the year in books [XIX]

This next series of 'books read' are all in the science fiction category. Kim Stanley Robinson's Green Mars was an epic sequel to the first book of his Mars Trilogy, which I read last year (I've got the third book, Blue Mars, on the dock for 2021). Robinson's Galileo's Dream mixed a fantastic biography of Galileo with a science-fiction twist in which Galileo is tasked with championing for science over religion in the far future; though it was good, Robinson doesn't mince words in his ill-treatment of religion. Larry Niven's Draco Tavern is a collection of short stories about a bar in the Siberian arctic circle that caters to alien life-forms, and it was a fantastic romp; his The World of Ptavvs, one of his earliest works, was good but nowhere near the quality of Draco Tavern. David Weber's Off Armageddon Reef was decent, but I felt the story could've been told much better (and far fewer pages); this book clocked out at around 700 pages, but most of it was rehashing the same old politics over and over (the battle scenes were pretty great, though). Taylor Anderson's Into the Storm held promise - what book that mixes dinosaurs and World War II battleships doesn't hold promise? - but I couldn't stand the writing. The cover art is great, though!

the year in books [XVIII]

These last four entries for 2020's 'Western Queue' include some heavy-hitters: Mary Doria Russell's Epitaph, sequel to her Doc: A Novel (which I read earlier this year) was an excellent and historical treatment of the shoot-out at the O.K. Corral. She's written several other books, notably science fiction, and I plan on reading those, as well. Ron Hansen's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford has been made into a movie, and I'd like to watch it. Hansen, as usual, captures the atmosphere of the Wild West, making it relatable and picturesque while remaining gritty and down-to-earth. His dialogue is on point, as well. Louis L'Amour's Sackett's Land was, if I'm honest, a disappointment. While I used to really enjoy L'Amour, the discovery of western writers much his superior has been a dent in my enjoyment of his literature (he's been called the 'Harlequin Romancer' of the western genre). Craig Johnson's The Cold Dish, on the other hand, was phenomenal. I've wanted to start the Longmire series since the wife and I devoured it on Netflix years back. There's a slew of books in the series, and I've added a couple to next year's Western Gauntlet.

LGBTQ and Secular Philosophy

Classical Christian philosophers considered homosexuality a dysmorphia because it is a deviation from nature, and up until the last few decades, psychologists recognized it as such. It is only recently that it has been embraced as a legitimate form of human living, along with transgenderism and - slowly but surely - pedophilia. This isn't because there were scientific breakthroughs; it's because psychologists began to pay homage to modern philosophy rather than to reality. Progressives - who have advocated modern philosophy lock, stock, and barrel - have jettisoned the facts of nature. They rejected Plato and Aristotle and Aquinas, the greatest western philosophers. They rejected them because their arguments naturally lead to the evidence of God and objective morality; it wasn't that western philosophy was found wanting and rejected, it was that their conclusions were found distasteful and so they were jettisoned. In fact, the rejection of classical western philosophy wasn't a well-considered shift in philosophy but a knee-jerk attempt to disentangle from the responsibilities of living under the weight of a Creator and objective reality. They did not want there to be a God; they did not want there to be such a thing as absolute Right and Wrong; they did not want things such as men and women to have definitions; and so they rejected the very foundation of the western world and sought to build something else in its place, a reality that fit their own tastes. Centuries later, we are in a culture in which feelings are more important than facts, and those who disagree - even those who politely disagree - are labeled as bigots, racists, and haters who are anti-science (though the ‘science’ which we supposedly reject isn't science at all but philosophical ideas couched in scientific terms).

Western classical philosophy, which started with observing the world and using logic to determine the nature of reality, naturally leads to the existence of God, the immateriality of the soul, and the reality of objective truth. Modern secular philosophy, as I’ve said, didn’t arise because later philosophers reevaluated Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas and discovered that their logic and conclusions didn’t hold up under scrutiny; rather, they disliked the natural conclusions of classical philosophy and sought to create something more palatable to their tastes. Modern philosophy takes the opposite route of classical philosophy: rather than examining the world and coming to conclusions based on those observations, it begins with its conclusions and seeks to justify them by reinterpreting reality. Modern philosophy begins with the assumption that classical philosophy is wrong; it’s sustained not by persuasive argument or honest logic but by ideological convictions. Modern philosophy’s obsession with naturalistic materialism – the idea that all that exists in reality is the material realm – isn’t a conclusion drawn from logic but an attempt to keep a ‘divine foot’ from getting in the door. Modern philosophy builds upon the work of the 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes – called the ‘father’ of modern philosophy – who believed that the human brain and body were built of nothing more than purposeless material components acting according to blind physical laws; a materialistic reading of Darwin’s theory of evolution only bolstered this proposition. While the main foundation of modern philosophy is an ideological rejection of the classical worldview, a second ‘foundation’ is the materialist interpretation of Darwin’s theory of evolution: accordingly, human beings are nothing more than bloated bags of molecules arranged in such and such a manner. We aren’t distinguished from dogs, jellyfish, or eagles in any way that matters. We are, ultimately, animals, and we are held to the same standards as animals (this is why, in the segment from which the video below is taken, Bill Nye argues for secularist sexual ideas using a clownfish as an argument). We are ‘atomistic individuals,’ no longer united as human beings to a human nature by which we are judged and held accountable. Human beings, as ‘rational animals,’ are free to live as they please and do as they will; because all that exists is the material world, there’s no absolute Right and Wrong, for such objective morality can come only from essential natures or a Creator. Things such as justice, love, and honesty are abstract ideas, and in a world composed only of the physical, they are just silly thoughts of atomistic brains; they, like morality, don’t really exist, and no one can be compelled to subject themselves to them. Perhaps the greatest problem facing modern philosophy is that of morality: ‘If Right and Wrong don’t exist, then how are human beings to get along?’ If human beings are free to live and do as they please, bound by no moral hedgerows, and because we know that human beings are naturally bent towards violence against one another, how, then, is harmony to be achieved? 

Modern philosophy is the undercurrent to much of the liberal thought of western philosophy, and children are being raised to swallow it without thinking. Our liberal-minded schools teach modern secular philosophy as if it’s proven fact, as if only fools or archaic luddites could ever think differently. It’s only when you get to the higher-level philosophy classes that you begin to sense the trepidation and concern among the secular philosophers: they know their philosophy is built on sand, and most of them struggle to keep modern philosophy from following its natural trajectory to a world in which the most heinous crimes are justified and accepted. It’s ironic that while modern philosophers have exulted in overthrowing the rigid atmosphere of objective morality, they nonetheless live as if objective morality were true (perhaps because, it is!), and they’re frightened of a world in which their modern philosophy is taken seriously. We will examine the conundrum facing modern philosophy’s stance on morality in a moment, but bringing this to bear on the subject at hand: ‘How does modern secular philosophy guide liberal views on human sexuality?’ The song My Sex Junk in perhaps the most cringe-worthy Bill Nye episode to air illustrates the answer:

that this video is 1.4k likes and 29k dislikes is encouraging

The singer says, ‘It’s evolution, ain’t nothing new; there’s nothing taboo about a sex stew.’ Her statement rests upon the modern philosophical idea that materialist evolution is the greatest reality, and as such human beings are nothing more than ‘rational creatures’ who are products of evolution. If this is true, then human beings are not made in the image of God and are not bound by a nature of what it means to be a man or woman; if this is true, then human beings are held to no moral standard above that of the animals; if this is true, then human sexuality is just the ‘causeway’ by which evolution proceeds, and because we are animals, there’s no right or wrong – no ‘taboo’ – way of embracing our sexuality. Classical philosophers argued that certain sexual acts or lifestyles were taboo because they violated the purpose and function of what it means to be a sexual human creature; Christians have agreed and gone further, saying that certain sexual acts and lifestyles are sinful because they violate God’s design for human living, which directly correlates with the essential nature of what it means to be a man or woman. When the idea of ‘essential natures’ and a divine created order are tossed out, what’s left but ‘atomistic’ creatures who like to have sex? And if there’s no essential nature and no divine created order, then there is also no morality constraining sexual expression: therefore there’s truly nothing wrong with a sex stew (though, it must be said, I’m sure most liberal philosophers would agree that kidnapping and raping a four-year-old girl is wrong, though they couldn’t tell you why or how). 

