The situation described in the following letters is entirely fictitious, including persons, names, crimes, sins, relationships, circumstances and all particulars. The kind of situation that is described, however, is all too common and my hope is that biblical principles applied to this fictitious scenario may be of some help to individuals tangled up in a real one.
Dear Tomas,
Thanks for the question, which in my mind goes right to the heart of the issue. Right after simple obedience to the plain commands of Scripture, which is first, your question calls us to understand our obedience. But we are not to study forever in order to talk ourselves into obedience. Rather, obedience is the path to understanding. As George MacDonald once put it, “obedience is the great opener of eyes.”
Your question was this: “What does natural even mean?” I had quoted Paul from Romans 1, and he there assumes a definition of the word, but it is a usage that does generate some reasonable questions. It also generates unreasonable questions, but we can’t tell the difference between the two kinds of questions without knowing what natural means.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature” (Rom. 1:26).
So in this verse Paul describes something called a “natural use,” and he also points to a practice which he says is “against nature.” A man having intercourse with a woman is, in his assumption, a natural use. A man having some kind of sex with another man, or a woman having sex with another woman, is against nature.
But what exactly makes it unnatural? The question cannot be answered without acknowledging the authority of design, and you cannot figure out how the design is supposed to work unless you know the end or purpose of the activity. In other words, there is an entelechy to sexual activity.
Because our culture has gradually come to assume that this purpose is sexual gratification or release, and has also made the obvious discovery that such a release can be obtained in all kinds of sexual configurations, we think the matter is settled. But having made this discovery, we find ourselves up against the plain testimony of Scripture, what nature itself is telling us, and the witness of the faithful remnant of the church. My point here is simply to talk about what nature is telling us.
The biological purpose of the sexual act is the procreation of children. We must never stop asserting this, but we tend to shy away from it. The reason we shy away is that there are some follow-up questions that can be difficult to answer, and because we are not exactly sure of our answers, we are hesitant to “go there.” But this reluctance is unnecessary.
The biological purpose of eating is to provide nutrition to the body that can be used to repair that body, and provide it with energy to do things. That is what eating does. I can affirm this (and do) and not be embarrassed by the fact that competence in a cook can bring a great deal of additional pleasure. Nor am I embarrassed by the fact that a thoughtful hostess can make the entire dinner party a more civilized and pleasant experience by how she decorates the room and sets the table, how she uses cloth napkins, the centerpiece chosen, and so on. We do not take these additional perks as an argument for pushing our food around on the plate. We do not say that since the purpose of eating is to “refuel,” we ought therefore to take all our meals out of the microwave, and eat them over the sink. We could refuel that way also, right?
There is a crucial difference between abandoning nature, revolting against it, and supplementing nature, augmenting it. Augmenting nature is natural to man. Man was created as a tool-making creature, and such artificial tools are natural to him. But in order for his use of tools to remain natural, he must never forget the natural center, the natural anchor point. He uses tools to hunt, kill, dress, butcher, cook, and present the dinner. But at the natural end of the process, the forkful of meat goes in the mouth and not in the ear.
So it is possible to have an uncivilized eating that does the job, but does nothing else. A man pulls a banana off the tree and eats it, in just the same way a chimp does. You can have a civilized eating, where the biological and nutritional purpose of eating remains the central point, but it is adorned with many other good things—laughter, fellowship, aesthetic pleasures, comfort, etc. You can also have a Babylonian food orgy, where ostentatious display and unnatural uses of everything are the order of the day. This third category is not “advanced,” but rather is decadent. It does not surpass the civilized meal, it rather sinks below the savage eating the banana.
Now in this comparison, Scripture teaches that there are all kinds of lawful and encouraged adornments to the sexual experience, whether perfume, poetry, spices, or bed sheets, etc. But that adornment surrounds and enhances the same basic encounter that Adam and Eve experienced the first time, presumably without such adornment. To follow the encouragement of the Song of Songs is not decadence, but is rather civilization. Civilization enhances without destroying. Decadence destroys without replacing.Civilization enhances without destroying. Decadence destroys without replacing.
We can find a striking example of the distinction I am seeking to make in Paul.
“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (1 Cor. 11:14–15).
