Tag Archives: New Testament Ethics

An Analytical and Critical Review of Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Part One).

4 Replies

Today’s essay is the fourteenth installment in my series on the contemporary moral crisis. I have decided that the best way to address “the elephant in the room” or should I say “the elephant in the church house” (same-sex relationships) is by reviewing a book that argues for the Christian legitimacy of loving, covenantal same-sex relationships. I have chosen to do a multipart analytical and critical review of Karen Keen, Scripture, Ethics, and the Possibility of Same-Sex Relationships (Eerdmans, 2018). Why this subject, and why this book?

Why this Subject and Why Now?

Until recently the subject of same-sex relationships and related issues of gender—indeed the whole list of LGBTQ+ identities—has been for evangelical and other conservative Christians a matter of the “culture wars.” Bible-believing Christians, evangelicals, and other conservative believers were united in defending traditional views of sex and marriage against liberal (or “progressive”) Christians and secular progressives. Conservatives viewed liberal Christians’ openness to same-sex relationships as a by-product of their prior rejection of the Bible as the definitive authority for doctrine and morals. Secular progressives, of course, do not acknowledge the Bible as an authority for anything. They appeal to a completely different source of moral guidance: science, culture, and personal experience.

However, within the past five years a significant number of pastors, professors, authors, and church members who claim to be evangelical, bible-believing, and orthodox have spoken out in favor of the church accepting same-sex relationships on the same or a similar basis as that on which it accepts traditional marriage. I am not speaking here only of something far away and limited to books by authors I do not know. I am speaking also about pastors, professors, and church members I know personally. I do not see how any church or parachurch institution can avoid this internal discussion for much longer. We are past the point of “the calm before the storm.” The storm is upon us. And it will not end until it exhausts its energy.

Why this Book?

Why Karen Keen’s book? Though clearly an intelligent and well-educated person—among other degrees, she holds Master of Theology from Duke Divinity School and has done work toward a PhD in Judaism and Christianity in Antiquity at Marquette University—Keen is not an elite biblical scholar, historian, or theologian. She is the founder and director of the Redwood Center for Spiritual Care & Education. Her book is short and written in a popular style. Why not, instead, review the most scholarly and detailed book advocating the thesis I want to examine? My reasons are simple: Books written in an academic style make arguments based on knowledge of ancient languages and cultures. They construct elaborate arguments from secular and church history and from psychology, sociology, and biology. Because the average person cannot assess the soundness of such elite arguments they are tempted to trust whichever expert that makes the case for the conclusion they prefer on quite different grounds.

I consider the brevity and popular style of the book to be an advantage in speaking to the audience I want to reach. In fact, Keen and I are writing to the same audience, Christian believers who view the Bible as the final authority for faith, religious practice, and morals. She argues in a clear and simple way that can be understood and evaluated by lay Christians based on their knowledge of English translations of the Bible, common sense principles of interpretation, and moral reasoning open to all. And yet, Keen has read widely in elite biblical, historical, and theological works, incorporating this information into her book. Hence I am confident that by analyzing and critiquing her work—though it is simple and popular—I am also evaluating the most persuasive arguments of elite scholars.

Keen’s Essential Argument

During the course of this series I will unfold the book’s full argument step by step with its supporting evidence and rebuttals of opposing arguments. But its core argument can be stated in a short series of assertions followed by a conclusion. Assertions one through three are principles of biblical interpretation, assertions four and five are derived from the experience of gay and lesbian people, and the conclusion follows from the combination of assertions one through five.

1. The Bible’s positive moral teachings, including the creation mandates concerning male and female in Genesis 1 and 2, provide a vision of justice, goodness, and peace, and they are intended to promote a just, good, and flourishing world. (Interpretive Principle)

2. The Bible’s moral prohibitions and limitations, including its rules for sexual behavior, are intended to forbid things that cause harm to human beings, human community, and the rest of creation and to prevent heartache and destruction from disrupting human flourishing. (Interpretive Principle)

3. To interpret and apply the Bible’s positive and negative moral teachings in keeping with their intended purposes we must deliberate about whether or not applying a specific biblical rule to a particular situation prevents harm and promotes justice, goodness, and human flourishing. Interpretations and applications that cause harm and inhibit human flourishing must be rejected. (Interpretive Principle)

4. Gay and lesbian people do not choose to be gay or lesbian, and the overwhelming majority cannot change their orientation. (Derived from Experience)

5. A large majority of gay and lesbian people do not have the gift of celibacy and find such a state lonely and deeply painful. (Derived from Experience)

Therefore:

6. Because loving, committed same-sex relationships embody justice, goodness, and human flourishing (#1), do not cause harm to the people in the relationship or the human community (#2), and unwanted celibacy causes great harm and unhappiness to gay and lesbian people (#4 and #5), faithful deliberation and application (#3) must conclude that the Bible allows and even blesses covenanted same-sex relationships.