The singer says, ‘Drop some knowledge: sexuality is a spectrum, everyone is on it.’ With this, even a Christian would agree (though they wouldn’t use her terms). She’s saying that all human beings find their sexuality on a spectrum that ranges from the orthodox (heterosexuality) to the unorthodox (homosexuality and other perversions). Some peoples’ sexuality is unflinchingly heterosexual; others are unflinchingly homosexual. Some people – what we used to call bisexuals but who are called by all sorts of names now – are sexually drawn towards members of both sexes. The ‘sexuality spectrum’ has room for everyone’s particular preferences. That this is true is a no-brainer; the Bible even assumes it to be true. The difference between secularists and Christians is that a secularist looks at the spectrum of human sexuality as an expression of all the beautiful ways human sexuality is expressed, and if it falls on that spectrum, it is justifiable and okay (as a side note, I’ve seen these spectrums in various places, and it’s interesting that they tend to exclude necrophilia and pedophilia despite them being sexual preferences for some people). A Christian would look at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and see all the ways sinfulness has infected us to our core. Human beings are sexual creatures, and it is thus our sexuality that is often the most twisted; we are prone to strange desires because our sinful infection runs deep. The classicist looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and sees all the ways human sexuality fails to conform to the essence of what it means to be a man or woman; the Christian looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and sees all the ways human sexuality fails to conform to the created order; the secularist looks at the ‘sexuality spectrum’ and claps his or her (or their?) hands in glee at all the ways humans have found to express themselves (though they stop short, for some reason, of including sexual preferences that are, at this moment, still distasteful to most people). 

The singer continues, ‘Just do what feels right.’ In the classical worldview and in Christian thought, one doesn’t simply do what feels right; one is commanded to do what is right, feelings aside. This singer’s statement reflects the overarching conviction of modern secular philosophy: because we are mere animals, because we are constrained by no objective morality, we are thus free to live and do as we please. This kind of talk is also what makes modern philosophy so tempting: because we are depraved creatures, bent in on ourselves and driven by sinful impulses, a philosophy that validates everything we feel and want and approves of our autonomy is incredibly appealing. People want to believe that they are free to do as they please; people want to believe they are not bound by a morality by which they may be judged. Modern philosophers will tell you that we are free to do as we please, but because they know precisely where this leads – who is to stop a murderer from doing what he pleases? a kidnapper from doing what he pleases? or a rapist from doing what he pleases? – they will then add disclaimers by which they try to keep morality’s foot in the door. The secular philosopher W.T. Stace writes:

‘The world, according to this new picture [of modern secular philosophy], is purposeless, senseless, meaningless. Nature is nothing but matter in motion. The motions of matter are governed, not by any purpose, but by blind forces and laws. . . . [But] if the scheme of things is purposeless and meaningless, then the life of man is purposeless and meaningless too. Everything is futile, all effort is in the end worthless. A man may, of course, still pursue disconnected ends, money, fame, art, science, and may gain pleasure from them. But his life is hollow at the center. Hence, the dissatisfied, disillusioned, restless, spirit of modern man. . . . Along with the ruin of the religious vision there went the ruin of moral principles and indeed of all values. . . . If our moral rules do not proceed from something outside us in the nature of the universe – whether we say it is God or simply the universe itself – then they must be our own inventions. Thus it came to be believed that moral rules must be merely an expression of our own likes and dislikes. But likes and dislikes are notoriously variable. What pleases one man, people or culture, displeases another. Therefore, morals are wholly relative.’

W.T. Stace captures the problem: if there’s no objective morality by which we are judged – whether that morality comes direct to us from a Creator or by the natural essences of what it means to live as a human being – then morality can only come from ourselves; and we are not in any way arbiters of what is right and wrong. Modern philosophers have sought to redefine morality and explain why it is something human beings seek to live by. A classicist or Christian would argue that morality comes top-down, from God to human beings, and that it is objective because it is rooted in essential natures and the created order; a secularist will argue that morality is horizontal – something unique to mankind and of mankind’s invention. A classicist or Christian would argue that we are beholden to morality because we are constrained to it from On High; a secularist will say that we are beholden to morality because it’s simply the best way to operate as a society. Let’s look at some of the high-points of secular morality and how they fall apart:

Morality as a Reflection of Widespread Human Values. Some modern philosophers have argued that there is such a thing as morality, but it doesn’t come from above but from within the human race as a whole. When one takes a telescopic look at humanity, it becomes apparent that certain values tend to be widespread. A classicist or a Christian would say, ‘Well, yes, and that’s exactly what you would expect to see if human beings are inherently moral and instinctively know of an objective moral code.’ This kind of reasoning doesn’t work for the secularist, of course, and they would say that the widespread values common to humanity are merely an illusion of moral objectivity – and all the while they cling to the illusion as if it were a life-raft preventing them from drowning in their own philosophy. If human morality is simply about what is common to human beings as a whole, then what happens if these widespread values shift? Does morality then change? And if it does change, it certainly can’t be promoted as moral advances or retreats, since morality, ultimately, doesn’t exist. Accordingly, the now-widespread horror of slavery can’t be considered a moral advance; it’s just a change in personal tastes. Nor can widespread acceptance of adultery and homosexuality be considered a moral regression; it just reflects a change in attitudes. The secular idea that the murder of unborn children is justified isn’t a moral advance or regression; it’s just a matter of personal taste (though if you oppose abortion, you’re often treated by secularists as if you’re lacking in morality, but that’s beside the point). One must ask: ‘What if people come to sincerely believe that it is good to kill unwanted infants, or unwanted toddlers or teenagers, or unwanted old or sick people? What if people come to sincerely believe that it is good to kill Jews, Christians, Muslims, blacks, or whoever?’ According to the secularists, this wouldn’t be a moral advance or a moral regression; it would just be a change in attitudes, and you wouldn’t be able to condemn it from any objective ground. Human beings, after all, aren’t made in God’s image; they have no intrinsic worth not shared by a mushroom, a beetle, or – if we’re honest – a piece of poop. We’re all just bags of gooey matter. In the last century, Nazis, communists, and jihadists have sought to remake society in their image; the classicist who believes in essential natures and the created order can oppose such activity as irrational and wicked behavior, but all the secularist can say is, ‘Boy, I hope they don’t succeed!’

Morality as a ‘Social Contract.’ Secularists claim that morality is nothing more than whatever rules people agree to follow for their ‘mutual advantage’ or for the ‘greatest happiness’; this has been called moral utilitarianism. Because everyone benefits from not being killed in their homes while they sleep, a rule against murder is acceptable. But because lots of people want to have sex without the constraints of marriage, fornication is okay; because lots of people want to have sex with people other than their spouses, adultery is okay; because lots of people want to have sex with members of the same sex, homosexuality is okay; because lots of people want to have sex without being burdened by children, abortion is okay. While this is touted as morality, it’s really nothing more than a ‘non-aggression pact between self-interested bundles of impulse and willfulness.’ Murderers, kidnappers, and racists aren’t condemned by society because they did anything wrong but simply because they violated the current social contract; if you get your kicks by kidnapping, murdering, and raping little boys, the social contract tells you that you’ll be hunted down if you follow through on your desires, so it’s smart to go along with the social contract so you don’t have to suffer for ‘doing what feels right.’ Of course, if widespread human values change, and kidnapping and murder and rape become acceptable, you’ll be able to rock your socks off and walk head-held-high through society without being burdened by anything as pesky as Right and Wrong. Secularists thus consider human morality an assertion of the prevailing and ever-shifting sensibilities of the majority of human beings (or at least of those with the loudest voices). Morality has no ultimate basis in objective fact or reason; it’s founded on sentiment and existing custom. 