I would be happy to discuss the larger import of this passage some other time. Right now I just want to get one thing out of it. Nature teaches us that men ought not to have long hair. But in a “state of nature” a man’s hair grows just the same way a woman’s does. Paul is not describing any kind of Rousseau-inspired primitivism. He is not telling men and women (in order to be “natural”) to just let it all hang out. Men are supposed to cut their hair, and so Paul teaches us that for men, to interrupt the course of nature, using an edged tool, is something that nature requires of us. The use of scissors on a man’s hair is obviously a natural act.
And this means that nature does not mean letting “whatever” happen. Nor is it natural to leave a garden untended.
All of this means that nature teaches by means of something more than what we might find on an IQ test. There is a natural understanding within us that reminds us constantly, in our conscience, that the man goes with the woman and the woman goes with the man.
There is something to the IQ test illustrations, but they by themselves are not sufficient. They make one point well, but they do not go far enough. A nut and a bolt are designed to go together. The nut threads onto the bolt, just like the inventor intended. An electrical plug is designed to go into the wall socket, and it goes right in, just like that. When you are hooking up a stereo, you can usually figure out how the male and female couplings (big hint in the names!) go together. Of course it is natural to assemble things according to their design like this, but Paul is addressing something that goes well beyond this. Say someone didn’t know how to thread a nut onto a bolt—that would simply be ignorance or stupidity. But when a man turns away from a woman to embrace a man, he is not just ignoring the obvious design of the parts, he is also suppressing the knowledge of God within him. He is sinning against his own conscience, which leads him to sin against his own body.
I mentioned earlier there are some difficult questions to answer in light of all this. If the teleology of sex is procreation, should an infertile married couple stop having sex? Is it unnatural for sex to occur after menopause? There are a few other issues that accompany such as these, but they can wait for the next letter.
Thanks again.
Cordially,
Photo by Alejandro Escamilla on Unsplash
Wow, sounds like silence is a natural reaction to such an open ended post!
😏
“Likewise, Romans 1 is completely at odds with just about everything we know about human sexuality”
Yeah, the proven data confirms gay sex is healthy and fruitful, but those Christian bigots keep thumbing on that Romans 1 thing!
Probably 90% of heterosexual sex is unfruitful and much of it is probably unhealthy, but what would that have to do with natural in any event?
And you’re missing the point. Romans 1 sets forth a specific set of steps by which someone becomes a homosexual, that start in verse 17 with refusing to glorify God and ends with God giving them over to unnatural affections. That does not match the life experience of most, if any, actual gay people.
I suspect Romans may in part be addressing this from a societal perspective over an individual one.
Yet many tomboys don’t go that direction.
And even if we are tempted we follow the path of obedience not feelings. One does not need to act on sexual attraction.
‘My issue is with the idea that God has already given over young children to sexual impulses He finds abominable because of their reprobate status. ‘
As it should be as that claim is nonsense (as you suspect. )
Something demonic may have been going on?
MeMe, when a five year old determines, apparently on his own, that a radio preacher is talking about him, I don’t think that’s a case of imprinting. Unless your claim is that one of the adults in his life put such ideas in his head, a claim you have no evidence for.
Krychek, when a five year old already understands the intricacies of sexual attraction and believes a radio preacher is speaking words of condemnation directly to him, something is already all wrong in the child’s life.
No need to understand the intricacies of anything. The evidence suggests that sexual orientation is already determined at a very early age, so it’s not implausible that a five year old could have the necessary self awareness to be able to say, “Hey, that’s me” without understanding much beyond that.
“The evidence suggests that sexual orientation is already determined at a very early age….”
It does not. That is an idea that just flies in the face of everything we know about child development, psychology, and biology. That is a cultural narrative, not an evidence based fact.
Ironically, it’s a narrative that began with pedophiles projecting their own dysfunction upon children, deceiving themselves into believing kids are sexual beings who actually desire them.
MeMe, I don’t think that sexual orientation is necessarily carved in stone at birth. But, if you are saying that homosexual orientation is not determined at a young age, then you are also saying that heterosexual orientation is not set at a young age. There is no evidence to support that. Most people are straight, and most people are straight from a young age.
“But, if you are saying that homosexual orientation is not determined at a young age, then you are also saying that heterosexual orientation is not set at a young age. ”
That is exactly what I am saying.
And you have virtually the entire community of people who do that sort of science for a living on the other side of you but hey, what do they know. Your assumptions and presuppositions outrank their actual data, right?