Looking ahead, I ask readers to be patient. My semester has begun and the work load at school is heavy. I cannot post as often as I have during my summer break. It may take a while to work through the book. Because I consider this topic highly important to the future of the church I plan to move slowly and methodically through Keen’s argument, considering carefully every significant factual claim, logical move, and conclusion. Also I intend to describe her argument fairly, acknowledging its strengths even as I point out its weaknesses. Nothing is gained by misrepresentation, dramatization, or appeal to prejudice. I wish to write in a way that were Karen Keen to read my review she would acknowledge that I have represented her arguments accurately and (at least) tried to evaluate them fairly.

Flesh and Spirit: Contemporary Moral Crisis (Part 12)

1 Reply

In the previous essay I explained why the rest of the series on the contemporary moral crisis will be directed to “people who claim to be Christian and understand that the Bible, especially the New Testament, is the final authority for determining what it means to believe and live as a Christian.” Clearly from what I have said in previous essays readers already know that I think the central issues in the moral crisis facing Christians are being generated by the sexual and gender revolutions. In my view, these revolutions challenge the very heart of the Christian faith and way of life. They are not merely external to the Christian community but threaten to divide and diminish the community itself. At this point in the series these concerns may seem to some overblown. I hope to convince you that I am not exaggerating.

Mind and Body

I anticipate that one of the first objections I will receive is that I seem to be reducing Christian morality to rules and regulations about sex. What about injustice, violence, greed, racism, and other sins? Are these not as important, if not more so, than how one uses their sexuality? Before I can answer these questions in an intelligent way I need to place sexual desire and action within its larger anthropological and ethical context.

Ancient ethical systems such as those of Aristotle and the Stoics viewed the challenge of living a moral life as the struggle of reason to dominate the irrational passions (the animal nature). The passions of lust, fear, anger, greed, envy, etc., unless controlled by reason, drive us to engage in such self-destructive things as adultery, theft, and murder. Reason, if it attains to wisdom, can cool the passions and habituate them toward good ends.

Spirit and Flesh

The New Testament also makes a distinction between the irrational passions and the rational principle. Of the many examples we could explore let’s examine Paul’s teaching in Galatians 5:16-21:

16 So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Instead of speaking of reason as the principle of moral guidance and passion as the irrational principle, Paul speaks of Spirit and flesh. Despite the differences, there is a great deal of similarity between the two anthropologies. By “Spirit” Paul means the divine Spirit, the power and presence of God received through faith in Christ. But there is no reason to think that the Spirit works in a way that bypasses the human mind (See Romans 8:5-6). As the irrational counterpart to the Spirit, Paul uses the word “flesh.” Paul’s use of this word cannot be understood without considering its Old Testament background. In the Old Testament “flesh” connotes human weakness and mortality. It is often contrasted to God’s powerful, life-giving Spirit. Paul takes up this Old Testament idea of the weakness of the entire human being in contrast to God and adds to it an element of resistance and rebellion.

Hence the realm of the irrational and rebellious passions—which Paul calls the flesh—when it acts unconstrained by the Spirit produces “sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.” Notice how the acts that arise from sexual desire are listed along with other types of acts that arise from other irrational and self-destructive passions. What they all have in common is their irrationality, destructiveness, and hostility toward the Spirit.

According to the New Testament, then, desire for sexual pleasure, like desire for money, comfort, power, food, and honor, must be enlightened and governed by a mind controlled by the Spirit (Romans 8:5-6). Even our sexually permissive culture recognizes the need for exercising some self-control in matters of sex. Everyone with even a modicum of wisdom recognizes that sexual passion mixed with other such forces as pride, anger, deception, ignorance, and drunkenness becomes a very destructive force. No rational person would argue that sexual passion should be given free reign unconstrained by respect for the dignity and freedom of other people. Indeed, every rational person understands that passions of whatever kind must be guided and controlled by reason.

Hence the real issue in the ethics of sex does not center on the question, “Must there be limits on sexual activity or not?” The question is, rather, “What are the limits on sexual activity?” And once we get clear on this issue, we begin to realize that the answer to this question depends on answering many other questions and finally on developing a comprehensive anthropological and moral framework. Where do we look for wisdom to guide us in developing a moral outlook that enables us to set limits in a coherent way? For Christians, that source is the Bible, especially the New Testament.

Next Time: What limits does the Bible place on sexual activity and why?