We close with a quote from the classicist philosopher Edward Feser: 

‘Contemporary Western civilization, or at least its liberal-progressive ‘mainstream,’ cannot fail to seem a stinking cesspool of wickedness and irrationality. There was a time when even many liberals would have agreed with this judgment. Had you told a William Gladstone or even a John F. Kennedy that the liberalism of the future would be defined by abortion on demand and ‘same-sex marriage,’ and that its avant-garde would be contemplating infanticide, bestiality, and necrophilia, they would have thought you mad. Certainly if you could have convinced them that this is the sort of thing to which their principles were leading, they would have been moved to do a serious rethink. But we are well past the time when slippery-slope arguments might be used to try to shock a liberal or a secularist out of his folly. You can no longer attempt the reductio ad absurdum with him, for he will now simply embrace with enthusiasm any absurdity that follows from his premises and thank you for suggesting it to him. He is well through the looking glass, his mind and his moral sensibility so thoroughly corrupted that to him it is obvious that black is white, up is down, sodomy is marriage, and scraping a fetus from its mother’s womb is compassion. After a centuries-long climb up to the light that began with the ancient Greeks and culminated in the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas, modern man began a descent that has ended with the contemporary secularist lost once again in the bowels of Plato’s cave, as blind as the pathetic denizens described in the Republic and as certain of his own rightness and of the madness and evil of those who would try to free him from his delusions.’

LGBTQ: Paul and Plato in Romans 1

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. [Romans 1.18-32, NIV]

In Romans 1.18-32, Paul gives us a telescopic look at mankind’s depravity. He asserts that God’s wrath is being revealed upon His rebellious creatures, and then He expands upon their rebellion: mankind inherently knows that God exists, for He has revealed His power and divine nature in creation. Creation instructs us to fear God and to be grateful for His provision. However, mankind has willfully suppressed these truths, refusing to honor or thank God, and our thinking has become futile and our hearts have been darkened. We exchanged the truth about God for lies of our own creation, and we became idolaters, worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. It is because of this – our suppression of natural truth, our rejection of God, and our idolatry – that God’s wrath is being revealed. His wrath manifests itself in that He ‘gives us over’ to our sin. Sometimes God’s judgment is to let us have our own way. It is here – in verses 26 and 27 – that Paul refers to homosexual activity: women sleeping with women and men sleeping with men. He says these practices are unnatural, or against nature, depending on your translation. However, these shameful acts provoked by shameful lusts are just the tip of the iceberg: all mankind, regardless of whether or not their sexual proclivities tend towards homosexual activity, stand in the docket for a variety of sins. Paul chastises not only those who commit these sins but also those who approve of those who practice them. A man may not be gay, but by showing solidarity in a Gay Pride Parade, he’s courting the unnatural evil of deviant sexual living and is judged alongside it. 

That Paul condemns same-sex sexual activities is apparent; but what does he mean when he says that such activities are ‘against nature’? Some have argued that Paul is talking only about those whose sexual orientation is straight; for them, homosexual sex is against their personal nature. In the same vein, if a man of homosexual orientation were to have straight sex, that would thus be going against ‘his nature,’ and thus he would be guilty of personal aberrant sexual behavior. This assumes that God makes people homosexual and that He intends they live a homosexual life; many ‘Gay Christians’ (as oxymoronic a phrase as ‘Adulterous Christians’ or ‘Idolatrous Christians’ or ‘Incestual Christians’) argue that their homosexual orientation is a gift from God, that it is part of their nature, and thus they honor God by living how He created them (this is an example of what ‘futile thinking’ looks like in practice). We must reject this interpretation of what Paul says, for on the one hand he wouldn’t be aware of the concept of sexual orientation, as it’s a modern concept; and on the other he expressly believes that human beings are sinful to the core, so the whole argument of ‘this is how God made me’ would be met with ‘no, that’s how deep sin has infected you, so repent.’ Ultimately, Paul isn’t addressing one’s orientation so much as he’s addressing one’s behavior. He isn’t talking about those who war against shameful lusts but those who embrace those lusts in action. Some have argued that Paul is talking about the natural world: it isn’t natural for members of the same sex to have sex with each other. However, anyone who’s owned a dog can tell you that’s not true. A frisky male dog will mount other male dogs, their own brothers, a luckless human’s leg, and even inanimate objects. Dogs, then, are guilty of homosexual sex, incest, bestiality, and just plain stupidity. If Paul was talking about what we see in the animal kingdom, then he’s shown for a fool, and can we then assume that homosexual sex, bestiality, and incest are thus okay for human beings, since they’re present in the animal kingdom and we are animals, too? That’s absurd. We aren’t dogs and shouldn’t make canine behavior the litmus test for what is right and wrong for human beings. What, then, is Paul talking about when he says homosexual activity is ‘against nature’? The answer is found in Greco-Roman philosophy. 

Classical Western Philosophy: A Primer

The Greek philosopher Plato lived in the 4th century BC, and it was his brand of philosophy that was tweaked by Aristotle and fine-tuned by the medieval philosopher Thomas Aquinas to become the foundation of classical western philosophy. Plato believed that all of reality is encompassed by three realms: the Immaterial realm, or ‘The Realm of Forms,’ which was the world of the abstract and home to concepts, ideas, and perfect forms; the Material realm, which was a dim and distorted reflection of the Immaterial realm; and the Internal realm, which was the world of consciousness and reason by which we know the Material and Immaterial realms. Plato taught that within the Immaterial realm were the ‘Perfect Forms’ of those things that appear, in dim and distorted form, in the Material realm. Forms are the non-physical essences of all things, of which objects and matter in the physical world are merely imitations. Every object or quality in reality has an immaterial form to which it corresponds and by which it is judged: dogs, human beings, mountains, colors, courage, love, and goodness all correspond to their perfect forms in the immaterial realm.

How does this work? Let’s take dogs for an example. There are plenty of dogs in the world, and they vary in all sorts of ways, and each and every one is an imperfect representation of the ‘true’ concept of dog that exists in the Immaterial Realm as an abstract yet perfect idea. This ‘form’ of the dog in the immaterial world defines what it means to be a ‘Good Dog.’ A ‘Good Dog,’ then, is one that conforms to the pattern of the Form of Dog. The Form of Dog defines the purpose and function of the dog. Let us say that the ‘Good Dog’ is one that travels in packs, eats meat, doesn’t shit where it sleeps, and fetches a stick and returns that stick to its owner. It would follow, then, that a dog that doesn’t have a pack is still a dog but is not a ‘Good Dog’ in the sense that it’s not being true to its form; a dog that eats cucumbers would, in the same vein, not be a Good Dog. A dog that fetches the stick and then drops it wouldn’t be a Good Dog, nor would the dog that defecates in its own cage. In all these instances, the dog is failing to conform to the Form and is thus a ‘Bad Dog.’ Platonic philosophy teaches that all dogs are imperfect representations; in some way or another, all dogs fail to conform to the Form of Dog. Some dogs do it because they’re stubborn or don’t care; some may be too stupid to fetch a stick, and others may be crippled by no fault of their own and would thus be unable to fetch a stick. The reasons for the imperfections are absolutely irrelevant; what matters is whether or not a dog conforms to the Form of Dog. The more a dog does conform to its perfect Form, the ‘better’ the dog is; conversely, the farther it varies from the perfect Form, the ‘worse’ it is. Note that a ‘Bad Dog’ doesn’t cease being a dog; it’s simply a dog that is failing to live up to its nature – to its purpose and function – as defined by the Form of Dog.

There is also a Form of Mankind, even a Form of Man and a Form of Woman. For Plato – and Aristotle, and the medieval philosophers who followed them – the Form of Mankind captures the essence of what it means to be human. To be a ‘Good Human’ – or a ‘Good Man’ or a ‘Good Woman’ – is to conform to the Form in the Immaterial Realm. What makes a man or woman good isn’t subjective – it isn’t based upon feelings or personal values – but is objective, and this objective ‘good’ captures the essence of what it means to be a man or woman; the Form informs the nature of mankind, and of man and woman respectively; the Form informs the purpose and function of mankind, and of man and woman respectively. ‘Goodness’ as a man or woman has literally nothing to do with what any individual man or woman happens to value or desire at any given time; goodness has to do entirely with how much (or little) a man or woman conforms to what it means to be a man or woman in the Immaterial Realm. In Christian thought, God as Creator has established what it means to be a ‘good’ man or a ‘good’ woman, and the Christian life involves abandoning our deviations from that form and striving to adhere to it. 

