Category Archives: Sexual morality

Scripture and Same-Sex Relationships—A Review (Part Two)

2 Replies

Today I will continue my analytical and critical review of Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships. In this essay I will describe and analyze the argument of Chapter 1, which bears the title:

“The Church’s Response to the Gay and Lesbian Community: A Brief History.”

Summary: Gay People Are Human Too

The first sentence of Chapter 1 captures the message the chapter in one word: “When it comes to same-sex relationships, there is one thing we cannot forget: people.” Gays and lesbians are real people. Keen’s goal in this chapter is to expose the ways the church has dehumanized gay people and advance the process of re-humanizing them in the mind of the church. According to Keen, the church’s lack of understanding of gay people clouds its ability to form accurate and just judgments about the Christian legitimacy of same-sex relationships. Correcting the caricatures and demystifying the “ghost stories” about gay people are the first steps toward reading the Bible with an open mind.

Premodern Attitudes

John Chrysostom (347-407) called same-sex intercourse a “monstrous insanity.” Martin Luther argued that same-sex desire derived from the perverting influence of the devil. Matthew Henry asserts that such desires are divine punishments consequent on a prior abandonment of God. Keen could have expanded this section indefinitely, but these few examples serve to represent the church’s dominant premodern attitude. Keen also documents some pre-modern medical explanations for same-sex desire but points out that they usually picture gay people as mentally ill or suffering from disease.

Five Options within Conservative Churches

Keen next surveys five stages or stances that have characterized conservative churches over the past sixty years. Although Keen views these differing approaches as ordered chronologically she also recognizes that they exist simultaneously at the present time. I will simply list them in order in Keen’s own words:

1. “Gay [Christian] people should stay in the closet.”

2. “Gay [Christian] people are perverts and criminals.”

3. “Gay [Christian] people are hapless victims who need healing.”

4. “Gay [Christian] people are admirable saints called to a celibate life.”

5. “Gay [Christian] people are ________.”

Under heading five Keen attempts to picture the landscape at the time of her writing. She describes four group stances: celibate gays, ex-gays, same-sex attracted evangelicals who deny the reality of same-sex “orientations,” and gay affirming evangelicals. Although she writes about these four stances in a descriptive style, she clearly favors the “affirming” position. The thesis of her book, after all, is that evangelical churches can and should adopt the “affirming” position as biblically and doctrinally sound.

Analysis

It might seem that this chapter (“A Brief History”) simply sets the stage for the book’s argument by documenting the history of the subject and surveying contemporary options without making an argument. However, I want to suggest several ways in which the chapter argues against the traditional view and for the affirming view.

1. Keen’s description of how premodern authors spoke about gay people makes a subtle argument. Keen clearly expects the contemporary reader to cringe upon hearing gay people described with such terms. Figures of the past who expressed disgust and hatred toward groups with whom contemporary society has become sympathetic lose credibility with modern audiences; they are made toxic by being labeled racists, sexist, or homophobic. Given contemporary society’s sympathies, rational and biblical arguments critical of gay people fall on deaf ears because of suspicion that they are rationalizations for irrational animus.

2. Rehearsing traditionalists’ dubious arguments and implausible speculations about the origins of same-sex desire leaves the impression that the conclusions traditionalists draw about biblical morality must also be false or at least doubtful.

3. Keen urges us to cease thinking of issues in abstraction from people. Gay people are individuals with feelings, experiences, and stories. In doing this she not only draws on society’s sympathy for gay people (See #1 above), but prepares readers to accept the self-reported experience of gay people as proof of three important assertions within her argument: (1) people do not choose to become gay, (2) they cannot change their orientation, and (3) maintaining a life of celibacy is very difficult, painful, and lonely.