(author and Socialist, Upton Simclair)
Virtually the entire community of people who do that sort of science for a living are paid to generate studies supporting a particular point-of-view.
This bias becomes clear when they are confronted with studies that contradict their preconceived notions:
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/06/don_t_let_criticism_of_the_new_gay_parents_study_become_a_war_on_science.html
As you know from first-hand experience, ad hominem attacks are a good indicator of a weak position.
Confirmation bias is indeed a part of human nature and we all fall prey to it.
Newer research is suggesting a considerable social effect to self-identified orientation in teenagers in the US.
This is also the case in a very different context. From a PBS FrontLine documentary on pederasty in Afghanistan:
Jill,
At the risk of further distracting you, I’ll recommend this fascinating, alarming and eye-opening article on Diederik Stapel’s audacious academic fraud:
John, any human endeavor, including science, will contain a certain number of cranks and frauds; that just human nature at work. But the system also contains enough checks and balances to keep outright fraud from going too far afield, and by the time a consensus has developed it means enough scientists have looked at it that any fraud should have been uncovered.
And pound for pound, the religion business probably produces far more fraudsters than science does, yet I don’t see you abandoning religion.
Jill,
Stapel’s colleagues turning a blind eye to evidence of his fraud follows the same, common pattern as the blind-eye-turning of Harvey Weinstein’s colleagues:
“Yeah, there have been some reports from young ladies that Harvey may have cut a few corners in his seduction technique. But he is important and they are not … and have you seen his latest picture!? Wow!”
“Yeah, there have been some reports from grad students that Diederik may have cut a few corners in his data handling. But he is important and they are not … and have you seen his latest published results!? Wow!”
That surprises me, MeMe. Were you not aware of liking boys from a very early age? Do you think sexual orientation is fluid before a certain age, or do you think it is nonexistent? At what age do you think it is determined?
At a young age “liking boys” is actually learned behavior, mimicry. There is no sexual attraction, in fact for most kids, the very idea of sex is either repulsive or uncomfortably funny. We are not yet designed to process it, our brains and bodies have not yet developed.
I suspect nearly all of our sexuality is the result of environmental influences. Without culture, environment, socialization, we are pretty much just sexually fluid critters with no powers of discernment. That is why we can victimize children, animals, rape men and women, all kinds of atrocities with little or no moral compunction.
MeMe, you are entitled to your suspicions, but actual hard data is to the contrary.
Actually, the “hard data” from the “credentialed experts” you seem to favor, supports my view, Krychek.
Surely you don’t believe bestiality, rape, bd/sm, pedophilia, all develop in utero? I assure you they do not. Environment, not nature, shapes our sexuality.
“I frankly suspect that your views are colored by your desire that homosexuality not be normalized.”
What is “normal” for humans? Murder, rape, violence, theft, lying, cheating, etc, etc. Homosexuality hardly makes a blip on my radar.
You however, seem heavily invested in “normalizing” homosexuality,and that creates a bias that apparently will not allow you to think critically about it.
By “normalized” I meant socially acceptable. And Jill is right, you have yet to point us to any of this data that supports your position.
I wouldn’t hold your breath.
I find the hormonal explanation persuasive, but it couldn’t be the only factor or the rate for fraternal twins would be as high as the rate for identical twins. Lots of people carry genes for various mental disorders but it takes postnatal environmental factors to “activate” them.
Well I did day it is partly societal.
Though I do think some do go down the pathway to sodomy via promiscuity. Young gays and lesbians have a higher rate of heterosexual sex and pregnancy than heterosexuals.
I think your roommate should have resisted that temptation.
Bethyada, that makes more sense to me, and also the fact that St. Paul probably did not see sexual orientation in the same way that we have been encouraged to.
Perhaps this post would help to answer:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/two-dudes-wedding-cake.html
you are correct
most husbands are now commanded to act like women to show sacrificial love
Gender is totally irrelevant to marriage
Splendid post. I found myself standing up to applaud at several points.
Eh? What does Hebrew have to do with a letter written in Greek?
Genesis 41:42 isn’t about “nature” or “authority of design.” The signet ring there is a literal, physical signet ring. What makes you think that Paul had Genesis 41:42 in mind when writing Romans?
And Doug’s words don’t say anything about “imprinted.” Are you just importing that by going from Greek to English to Hebrew?
“And not only that, but he must also be drawing upon the larger semantic domain of the Hebrew word?”