The Forms in the immaterial realm don’t only correspond to physical things, like atoms or rocks or trees or dogs or human beings. The Forms in the immaterial realm also include things not physically present in the material realm but which are instinctively known (such as ‘Justice’ and ‘Love’) or found to be true (such as mathematics, geometry, language, etc.). To deny the Immaterial Realm is to completely corrode the basis for mathematics, geometry, and even science itself (and this is a problem that modern philosophers continue to tackle, though unsuccessfully). Let us take, for example, the abstract concepts of ‘Justice,’ ‘Love,’ and ‘Truth.’ Plato argued that there was a Form of Justice, a Form of Love, and a Form of Truth in the Immaterial Realm, despite their physical absence in the material realm (you can’t tell me the color or shape or texture of justice, can you?). To deny the Immaterial Realm is to deny the reality of justice, love, and truth; modern philosophy has done this very thing, and the consequences have been absolutely disastrous. If there is no such thing as Justice, then there is no such thing as Injustice; if there is no such thing as Love, then there is no such thing as hate; if there is no such thing as Truth, then there’s no such thing as Lies. To get rid of the Immaterial Realm, where Justice and Love and Truth are defined and used as a measuring stick for us in the ‘real world,’ is to plunge society into a dark age wherein justice, love, and truth are no more than silly ideas with no moral authority. 

Plato taught that human beings instinctively know of Justice, Love, Beauty, and Truth because human souls are immortal and, before being planted in the material realm, existed in the immaterial realm where they came into contact and came to know the Forms of these abstract concepts. The highest Form, according to Plato, was The Form of the Good. The Form of the Good cannot be clearly seen or explained, but it is the form that allows one to realize all the other forms. The definition of the Good is a perfect, eternal, and changeless Form, existing outside space and time, in which particular good things share. Medieval philosophers taught that Plato’s Form of the Good was, in reality, God Himself. God is perfect, eternal, and changeless; God exists outside space and time; and He is the source not only of everything that exists but also the source of the Forms themselves. Medieval philosophers believed that the reason human beings knew of the Forms – in what we would nowadays call ‘common sense’ – is because we are created in God’s image. As God’s special creatures, just a bit lower than the angels and a good step above the animals, we have one foot in the Immaterial Realm and one foot in the Material Realm. Our instinctive knowledge of Justice, Love, and Truth is a knowledge not shared by any non-human creatures; it is a knowledge that has been given to us not because we existed ‘eternally’ with the Forms in the Immaterial Realm but because we have been granted this knowledge of the Forms by the God who created us. 

The Nature of Man and Woman in Romans 1

This brings us back to what Paul says in Romans 1. When he says that men and women acted ‘against nature’ in engaging in sexual acts with members of the same sex, he was borrowing from Greek philosophy. To say that homosexual activities are ‘against nature’ is to say that they do not correspond to the essence of what it means to be human. Both the form and function of men and women, their reproductive organs, and the result of sexual union informs us that it is normative for a man to bed a woman and to produce children: the form of the penis and vagina fit lock-and-key, and the intended result or function of that union is the production of offspring. The form of man and the form of woman indicates that we are designed for heterosexual sex: it was for the purpose of procreation that God designed the penis and vagina the way they are – He designed the penis to fit deep inside the woman, He designed the vagina to secrete lubrication to facilitate this penetration, and He designed the penis to ejaculate semen into a specific place in the female so that the sperm can connect with an egg and fertilize. This may be a bit graphic, but it’s an important point: the basic biological design of man and woman indicates that sex is designed for procreation between a man and a woman. Any sexual activity that deviates from this is inherently unnatural; this is why Paul can say, in Romans 1, that men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women is ‘against nature.’ It is clear that God designed men and women to operate sexually in tandem with one another. 

No one can argue that the final and natural purpose of sex isn’t procreation. It doesn’t matter if people engage in sex for their own reasons; their reasons may differ from nature’s reasons, but it is nature’s reasons that inform us of what is natural and good for mankind. Some may argue that the purpose of sex is pleasure, and there’s no denying that sex is pleasurable; but pleasure isn’t the final or natural end of sex. Sexual pleasure has its own ‘final end’ in getting people to have sex so that they will procreate. Just as eating is pleasurable, the biological point of eating isn’t to give us pleasure but to fuel our bodies for survival. The pleasure we experience in eating is God’s way of getting us to do what we need to do to keep us trucking along. In the same way, the purpose of sex is procreation, and pleasure serves to get us to the point where we have sex so that we can procreate; God commanded us to ‘multiply and fill the earth,’ and He gave us pleasure so that we had a reason to do it. God has also built us in such a way that sexual arousal is hard to resist and occurs frequently; the end result is that it’s difficult to avoid pregnancies resulting from indulging that arousal. Thus God didn’t just make sex pleasurable for us so that we would engage in it, but He also made our desire for it frequent so that we really would ‘fill the earth.’ With this in mind, we can address a poignant question and make an observation:

The Question: ‘Is it sinful to have sex for the purpose of pleasure?’ The natural end of sex is procreation; that is its purpose. The purpose of sexual pleasure is to get us to have sex, and the purpose of sex is to get us to have babies. Some might argue that because the ultimate purpose of sex is to have babies, then having sex for the pleasure of sex is somehow sinful. This is preposterous! It’s like saying that because the purpose of eating is to fuel the body with nutrients, it is sinful to eat a shepherd’s pie because you like the way it tastes and are satisfied afterward. God made food taste good so that we would be driven to eat; He knows most of us aren’t sitting down at a banquet saying, ‘I’ve really expended some calories this afternoon, time to refuel my energy so that I can continue operating at peak performance.’ Nor does God believe that most of us are going to have sex for the sole purpose of procreating; as any married couple who’s trying for a baby knows, sometimes the act itself can be exhausting if that’s your prime motivation. God has designed us with arousal and the desire for sexual pleasure, and it isn’t sinful to be driven towards sex by virtue of seeking that pleasure, because that is the way God designed us. However, it is sinful if we seek to wholly deprive sex of its intended end, frustrating its natural goal. While there are often good reasons for delaying procreation, there are far more reasons not to delay procreation; and while there are good reasons for engaging in foreplay that may not result in procreation, there are no good reasons for deliberately terminating the life of an unborn child that results from sexual activities. Abortion, at its most base level, is the brutal termination of life and a frustrating of the natural purpose of sex, which is procreation. 

The Observation: A Nuclear Family is a Natural Product of Procreation. If ‘nature takes its course,’ then women are put under a heavy burden. They’re bound to become pregnant and to do so frequently. The children, too, are burdened, because for a long time they are utterly dependent upon others for their needs. These needs include biological needs – food, water, and shelter – as well as moral and cultural needs, since human beings are rational creatures. Children require education in what is right and wrong and discipline when they error. For human beings, procreation isn’t just about producing a bunch of new organisms but also of raising them into persons who can fulfill their essence as rational and moral people. Thus, if the nature of procreation runs it course, women and children are put under a heavy burden – which is why nature has also ‘ordained’ someone to provide for them. Fathers have a strong incentive to look after their own children rather than the neighbor’s kids, and they are naturally jealous of the affections of the women with whom they have children. Thus nature – or, as Christians understand it, God – has put a heavy burden on fathers, too, so that they’re pushed to devoting their daily labors to providing for their children and the mother of his children. When the nature of procreation runs its course, it’s only natural that the man fathers multiple children, so that his commitment is necessarily long-term. In this way, the final purpose of sex – procreation – pushes the man and woman who procreate towards something like marriage and the nuclear family. Marriage, and the nuclear family, exists not merely as a consequence of reproduction but for the purpose of nourishing children biologically, morally, and culturally. 

We have thus seen that classical western philosophy teaches that all things have certain natures – which encompass both their form and function – and that deviation from that nature or essence is to reject conformity to what it means to be good. Homosexual activity, which deviates from the form of heterosexual sex and the function of procreation, is thus a ‘defect’ in that it is a refusal to conform to the natural essence of what it means to be a man or woman. Some have argued against this by asking, ‘So what if homosexuality has a genetic basis? Would it thus be natural?’ Even if it were to be discovered that there’s a genetic basis to homosexuality, that doesn’t mean homosexuality is thus ‘natural’ for human beings. Researchers have found that genetics plays a role in babies being born with cleft lips; are we then going to state that cleft lips are ‘natural’ for human beings, corresponding to the way humans are to look? Obviously cleft lips are unnatural, a defect, despite there being a genetic basis; they are defects because they break from the nature of how a palate is to form. No one who has a cleft lip would take offense if you were to note that cleft lips are unnatural; nor would someone with a cleft lip be necessarily led to embrace and celebrate it because it has a genetic basis. The possibility of a genetic basis for homosexual desire doesn’t mean that the desire is natural, anymore than a genetic basis for cleft lips means cleft lips are natural. 