The Perils of Critique

Before I offer any critique I need to address a huge obstacle that makes effective criticism of this book almost impossible: Karen Keen’s book—and others like it—is autobiography as well as argument. It concerns personal identity, feelings, and experience as well as thought, history, and biblical exegesis and interpretation. It is almost impossible for most audiences to separate these two dimensions. The overarching narrative—sometimes unspoken but always implicit—is a compelling story of oppression, suffering, agony, and suicide on the one hand and courage, determination, and endurance on the other. And indeed the persuasive power of the book lies in its brilliant combination of autobiography and rational argument. Since the two aspects are woven together in a seamless argument, any critique of the rational aspects of the argument will be taken as a critique of the personal aspects, as a poisonous attack on the person making the argument. Telling other people what they feel, dismissing their sense of identity, or denying their self-reported experiences appears to most contemporary people as arrogant, judgmental, and profoundly insensitive.

What is the sincere critic to do? Some critics rush blindly into this rhetorical trap and say the stupidest things. Needless to say, no matter how clever their arguments, they lose the audience the minute they open their mouths! Others see the trap, realize that their situation is rhetorically untenable, and decide not to say anything. Their cowardly silence allows weak and fallacious arguments to take cover under a strong narrative. Lack of objection will be taken as acquiescence.

I do not wish to be a coward or a fool. For…

Timorous silence is duty neglected.

Incautious speech is duty betrayed.

I hope to avoid both.

Critique

It is too early to develop an extensive critique of the argument contained in this chapter because in the following chapters she expands the three arguments I have outlined. Additionally, the book constitutes one big argument and needs to be assessed as a whole. However, I will venture some preliminary observations on these three arguments.

Regarding #1: This argument relies on the rhetorical advantage gay people have acquired over the past few decades. For a variety of reasons, including the HIV/AIDS crisis of the late twentieth century, a sympathetic media, and decisions by the Supreme Court there has developed a social consensus that gay people have been innocent victims of prejudice and violence. This consensus narrative places an unwarrantedly heavy burden of proof on those who argue the traditional thesis from the Bible. For there is no logical connection between the cringe worthy way in which traditionalists of the past spoke about same-sex activity and the truth of their conclusions about biblical teaching on this subject.

Regarding #2: Discovering that many arguments offered to support a thesis are weak or less than demonstrative does not prove that the thesis is false. For sure, rehearsing a litany of the weakest arguments in support of a conclusion tends to create doubt in the listener. However, the mere possibility of doubt does not justify rejecting the thesis in favor of its negation.

Regarding #3: Indeed gay people are people. And I agree that we ought to speak and act toward them as human beings worthy of respect. However, this is true of every person we meet. There is no connection between remembering that an individual is a person worthy of respect and affirming everything they feel and do as morally upright or accepting their self-described experience as evidence for the “affirming” thesis.

Next Time: We will examine Keen’s survey of what the Bible says about same-sex relationships.

The Creator’s Plan for Safe Sex (Moral Crisis #13)

1 Reply

A Logic Lesson

To define a word, clarify a concept, or articulate a moral principle we must grasp both what it is and what it isn’t, what it includes and what it excludes. Stating what something isn’t without saying what it is gives us no precise idea of what we are talking about. If I tell you, “It’s not a mouse! It’s not a chair! It’s not a star or a glove or a tree” etc., I have not helped you at all to know what it is. However if I tell you what something is, I’ve implicitly let you know what it is not. If I let you know that I am thinking of a coffee cup, you also know that I am not thinking of a horse, a blade of grass, or my best friend in grade school. I don’t have to list all the things of which I am not thinking. You would never dream of complaining that because I did not list my laptop among the things about which I am not thinking, that I left you in the dark on that issue!

Now let’s apply this logic to the question of the biblical understanding of the place and limits on sexual activity. If your approach to this question consists only of discovering and listing every type of sexual activity forbidden in the Bible, you will never get a clear understanding of sexual morality in the Bible. It’s unreasonable to assume that all excluded behaviors must be named—and perhaps described and differentiated—any more than you should expect that I name everything that is not a coffee cup for you to get a clear idea of what I am thinking! It is unreasonable to argue that because a particular sexual behavior or relationship is not listed in a list of forbidden things, that it is therefore permitted.