Because he was familiar with the bible and he understood the context, as well as understanding Jewish culture and the mindset behind it.
That’s a fair enunciation of why Paul could have been drawing upon the context you’re claiming for him. To be clear: it’s not that your interpretation here is impossible, or even implausible. But what you assert isn’t directly in the text and instead relies on inference and typology (typology in particular regarding your use of Genesis 41:42). And for that sort of interpretation to be compelling, you’d need to show more of a foundation than just plausibility.
Well, isn’t typology when “one holds that things in Christian belief are prefigured or symbolized by things in the Old Testament.”
Do we not hold that to be true? I hold that to be true.
Also, if we are going to draw from Genesis in regards to “design,” than we might as well properly pull from Genesis the very definition of “natural,” too. It’s a far more powerful argument and it demonstrates some consistency.
I appreciate your attempt to expand this. I still think you’re asserting more than that for which you’ve laid the foundation, but at least it’s closer now.
Rationalism.
It eliminates good exegesis every time.
Interessting. Imprinting, in the biological sense, refers to the pre-programmed tendency of mammals and birds to attach themselves to, and derive their identity from, their mothers. An orphan raccoon can be adopted by a nursing cat, and will see himself as feline. This happens so soon after birth that, if imprinting in that sense is the cause of sexual disorders, they might as well be genetic. There is also a genetic definition of imprinting that had something to do with silencing and reactivating genes, but my eyes began to glaze over.
I’m not trying to be argumentative for the pure fun of it, but I don’t see how nature teaches us that a man’s hair should be short. If we analogize from the animal world, we would expect a man’s hair to be more luxuriant and flamboyant than a woman’s. I don’t see anything in nature itself that tells me a man should be cleanshaven and short-haired. Were the ancient Hebrews, in fact, short haired? Did St. Paul like short hair on men because he had Roman tonsorial tastes?
There is some argument that long hair on men was referring to tresses rather than length. After all, Samson and Absalom both had long hair.
Me Me, don’t doubt you but do you have any pictures or other info that would support your claim? I’d be interested in researching this a little further. Thanks!
I don’t really have any links that outline the whole concept,but here are a couple of articles that might point in the right direction,
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/features/.premium-1.602802
Also,
http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/nature-natural/
“If a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?”
At what length does a hair become “shameful” for a man? Hair grows … naturally. That is what it does. If nature itself is cause of offense, I think Doug’s post fails to advance the argument.
Hair, for a woman back then, was her glory. A man did not glory in his hair. The whole of chapter 11 needs to be taken into consideration … not just vs 14 Head covering issues..
Trees grow naturally, yet we are commanded to care for them. Pruning, training, collecting the fruit for our food. Trimming the hair and beard is natural as it becomes ragged and tangled. A manual laborer has a hard time managing long hair in a worksite, and it can become a dangerous thing in some settings. Warriors keep short hair to deny the enemy a handhold. (Unless they are so confident in their prowess that they flaunt long hair.) Long, matted, tangled hair was a sign of incapacity or craziness.
I’m pretty sure the Fall occurred before the invention of scissors and pruning shears.
Adam cultivated and kept the garden (Genesis 2:15). We don’t know precisely which tools he used to perform his work, but it’s highly unlikely he used his teeth and fingernails.
I’m not.
I don’t know about women in Biblical times, but there is certainly an equally good reason for women to tie back their long hair before engaging with machinery. In the old days of washing machines with power mangles, women were sometimes scalped by their hair getting into the equipment. Just last week I accidentally lopped off a strand of hair by letting it hang down over the pattern I was cutting. And I shudder to think what harm could come to women working in garment factories using power tools.
I agree it’s confusing. However, evidently I’m the one who’s confused, as the inspired apostle said it is so. On some things you have to let go of “I don’t get how this works” and move on to “Since this is the case, what should I do about it?” But that doesn’t mean that we can’t ever try to work through the answer, just that until we get it, or if we never do, we have to accept the non-answer and not treat it as a road block to understanding or obeying the larger point.
Dear Mr Wilson,
As a Christian woman who has covered in obedience to I Corinthians 11 for close to ten years, I would welcome your thoughts on this passage…
Well said, Sir. So sad that if men pointed out the commands of our own Lord in Church they might be thought of as fanatical or even silly. I got saved about 10 years ago. How did the majority of assemblies get to this point?