Thus we can see, from the position of classical western philosophy, that the form of man and woman are matched in order to procreate. Since the final cause of human sexual capacities is procreation, what is good for human beings in the use of those capacities is to use them only in a way consistent with this final cause or purpose. To embrace sexual perversions is to embrace a lifestyle that is subhuman, in the sense that the lifestyle falls far from the mark of what it means to be human. This doesn’t mean, of course, that those who embrace sexual perversion are no longer human; it simply means that they aren’t acting as a human should act. They have not lost any of the inherent worth, value, and dignity that human beings have by virtue of being made in God’s image. To embrace forms of subhuman living – and, in reality, all sins have in common the fact that to practice them is to court subhuman living – is to embrace a detrimental lifestyle. The goal of Greek philosophy was to live a fully flourishing human life, what the Greeks called eudaimonia. Greek philosophy sought to determine how to live as a fully flourishing human being. To live as such is to acknowledge that there is such a thing as good living and bad living, and the litmus test of such living was the perfect Form of man and woman. A fully flourishing man lived as a man was to live; a fully flourishing woman lived as a woman is to live; to live otherwise was to detract from a flourishing life. Christians acknowledge that there is such a thing as a fully flourishing human life: it is living as God designed men and women to live. We can know how God designed us to live from both natural revelation – ‘What does basic biology tell us about men and women, of their form and function?’ – and divine revelation, in which God reveals what He expects of us. It isn’t shocking that natural revelation and divine revelation go hand-in-hand, informing us that sexual perversions are against the essence of what it means to be human. All sin is deviation from the way God created us to live, and sanctification – the process whereby we daily repent of our sins and seek to conform ourselves to God’s desires for us – is not only about pleasing God in the way we live or in our obedience of His commands; it’s ultimately about getting back on track with how human beings are created to live. Morality doesn’t rest on arbitrary divine commands but on what is good and proper for human nature; this is the teaching of both the Bible and classic western philosophy. A fully flourishing life is discovered in living as God designed us to live specifically as men and women. 

To bring all this to bear on the subject at hand, sexual activity between two members of the same sex is a deviation from what it means to be a sexual human being. It is an unnatural thing to do, and it is a defective way of living as a human being. Such a statement is seen nowadays as shocking and offensive, but it’s been the standard view of western civilization for up to about five minutes ago, and it remains the standard view outside the secular west. In the western world, not only homosexual behavior, premarital sex, and the like, but even contraception between married people was widely condemned until very recently. Sigmund Freud himself noted matter-of-factly that: ‘It is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse – if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently.’ Western society has gone on a totally different path in the way it views human sexuality and sexual expression, and we’ll look at this next week; but in light of this, it’s good to remember this golden rule as established by Anthony Esolen: ‘If people have always said it, it is probably true; it is the distilled wisdom of the ages. If people have not always said it, but everybody is saying it now, it is probably a lie; it is the concentrated madness of the moment.’ 

LGBTQ and the Bible

The Question: 'How should a Christian approach the LGBTQ Movement?'

To answer, we need to ask, 'What does the Creator have to say on the subject?' To answer this we go to the Bible, not our feelings or cultural morals. Many Christians stake their answer upon the secular belief that sexual deviations from the established norm (heterosexuality) is okay. Secularism teaches that human beings are nothing more than 'enlightened animals' (whatever that means), and thus we are beholden to no moral framework beyond 'live and let live' (though from whence even that moral framework comes, who can say?). Secularism teaches us that because there are no moral standards for sexual behavior - excluding, one might say, coerced sexual acts, despite such things being common in the animal kingdom (though not appropriate for 'enlightened' animals, I suppose) - then there is no such thing as moral sexual deviation. Those lifestyles, orientations, and what-have-you promoted by the LGBTQ+ Movement are, top-to-bottom, deviations from heterosexual orientation and practice. While the Bible doesn't address every 'orientation' advocated by the movement (for 'orientation' itself is a concept foreign to the Bible, and even if it weren't, most of the 'orientations' now embraced didn't exist until five minutes ago), the Bible does address deviation from the created order for human sexuality. Homosexual activity, incest, and bestiality are all deviations from God's created order for how men and women embrace sexuality; what holds true for one deviation thus holds true for all deviations. Here we will look at what the Bible says on homosexual activity, for it is perhaps the most common sexual deviation of the LGBTQ movement and, as a deviation, is representative of them all; also, it was commonly enough practiced in the ancient world to be addressed in the Bible. Whether deviations should be embraced or rejected comes down to the authority by which you judge; for Christians, it means, 'By whose authority do we determine how to approach sexual deviations?' If the animal kingdom is the highest authority, then we will answer according to its rules. If culture is the highest authority, then we will answer by its rules. And if God is the highest authority, we must answer by His rules.

The Bible, which Christians understand to by God's holy and revealed Word, reveals that human sexuality is a good thing to be nurtured, cherished, celebrated, and engaged. However, human sexuality is to be practiced in the right way. In God's created order - the way He established things to operate, and in which things find true freedom and full expression - sexual practices are to be confined to certain parameters. When these parameters are breached, the result is chaos and brokenness (as the sad story of American culture makes clear). In God's created order, the way things are to be, a man is to live as a man and enjoy sex with his female wife; conversely, a woman is to live as a woman and enjoy sex with her male husband. Deviations from this standard - from the created order - are condemned across the board. The Bible reveals that homosexual activity - along with a host of other sexual perversions, such as bestiality and incest - are not only sinful but also 'abominable.' That last word comes from the Hebrew to-ebah, which carries the image of vomiting and gives us the unpleasant picture of God throwing up in His mouth at the very sight of these sinful activities. Sexual perversions of all stripes make God want to vomit; they're that detestable. The prophet Isaiah, in laying charges against the ungodly people of Judah, laments a number of 'societal sins' in the early part of his book, and he gives us a hallmark of a society opposed to God: they call evil good and good evil, they call darkness light and light darkness, and they call bitter sweet and sweet bitter. Our society mocks God's standards and laws, and some Christians have gone along with it by supporting those who do such things - despite the fact that in Romans 1, Paul says to even support such things is to be party to them. In Ephesians 5 Paul instructs God's people to expose sins, including those that infect culture, and the contemporary western belief that LGBTQ lifestyles and practices aren't only okay but also worthy of praise - something to take 'pride' in, as it were - is a blatant revolt against God's designs for men and women. 

In this first installment of a four-part series on the Christian approach to LGBTQ and its ilk, we'll examine some major biblical texts that specifically address the sin of homosexual activity (noting, of course, that what holds true for this sexual deviation holds true for them all). In the next installment we will focus in on Romans 1, paying particular attention to how Paul is building off of Greek philosophy and how that philosophy, entrenched in the western classical tradition, informs our view of men, women, and morality. In the third installment we will examine the Enlightenment-era rejection of classical western philosophy, examining why it was rejected, what was put in its place, and we will trace how modern philosophy has led us to where we're at and how modern philosophy will eventually burn itself out, for it has cut off the very branch upon which it sits. In the fourth installment we will pivot from sexually-oriented lifestyles to the modern concept of gender and gender identity and how a Christian should approach the current morass of gender politics. As we begin, note that I have made an attempt - at times failing, perhaps - to emphasize sexual activity over sexual orientation; this is because, in biblical times, there was no concept of 'sexual orientation.' The Bible condemns deviant sexual behaviors, not temptations towards deviant behaviors, and the Bible affirms that our sinful natures can lead us to do all sorts of weird stuff and swing every which way. As we examine the texts below, beginning in the Old Testament and then delving into the New, we will look at common objections against them. The last part of this first installment will look at some of the more popular objections (though in no way exhaustive) raised against the biblical approach to deviant sexual activity. We begin in the Old Testament.