The Purpose, Place, and Function of Sex

What, then, according the Bible is the purpose of sex? What is its proper place and function? If we get a clear idea of right use of sex, we won’t have to deliberate over an extensive and ever-growing list of misuses of sex. Let me remind you that this question will make no sense to those outside my target audience, those I described earlier in series as thinking about their identities in psychologized, sexualized, and politicized categories. Those who fit this description acknowledge no overarching moral order to which they should conform. So, for them sex has no objective purpose or place or proper function. Purpose, identity, and meaning derive from the inner self and vary from individual to individual.

But for confessing Christians, who take the Bible seriously, the question of the proper place and function and true purpose of sex makes perfect sense. For God is the creator, sustainer, providential guide, and savior of the human person, body and soul. Our true identity is found in Christ. We know there is a meaningful moral order to which we are obligated to submit. What, then, is the proper place and function and true purpose of sex?

In the teaching of Jesus and the New Testament authors,* the proper place and function and true purpose of sex is realized only within life-long, loving marriage, between one man and one woman. All sexual liaisons outside marriage are by definition are forbidden. You don’t have to list these non-conforming sexual acts or agonize in efforts to prove them wrong or justify them as permitted. I will address these futile efforts in upcoming essays. Now I want to remind you of Jesus’s and the apostles’ teaching on marriage.

Jesus deals with marriage on a few occasions. I will quote from his discussion of divorce in Matthew 19:3-9:

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

The subject here is divorce. And Jesus makes it clear that divorce is an evil, an evil that Moses tolerated but that he does not. No no-fault divorce here! Hard hearts, unloving and stubborn, are not allowed. In Jesus’s teaching divorce comes under the same condemnation as adultery. Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24, rooting marriage in the creative purpose of God. But Jesus adds an assertion and a command not found in Genesis: “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate” (Matt 19:6; also in Mark 10:9). Marriage is not merely a human agreement made for human purposes. The involvement of God makes it part of a sacred order, and no one has the right to dissolve it.

Paul also deals with marriage in several places, but I will limit myself to Ephesians 5:28-33:

28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

In this passage Paul also quotes Genesis 2:24. And he also sees marriage as integrated into the sacred order. He calls it a “profound mystery.” The union between husband and wife spoken of in Genesis images the spiritual union between the risen Christ and his people, who are his body. And for those in Christ, it also participates in that mystery. For this reason the union between husband and wife should be a union of self-sacrificial love.

In Hebrews 13:4, we find a short but clear affirmation that marriage is the proper place for sexual intimacy and a severe condemnation of its violation:

4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Conclusion

Knowing the clear biblical teaching that life-long, loving marriage between one man and one woman is the proper place for sexual intimacy to achieve its created and redemptive purpose answers a thousand questions about what is forbidden without agonizing, cynical, or sophistical debates.

*Note: We are speaking in these essays of “Christian” sexual ethics, and Christian sexual ethics cannot be derived from Old Testament texts unless they are filtered through the teaching of Jesus and those whom he taught. This is very clear in the text in Matthew 19, which I quoted above. Jesus abrogates Moses’ teaching on divorce and reasserts the creation ideal.

Sex, Identity, and Politics: Two Incompatible Moral Visions

1 Reply

Where Are We?

In previous essays I’ve tried to get to the roots of the moral crisis that engulfs contemporary culture. At the origin of this crisis stands the abandonment of the long-accepted notion that human beings acquire experiential knowledge of the good as communities and transmit it through tradition. Simultaneously, modern culture adopted a romantic notion of the good as a feeling of well-being and an individualist view of how we come to know the good.

Given its subjective view of the good, modern culture can no longer make sense of the right as a moral rule that conforms to the moral law. Hence the “right” becomes a private assertion of “what is right for me” or it is identified with legislated human law made through the political process. The simmering crisis becomes open conflict when society’s subjective views of the good and right become concrete disagreement about specific moral behaviors. These disagreements can be settled only by coercion in one of its modern forms: protest, cancellation, intimidation, or legislated human law.

