would be perfect if his goal was comedy. Our nation is at the high point of its Christian apostasy so far. Obeisance… Read more »
Doug, When I first read your reply it struck me as a tautology. But as I read it a second time, I happened to glance at your thumbnail “picture” to the left of your name, and it all became clear to me. :)