Leviticus 18.22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20.13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

In the Book of Leviticus, God gave the Israelites His laws. These laws fall into three categories: ceremonial, cultural, and moral. Ceremonial laws dealt with making sure one is appropriately clean before entering the tabernacle, where God dwells with the Ark of the Covenant. Cultural laws dealt with making sure the Israelites remained culturally distinct from their neighbors; to this end God gave them some weird laws to make sure they didn't blend in with the surrounding culture. Moral laws included those which deal with what is morally right and wrong; they dealt with actual moral sin and uprightness. In these moral laws, God revealed His standard for ethical human living; violations of that standard are considered perversions, or deviations from His created order. The prohibition on homosexual activity - a man lying with a man as he lies with a woman (and, conversely inherent, a woman doing the same with another woman) - falls into the category of moral law. To do is a perversion, since it is a deviation from the created order, which refers to the way God has designed human beings to function; this deviation is not only a perversion but also an abomination, in that it is so detestable that it makes God want to puke. 

A common objection to the Levitical prohibition on homosexual activity goes like this: 'Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and Christians no longer live under Mosaic Law; therefore, the prohibition against homosexual activity is no longer binding. Those who want Leviticus 18 and 20 to remain binding need to be consistent and be bound by the rest of Leviticus, so no more pork or shellfish for you!' A Christian response to this challenge is twofold. First, Jesus did fulfill the Law in that the Law pointed to him, and in Christ we are no longer bound by the ceremonial and cultural laws of Leviticus. The ceremonial laws dealt with making sure those going to the tabernacle - and, later, the Temple - were fit to be in God's presence; Christ's atonement accomplishes our cleansing in a way that Levitical laws never could so that we can come boldly before God without having to undergo ritual purification (this is what the New Testament Book of Hebrews is all about). The cultural laws that served to keep Israel distinct from the nations are no longer binding because the purpose of those laws was to keep Israel culturally distinct for the coming of Christ; with Christ now come and reigning, those laws have served their purpose and are no longer binding. Moral law, however, such as what we find in Leviticus 18 and the Ten Commandments, remains binding. Right and wrong haven't changed with the coming of Christ, and that's why the New Testament echoes the moral laws of the Old Testament. Thus those who argue that Christians are being inconsistent in applying Leviticus 18 while eating 'forbidden foods' are really showcasing their ignorance: they don't understand what Christians actually believe and why we believe it, but nor do they have any desire to learn. They condemn us for inconsistency, but they are inconsistent as well: if the prohibition against homosexual activity is no longer binding, and such activities are to be accepted and praised, how long until one not only accepts but also praises incest, child abuse, and bestiality, which Leviticus condemns in the same breath? Sadly, some godless people are cozying up to these things as 'nothing bad at all,' for that is directly where modern philosophy takes them.

The New Testament isn't shy about denouncing homosexual activity, but nor does it harp upon it. We will look first at two texts in which the Apostle Paul uses a Greek word he coined, arsenokoites, to refer to homosexual activity; we will then examine Jude 6-7, which highlights the egregious sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

1 Timothy 1.8-10 - But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

1 Corinthians 6.8-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

In 1 Timothy Paul says the Mosaic Law is good, adding that it was made for the unrighteous, not for the righteous. He means that the Law serves to show fallen man the moral law of God, and in the Law we see where we fall short and need redemption. The Law condemns all sorts of sins, 'homosexuality' among them. The English word 'homosexuality' is used to translate the Greek word arsenokoites, which Paul also uses in 1 Corinthians 6 (here it is translated 'homosexuals'). Though both 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' in the English versions imply a deviant sexual orientation, we must bear in mind that Paul couldn't have been thinking of orientation for the simple reason that it's a modern concept. What he is addressing is actual homosexual behavior, saying in 1 Timothy that the Law is made for the arsenokoites and in 1 Corinthians that the arsenokoites cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Given the note made just a few sentences earlier, it's important to understand that Paul isn't talking about those having a 'homosexual orientation' but of those who persistently and willfully engage in homosexual activity. In the same vein, it isn't the one who wrestles against the urge to steal whom Paul speaks of but the one who makes a living off thievery; it isn't the recovering alcoholic who may trip up every now and again whom Paul has in mind but the willful drunk who delights in being a drunkard and persists in his sin. Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 6 that the Christians of Corinth were once these very sort of people - Paul, knowing the backstory of the Corinthian Christians, likely mentioned specific sins that he knew had been present in the lives of the converts - but that they were washed and cleansed and set on the path of obedience. 

Many modern interpreters resist interpreting arsenokoites as referring to homosexual activity and, instead, advocate other interpretations of the word: perhaps Paul was referring to male temple prostitutes or perhaps, even, pedophilia. Their argument is founded on two realities: first, arsenokoites isn't found in stock Greek vocabulary and is a word that Paul seems to have coined on his own; second, if Paul was referring to homosexual activity, he would've used the Greek word androkoites, which specifically addresses homosexual activity. Because Paul coined a word rather than using the standard Greek word for homosexual activity, he must be speaking of something else (or so the argument goes). This argument seems logical on the front, but it's rooted in a straightforward assumption: 'We don't know what arsenokoites means!' However, upon closer examination, we find that we do know what arsenokoites means: we know how he coined it and why he coined it. The term he coins come directly from the two Greek words used in the Greek translation of Leviticus 18 in which homosexual activity is condemned; Paul 'coined' the compound word, but it didn't come from a vacuum. The Septuagint's translation of the Levitical passage says, in effect, 'Don't bed [koite] a man [arseno] like you would a woman.' Hence, arsenokoites is a man who beds a man like he would bed a woman. Paul coins the word so that his readers, steeped in Old Testament teaching (despite being predominantly Gentile, their holy scripture was the Old Testament), would know precisely what he was talking about. 

Jude 6-7 - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude references two episodes in Old Testament history: the 'judgment' of rebellious elohim - the Sons of God in Genesis 6 - who committed sexually deviant acts and propagated false teachings; and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah since they, in the same manner as the sons of God, committed sexually deviant acts. Jude says that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah - their destruction by fire and brimstone - is an example to us of the punishment awaiting those who rebel against God. According to Jude, the sins for which these cities were destroyed was 'gross immorality' and going after 'strange flesh.' In the biblical account in Genesis 18-19, Lot gives shelter to two angels, and the men of Sodom demand he hand them over so they can rape them. The obvious sin here isn't merely violation of cultural hospitality rules - as some have lately argued - but the sin of homosexual activity. Sodom was, apparently, a bastion of gay living; for this reason, the term 'sodomy' - the act of one man penetrating another - was born. Such penetration was stock living for Sodom's men. Some interpreters, bowing to culture's softening towards sexual perversion, have argued that Sodom's sin was attempting rape, haughtiness, or egoism. Because our culture doesn't see any problem with one man penetrating another, they try to rework the Sodom and Gomorrah story, but in doing so they ignore Jude 7, which blatantly states that it was Sodom's gross immorality and desire for 'strange flesh' (in other words, deviant sexual activity) that damned them. Our culture glories in Sodom's ancient rites, and that's troubling, for we know how God deals with such cultures. Deviations from the sexual norm - whether of the homosexual variety, as we see in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of any other variety, as seen in the story of the Sons of God - are detestable and procure God's wrath. 

One of the most prominent New Testament texts against homosexual activity is found in Romans 1, where Paul condemns sexual activity as being 'against nature'. We'll examine that text next week, deciphering what he means and why it's important. But before we wrap up, let's look at some common objections raised against the Bible's prohibition of homosexual activity (and, in tandem, all other deviant sexual activity). 

Objection #1: 'Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexual activity, so how come Christians - who follow Jesus - condemn it?' This objection assumes that Jesus covered anything and everything during his ministry; it also assumes the gospels record every little thing he said and did (which they do not); it further assumes that the rest of the New Testament isn't inspired by God. All these assumptions aside, while Jesus didn't, as far as we know, address homosexual activity specifically, he did affirm the created order: in other words, he affirmed that God made mankind male and female and expects them to live as men and women are to live. Deviations from the created order are perversions, and some of these perversions - such as homosexual activity - are abominations. Jesus affirms the created order and doesn't oppose the Jewish perspectives on that created order, implying that he affirmed it all the way through. 