Christians who submit themselves to the authority of Jesus Christ and the scriptures and retain the traditional view of the good and the right find themselves under fire. When confessing Christians oppose the dominant culture’s subjective view of the good and the right they are made to appear backward, oppressive, insensitive, cruel, and downright hateful. Indeed, they are portrayed as enemies of humanity worthy of marginalization, legal proscription, and even persecution.

Clash of Moral Visions

We are now at the point in our discussion of the moral crisis where I need to speak about specific behaviors. And I want to begin with the body and sex. In the contemporary controversy over the use of our bodies we see most vividly the clash between two irreconcilable moral visions. During the course of the last one hundred years Western society has been increasingly sexualized and sex has been politicized. The reasons for this development are complex, and I will explain them in greater detail later in this series. However I will say this in advance: progressive culture from its beginnings in the Enlightenment to today sees Christianity as the greatest enemy standing in the way of its advance. With the rise of the Romantics in the early nineteenth century, nascent progressive culture came to see that Christianity’s limiting of sexual relations to lifetime marriage between man and woman grounded in a sacred moral order served as the foundation of conservative and traditional culture. The family is the perennial bearer of tradition. If society is to be made into a progressive utopia, Christianity must be marginalized if not destroyed. If Christianity is to be destroyed, marriage and the traditional family must be destroyed. And marriage and the traditional family can be destroyed only by removing the limits on sexual activity and transforming the meaning of sex. Sex must be removed from the sacred moral order and reconceived as a means of self-expression and self-fulfillment. Without tradition, isolated, and with their identity being reduced to race and gender, individuals may then be willing to become wards of the progressive state and its educational institutions.

We’ve Been Here Before

But the clash between moral visions is not new. The New Testament is replete with warnings about this collision of worlds: two opposing kingdoms (Col 1:3), life and death (Col 2:3), visible and invisible (2 Cor 4:18), the way of the Spirit and the way of the flesh (Gal 5:13-26), and many others. One of the clearest contrasts is found in Colossians 3:1-14. Paul contrasts two ways of living as opposition between two orientations, to things above or to earthly things:

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.

The New Testament clearly views the moral life as an essential aspect of a comprehensive and internally consistent way of life, at once religious, spiritual, and moral. Its specific moral rules are not isolated and arbitrary. The moral prohibitions in Colossians 3:5-11, quoted above, are interrelated. All of them deal with “earthly things.” The list in verse 5 centers on misuse of the natural urges of physical body: “sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed.” The list in verse 8 has to do with misuse of our need for acceptance and fellowship from others: “anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language.” The physical dimension cannot be separated from the social and neither from our relationship to God. We use our bodies to communicate with others and our physical urges almost always involve interaction with others. They can be used to honor God or disrespect him.

Body, Soul, and God

The New Testament affirms the created goodness of the body. But the body is not absolutely good. Its goodness lies in the possibility of its proper use as determined by the intention of creator. It can be misused and misdirected. Those whose minds, hearts, and wills are set “on things above” want to use their bodies for the Lord, but those whose minds, hearts, and wills are set “on things on the earth” view their bodies as instruments for their own pleasure and power. Those who direct their minds toward Christ desire to learn the purpose for which God created their bodies and the rules for their proper use. To those whose minds are set on earthly things, the Bible’s moral rules for the proper use of the body seem strange, unnatural, and oppressive.

The Bible speaks of human beings as body and soul. We are physical and mental. We possess freedom at some levels of our being, but at other levels the automatic processes of nature operate apart from our choice or awareness. The Bible is not concerned with the philosophical problem of the composition of human beings, with debates about the nature of the soul and the relationship between soul and body. It is concerned with the orientation of the whole human being toward or away from God. But the Bible acknowledges what we all know from experience, that there is a hierarchical order in the relationship between body and soul. The mind is the ruling aspect and the body needs to be ruled and guided by the mind, which in turn needs to be informed by the moral law and common sense. Our minds enable us to gain the wisdom we need to discern between good and bad and right and wrong. The body apart from the mind possesses no conscious knowledge of the good and right. It works more or less automatically and instinctively. (Contemporary culture reverses the order by looking to the irrational passions–in contemporary terms “the inner self”–for guidance about what is real and good.)

Now consider the two directions mentioned Colossians 3:1-14 again in light of our created nature as body and soul. Paul speaks of the two ways of living, two possible orientations to God of our whole persons. As whole persons we are body and soul, but the body must be guided by the soul. But the mind must be illuminated by moral and spiritual truth from above in order to guide the body to its proper end, which is to serve God. Paul urges us to set our minds and hearts on “things above.” Unless the mind is set on “things above” it cannot lead the body to do good and right. When the mind forsakes “things above,” the body begins to dominate the mind, which then becomes a mere instrument we use to seek out ways to please the body. It thinks only about “earthly things.” Instead of rising higher to become more and more like God, human beings fall to earth to become mere smart animals. Dangerous ones too!

The Idol in the Cathedral

3 Replies

The church faces challenges in every age and in every place. They arise from outside and inside, from rulers and from the people. Some strike a sudden blow and others develop slowly. In the moment, it is hard to tell which threats are superficial and ephemeral and which are profound and enduring. What we think is our greatest challenge may turn out to have been a passing fad and an issue we hardly noticed may prove to have been an existential threat. Only with historical hindsight can we discern with any clarity the difference between the two. But we live now, and have no choice but to use the wisdom we have to deal with the challenges we face.

What are the challenges confronting us today and which one is the greatest? Perhaps there is more than one answer to this question. The church exists throughout the world, and circumstances differ greatly from place to place. The greatest challenge for the church in Nigeria may not be the most pressing problem for the church in Russia or Iran or Canada. I cannot answer for my brothers and sisters living in Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and South America. I live in the United States of America, and since I live in the State of California it is even somewhat venturesome to speak as an American Christian. For the church in the United States is quite diverse. Even the city of Los Angeles is dizzyingly multicultural. Nevertheless, I would like to share my perspective.

Separating Religion and Personal Morality

Contemporary American culture separates religion (or spirituality) from personal morality, and contemporary Christians seem to be assimilating to that separation at a rapid pace. In my view, this move is one of the most serious doctrinal errors, even heresies, of our time. It is not unusual to hear people express warm personal piety, talk about the love of God and the grace of the Holy Spirit, celebrate Advent and Easter, and speak about the resurrection and eternal life but find it impossible to utter words condemning personal sins having to do with sexual promiscuity, jealously, greed, cursing, selfish ambition, filthy language, litigiousness, adultery, abortion, divorce, factionalism, envy, malice, lying, drunkenness, and many more (See 1 Cor 6:7-20; Rom 1:18-32; Gal 5:19-21; Col 3:5-11). The list of texts of Scripture that churches are embarrassed to read in the public assembly grows yearly. Why am I so concerned about this? Why is this my number one heresy? To answer these questions I need to remind you of something the church used to know but has forgotten.

Ethical Monotheism and Idolatry

The religion of the Old Testament is often called “ethical monotheism.” In stark contrast to the Canaanite and other religions contemporary with ancient Israel, the prophets of Israel taught that there is only one God and that God is perfectly righteous, having no evil impulses. Israel’s God demanded that his people practice personal holiness, justice, and mercy as a religious duty. But Israel always lived on the edge of reversion to idolatry and pagan indulgence. The classic example of this defection is found in Exodus 32:2-6 (See also 1 Cor 10:1-6):

“He [Aaron] took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, “These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt.” When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and announced, “Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord.” So the next day the people rose early and sacrificed burnt offerings and presented fellowship offerings. Afterward they sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in revelry.”

The union of personal morality and religious practice became central to the faith of Israel and the Judaism contemporary with Jesus and so passed into Christianity. The New Testament’s critique of idolatry is nearly always at the same time a critique of the idolatrous separation between personal morality and religion. The first chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans is an excellent example of the connection between pagan idolatry and immorality: The pagans, says Paul, “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” (Rom 1:23-24).