Objection #2: 'Why does God care what we do in our bedrooms?' This question assumes that God is akin to the CEO of Company Earth: why should the CEO care what we do on our own time behind closed doors? But God is not just 'the boss' (though He is that); God is the creator, and the creator gets to decide how is creation functions. If you create a line of code, and that code becomes corrupted, operating out-of-bounds of the script, the code is thus defective. It's failing to operate how the creator intends is to operate. The creator has every right to determine how the code operates and to define what is 'normative' and 'right' for the code. In the same way, God as the creator of human beings has every right to define what is 'normative' and 'right' for human beings. Any deviation from the intended 'order of operations' for human beings (what we call 'the created order') is an affront to the creator and must be dealt with. This objection is, ultimately, rooted in our fallen desire for autonomy and self-rule; the very thought that we are beholden to a higher authority, and that we are expected to conform to rules and patterns that we did not decide for ourselves, chafes against our autonomous proclivities. 

Objection #3: 'Paul was just talking about non-consensual, or coerced, homosexual activity, not that activity between two loving or consensual adults.' This argument is popular today, and it's based on 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 where Paul uses the word arsenokoites. Ignoring the context of where that word comes from - Leviticus 18 - they insist that Paul's word has to do with homosexual temple prostitution or the Greco-Roman practice of pedophilia between grown men and boys; but Paul doesn't confine his prohibition to temple prostitution, or to pedophilia, and we wouldn't argue that bestiality,  incest, murdering a child, or adultery is permissible outside religious contexts so long as it's consensual (though, ironically, these are things which our culture has consistently embraced under the authority of secular philosophy, indicating, again, the depth of our society's depravity). In regards to pedophilia, because such a practice happened in the Greco-world (though not to extent they would have you believe), they argue that Paul is condemning, particularly, grown men forcing young boys to have sex with them. However, Paul doesn't confine the act to coerced sexual activity; and if this same interpretation is applied to Leviticus 18, then we must be consistent: incest, the murder of a child, adultery, and bestiality are permissible as long as they are uncoerced (though how to get permission from a goat is beyond me)! This obviously doesn't make sense. Also, in Romans 1.26-27, Paul's condemnation of homosexual activity does not depend on the translation of a word coined by Paul in his other writings. In the Romans passage, Paul lists men and women abandoning the natural sexual act (heterosexual sex) for what is unnatural (homosexual sex) as an example of man's abominations resulting from abandoning the truth of God in exchange for a lie. The New Testament condemns homosexual activity across the board, regardless if it's between consenting adults, a form of temple prostitution, or pedophilia.

Objection #4: 'If people are born gay, then God is unfair in condemning for their desires!' This line of reasoning assumes that we are all born the way God wants us to be and ignores the biblical teaching that we are born sinful and depraved. This depravity affects our flesh particularly and our sexual proclivities especially. Sexual deviations from God's created order are so normal and widespread because sin's infections run deep and twist us up in all sorts of ways. The Bible teaches that we are born sinful, and we are held responsible for the sinful choices we make. The idea that some people are 'born gay' rather than being nurtured into homosexuality or even choosing it is used to oppose the Bible's prohibition: if someone is born, regardless of choice, with certain inclinations, should they be condemned for those inclinations? Let us assume that some people are indeed 'born gay,' destined to desire sexual activity and romance with members of the same sex. What is the Christian response to their dilemma? It is twofold: first, we acknowledge that everyone has a bend towards particular 'besetting' sins with which we struggle on a regular basis. For some this may be homosexual lust; for others it may be anger, or heterosexual lust, or pride, or love of money, or stealing. Everyone's got something. We are all born depraved with sinful natures. Second, we are held responsible for what we do, not what tempts us. God doesn't condemn us for being tempted by sin; Jesus was tempted and never sinned. What condemns us is when we choose the sin that tempts us. A person isn't condemned for being born with a disposition towards drunkenness and alcoholism; he is condemned for getting drunk and becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a person isn't condemned for being born with a disposition towards homosexual activity; he is condemned for engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex. This is an important distinction: the Bible doesn't condemn he who is tempted by sinful desires but he who commits them.

A Parting Shot: 'How should we as Christians treat those who are sexually attracted to the same sex?' We are to treat them the same way we treat everyone else, for we are all sinful and inclined towards things which God detests. We are to be loving and graceful, not excusing their sin but not treating them as pariahs. They are made in the image of God, same as anyone else; they are worthy of the same dignity as one who is heterosexual; and God loves them no more or less than he loves the most upright among us. That being said, to love them doesn't mean to excuse their sin, tell them it's okay, or to celebrate it alongside them. Just as we wouldn't celebrate adultery, or unlawful divorce, or outbursts of anger or love for money, so we shouldn't celebrate homosexual activity.

debrief: Jeremiah

It’s taken me much longer than anticipated to finish the Book of Jeremiah (approximately three times as long as it took to finish the Book of Isaiah). My goal was to read at least a chapter a day; some days I read more than a chapter, but (more often) some days I read less. This isn’t a dig on Jeremiah. It’s an excellent book and worthy of thoughtful study. In this post I’m going to give a bare-bones sketch of the prophet Jeremiah. His book is interesting because, unlike with Isaiah, it’s about dead-even between stereotypical prophecies and narratives of Jeremiah’s life. 

The Person of Jeremiah

Jeremiah’s name means ‘Yahweh will raise’ or ‘Yahweh will cast down,’ an apt name because Jeremiah prophesies the ‘casting down’ of Jerusalem followed by its ‘raising up’ afterwards. He lived between 640-609 BC and has been called the ‘Isaiah of the 7th Century’ (Isaiah prophesied in the 8th century). Jeremiah’s also known as ‘the weeping prophet,’ for his life was one bathed in tears. God commanded him not to marry and not to party, for these actions (or, rather, inactions) served as signposts to the bitter reality coming on Jerusalem: it was no time to marry and have children, nor was there anything to celebrate. On top of this self-imposed bachelor life of drudgery, Jeremiah was persecuted, beaten, and even mocked by little children. More than once he cried out to God in bitter tears. Jeremiah’s life is ripe with emotional up-and-downs, and some scholars have speculated that he suffered major depression or even bipolar disorder. His message, repeated again and again, is clear and succinct: ‘Jerusalem will be stricken by a power from the north; this will be an act of divine judgment, Yahweh’s judgment against rebellious Judah. Egypt – though a familiar ally in chaotic times – will not be able to help; nor will Judah’s ‘beloved’ idols be able to save you! Only repentance can avert you from destruction, but your repentance must be NOW, for the drums of war are already beating!’ 

Jeremiah was born in the poverty-stricken town of Anathoth, north of Jerusalem, in the sad little territory of Benjamin. He grew up in a desert land, and his purpose in life had been thwarted by his ancestor Abiathar. By birth Jeremiah was of priestly lineage and had been called by God to serve in holy activities amongst the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple; but his ancestor Abiathar had teamed up with David’s son to try and steal the throne from Solomon. Because of this betrayal and failed coup, Abiathar and his ancestors were cursed and forbidden to live out their priestly purpose. Thus Jeremiah grew up as a boy without purpose; however, God had a purpose for Jeremiah, and had set Jeremiah out for this purpose before the day he was born (Jer 1.4-5). Jeremiah was a man of spiritual maturity: he was dedicated to the will of God no matter what, and he was willing to preach an unpopular message to very volatile and very powerful people (including kings). His book shows that he had a deep, warm devotion for God, and he was fully committed to his calling (though, at times, because of the great suffering he experienced, he was on the verge of quitting; however, he stuck with God and fulfilled his duties). He was also a man of courage, as is shown in the fact that he was willing to preach an unpopular message to a people who absolutely despised him; even one of the kings—Jehoiakim—hated him with an undying passion. He was a man of compassion; despite rebuking them for their sin, he wanted them to repent for their own sakes. He was a man of integrity: his word was his bond, his commitment was unchangeable, and he carried out his difficult call despite the countless burdens (emotional sufferings, mocking, beatings, even imprisonment in an ancient sewer!). As aforementioned, one of the most interesting aspects of Jeremiah’s life is his deep emotional trauma. Many scholars have asked the question, ‘Was Jeremiah manic-depressive?’ He often goes from great joys to deep emotional anguish. One minute he is seen exalting God with steady confidence in Him, and the next minute he is complaining to God—even yelling at God—and on the verge of tossing his prophetic career into the ocean. His message was hardhearted, but his own heart cried out in anguish (Jer 9.1, 13.17, 14.17); yet in the midst of this anguish, he found himself rising to great emotional heights (15.16, 20.11).