Invisible Idols

The pagan impulse to separate religion from personal morality is strong and ever present for the simple reason that, like water poured out, human beings always look for the easiest path and the broadest way. Self-indulgence is the natural ethics and idolatry is the natural religion of every human being. The advantage of idolatry is that we get to “have our cake and eat it too.” We can entice the supernatural powers to work for us at the bargain price of a few sacrifices and prayers while we pursue our bodily lusts and worldly ambitions. Idols do not care how we live our personal lives. They are lenient and indulgent and want us to be happy in our own way. After all, idols are imaginary gods we create in our own image.

Contemporary culture worships the idol of the autonomous Self, which must be given maximum freedom to pursue happiness in its own unique way and create its own authentic identity. Any attempt to impose on this self a moral code such as the one found in the New Testament is an outrageous sacrilege. Modern culture does not object to the idea of god as long as it is not the God of the Old or New Testament, the God for whom personal morality is a religious duty, the God who cares with whom you have sex, how you spend your money, what you think, and how you talk.

The Idol in the Cathedral

In my view, then, the church faces a stark choice with profound consequences. Will it remain faithful to the biblical view of God in which religion and personal morality are inextricably bound together or will it replace God with a pagan idol whose sole function is to sanctify our self-indulgent pursuit of pleasure?

To be continued…

Sexual Harassment and the Morality of Consent

3 Replies

In recent weeks charges and denials of sexual harassment and assault filled the headlines and the “breaking news” interruptions. And if the accused party cannot plausibly deny that the incident happened, the issue then turns on “consent.” Was the incident consensual or not? If the act possesses a consent-like quality, that is, some form of silence or non-resistance, a further question arises: what is true consent? Must you say “yes” out loud in answer to an explicit request? Must you sign a letter of consent? Is later regret a sign of original non-consent? And how soon must the regretting party express doubts about their true consent? Hours? Days? Weeks? Years? These questions and distinctions could be multiplied to the point of absurdity. But I am interested in a more foundational issue.

Mutual consent and legal liability seem to be the highest moral standards contemporary society expects in personal interactions, especially when it comes to sex. Many people can’t think of another reason to judge an action wrong. Whatever self-destructive consequences an act may have for the consenting parties, all that matters is mutual consent. It is assumed that mutual consent removes the possibility of moral objection to an act because (1) there is no higher moral law that consent cannot override. Consent is itself the highest moral law because people have the right to do whatever they want with their souls and bodies; and (2) the mutually consenting action of two or more parties can be isolated from all other people.

[Both of these presuppositions are false to the point of absurdity. See note at the end of this essay for further thoughts on why.]

Don’t misunderstand me. It is a good thing that our society has not sunk to the point that it condones nonconsensual sexual violence and other forms abuse. But there is much more to morality than consent. And Christianity calls us to a much higher standard.

Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13: 8-10).

Like you I am appalled at the abusive behavior of politicians, media moguls, and business executives that has recently come to light. However I am concerned that many people will take the whole affair simply as a warning to be more careful in their seductions and adulteries. But I urge us to attend to the root problem of such behavior. It’s not failure to get consent. It’s rejection of the God-originated, Jesus-modeled, and Spirit-inspired love that gladly and spontaneously fulfills the law. It puts other people’s needs above its own. It thinks always not of ways to seduce but of ways to bless others. It views power as the opportunity to serve others, not abuse them.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres (1 Cor. 13:4-7).

I hope you will teach your children a higher morality than mutual consent. You will have to do this yourself, by your example and words. And your children will need to see it practiced in a community of Jesus’ disciples. Contemporary society and its educational institutions will not do it for you. Mutual consent is as high a morality as it can imagine.

For an in-depth study of how consent replaced Christian morality in contemporary society see my essay from June 2014:

https://ifaqtheology.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/consenting-adults-body-soul-and-sex-4/