The Book of Jeremiah

The book of the prophet Jeremiah is one of the greatest prophetic masterpieces, ranking with that of the book of the prophet Isaiah a century earlier. The book uses a vast panorama of exquisite poetry and detailed prose; some parts even detail Jeremiah’s life (most likely autobiographical information written by the prophet himself). The authorship of the book is hotly disputed. The text tells us that Jeremiah’s scribe—a man named Baruch—wrote much of the book, but there are some sections which were most likely written by Jeremiah himself. Scholars have come up with this ‘history’ of the authorship of the book of the prophet Jeremiah:

   1) Baruch writes the original text.

   2) Jeremiah adds to the original text 

   3) Following Jeremiah’s death, Baruch edits the text and adds a historical appendix (Ch 52) 

  4)  Many years later, Alexandrian Jews, influenced by Greek philosophy, rearrange the order of the text to make it more logical

The book of the prophet Jeremiah is not written in chronological order. Where many of the chapters fall into the periods of Jeremiah’s life is disputed, though one of the most conservative and widely-appreciated views (pressed forth by Dr. Young) is this:

   The Reign of Josiah – Ch 1-20

   The Reign of Jehoahaz – Nothing

   The Reign of Jehoiakim – Ch 25-27, 35, 36, 45, possibly 46-49

   The Reign of Jehoiachin – Nothing

   The Reign of Zedekiah – Ch 21-24, 28-34, 37-39, possibly 50-51

   The Reign of Gedaliah – Ch 40-42

   Jeremiah in Egypt – Ch 43, 44, possibly 50-51

   Historical Appendix (added by Baruch after Jeremiah’s death?) – Ch 52

A simpler outline, proposed by some scholars, looks like this:

   Judah Before the Fall of Jerusalem – Ch 1-38

   Judah During/After the Fall of Jerusalem – Ch 39-45

   Jeremiah’s Oracles Against the Foreign Nations – Ch 46-51

   Historical Appendix – Ch 52

Jeremiah is also known for his popular use of object lessons. Here are a few:

The branch of an almond tree (1.11-12): “God will carry out his threats of punishment.”

A boiling pot tilting away from the north (1.13): “God will punish Judah.”

A ruined linen belt (13.1-11): “Because the people refuse to listen to God, they have become useless, good for nothing, like a ruined linen belt.”

Potter’s clay (18.1-17): “God can destroy His sinful people if He wants to.” This is a warning to them to repent before He is forced to bring judgment

Broken clay jars (19.1-12): “God will smash Judah just like Jeremiah has smashed broken clay jars.”

Two baskets of figs (24.1-10): “The good figs represent God’s remnant. The poor figs are the people left behind.”

The yoke (27.2-11): “Any nation who refuses to submit to Babylon’s yoke of control will be punished… And this includes Judah!”

Large stones (43.8-13): “These stones mark the place where Nebuchadnezzar will set his throne when God allows him to enter Egypt!”

A scroll sunk in the river (51.59-64): “Babylon will sink and rise no more!”

Scattered throughout Jeremiah’s prophecies are hints about the coming Messiah and the new covenant this Messiah would inaugurate. One of Jeremiah’s infamous prophecies is found in Jeremiah 31, and others are found in chapters 21, 30, and 33. The prophecy in Jeremiah 21 takes place during the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. Jeremiah predicts that Jehoiakim will die, and his son Jehoiachin will ascend the throne. However, Jehoiachin will be taken in chains to Babylon and will die absent an heir on the throne. In his place ‘a righteous Branch’ will shoot up and be the means of saving God’s people and keeping the covenant promise alive. The Messiah – whom Christians understand to be Christ – came from the Davidic line; he ‘shot up’ and is the hope of eternal life and salvation for all who come to him in faith and repentance; it is through Christ that God’s covenant promises to Abraham and David are kept furnished and breathing. 

The messianic prophecy in Jeremiah 30 takes place during the reign of King Zedekiah. Jeremiah gives this message to the people concerning their coming judgment: ‘Your injury is incurable! It is a terrible wound. There’s no one to help you, no medicine to make you healthy again. All your allies have left you. They can’t save you, and it is I who have done this to you? I’ve done it because your sins are countless, and your guilt reaches to the heavens. Why do you protest your punishment? This is what you deserve! I am a just God, and I have to punish you because of your many sins and unfathomable guilt.’ The scene looks bleak, but God’s word continues: ‘But all those who devour you shall be devoured. All of your enemies will be sent into exile. I’ll give you back your health, and I’ll heal your wounds. Right now you’re called an outcast. People mock you, saying, “No one cares about them!”’ Such was Judah’s condition, but God continues, ‘You will not always be in captivity! Your punishment will not last forever. I will bring you home to Jerusalem and restore your fortunes. Jerusalem will lie in ruins, but it will be rebuilt. All the sorrow will be replaced with joy and songs of thanksgiving, and I will multiply My beloved people. I will honor them and not despise them. Their children will prosper, and I will establish them as a nation before Me. Anyone who harms them shall be punished!’ This prophecy regards the intertestamental period, the time following the exile and leading up to the coming of Christ. Jeremiah then gives this prophecy: ‘You will have your own ruler again, and he will come from your own people.’ This ruler is Christ, and he ‘shot up’ from the line of David. ‘I will invite them to approach Me, for who would dare to come unless invited?’ Approaching the throne of God is a terrifying thing, but Christ invites us to know God intimately. ‘You will be My people, and I will be your God.’ An intimacy will exist between the people and their God thanks to this coming ruler.

In Jeremiah 31, another prophecy during the days of King Zedekiah, Jeremiah prophesies the inauguration of a new covenant. Most of this prophecy regards the remnant returning to Judah following the Babylonian exile, but the latter part of the prophecy is one of the richest prophecies regarding the New Covenant. This covenant will be radically different than the former that God established with Israel; under this covenant, God’s instructions will be written on the hearts of His people (the work of the Holy Spirit), people will know God not only logically but also intimately, and sins will be forgiven, never to be remembered! God swears He will bring this about: ‘I am as likely to not do this as much as I am likely to abolish the laws of nature! There’s no way that I would even consider casting My people off, even for all the evil they’ve done!’ In other words, the New Covenant will certainly come!

The last messianic prophecy we’ll look at is from Jeremiah 33 (again, during the reign of King Zedekiah). In the midst of prophesying the coming prosperity for God’s people following Babylonian captivity, and speaking of the intertestamental period, Jeremiah gives this prophecy of the coming Messiah: God says, ‘I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line.’ Jesus of Nazareth came from the line of David. ‘He will do what is just and right throughout the land.’ Christ is God in human form; he is just and righteous. ‘In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety.’ This speaks of the coming salvation and the protection in the arms of God that Messiah will offer. ‘And this will be Jerusalem’s name: Yahweh is our Righteousness.’ Our righteousness doesn’t come from our own actions but from Christ’s righteousness put on our account before God.

The Life of Jeremiah

Jeremiah was a contemporary of other prophets of this century, such as Nahum, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk. He ‘outlived’ them all. Jeremiah goes through several ‘phases’ in his prophetic career. In order to study the life and prophecies of Jeremiah accurately, one would do well to examine these phases one-by-one, paying particular attention to the historical context, what Jeremiah taught, and the cycles of life that Jeremiah experienced. A simple outline of the ‘phases’ of Jeremiah is given below, and they’re links to a more in-depth look at Jeremiah’s life (and, at times, teachings) during these historical periods.

   Jeremiah in the Days of King Josiah

   Jeremiah in the Days of King Jehoiakim

   Jeremiah in in the Days of King Zedekiah

   Jeremiah After the Fall of Jerusalem