**Additional resources for this class are found HERE.
1.
Quick review
a.
Sexuality and our worldview
“When we make sexual decisions, we are not just deciding whether to
follow a few rules. We are
expressing our view of the cosmos and human nature.”[1]
b.
What the class is about
·
Can’t cover everything! Starting a conversation!
c.
How we want to think and speak à Show forth God’s love
& holiness simultaneously (Francis Schaeffer)
d.
Why the issues of sexuality are important
i. Constant
New Testament issue
ii. People
leave the faith over these issues
iii. Rich
theological setting of Christian sexual ethics
e.
Detailed look at 1 Corinthians 6.12-20
i. Importance
of the body: word “body” à
8 x’s
ii. Trinity
interacts with our bodies
iii. Gospel
message engages our bodies
1.
Cross à
bought by the blood (Past)
2.
Spirit à
indwelt by the Spirit (Present)
3.
Resurrection à
raised up (Future)
2.
What I want to do today à a number of things! (3
different roller coasters!)
a.
Set Christian sexuality in the broad framework
of Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration with a quick look at Genesis 1 &
2
b.
Explain a philosophical concept from Nancy
Pearcey regarding the body/mind split and why this is relevant
c.
Look briefly at what is known as the “hookup
culture” as a specific example of Pearcey’s thought
i. Hookup
culture: tragedy
ii. Christian
view: beautiful in comparison
3.
Christian Worldview: Creation, Fall Redemption, Restoration
a.
Creation à
the body matters!
i. Good
à Genesis 1
ii. Has
a natural teleology à
Pearcey Love Thy Body page 23
“The implication is that the
physical structure of our bodies reveals clues to our personal identity. The way our bodies function provides
rational grounds for our moral decisions.
That’s why, as we shall see, a Christian ethic always takes into account
the facts of biology, whether addressing abortion (the scientific facts about
when life begins) or sexuality (the facts about sexual differentiation and
reproduction). A Christian ethic
respects the teleology of nature and the body.”[2]
b.
Fall
i. Affects
everything!
ii. Cannot
simply look at what is now broken because of the Fall and claim that it is good
iii. Four-fold
separation
1.
God
2.
Others
3.
Ourselves à
important for issues of homosexuality and transgenderism
4.
Earth/created order
iv. “To
understand the breadth of salvation, we must realize that all is abnormal now.
It is not what originally was, and it is not what it was meant to
be. The abnormalities touch all of
life.
“First, we individually have been separated from God by our moral guilt.
“Secondly, we individually are each one separated from ourselves. The most striking part of this is our
coming physical death when the body will be separated from our spiritual
portion. But also in the present
we are each one separated from ourselves psychologically. Each of us is to some extent
‘schizophrenic.’ There are
degrees, but this present psychological separation is true of each of us.
“Beyond ourselves individually, each person is separated from
others. We can think of (and feel)
all the personal and sociological separations that exist between all people. This is true in the terrible cruelty to
refugees, but it is also true in the separation between the closest of families
and friends.
“And Man is separated from nature.
And also nature is not at peace with nature.
“In
short, abnormality stretches out on every side… This is not just a theological statement
to be maintained as theology; rather, we are to understand this all-reaching
abnormality and live in the comprehension of what the present situation truly
is.”[3]
c.
Redemption
i. Picture
of Christ and the church à
Ephesians 5
ii. Jesus’
healing ministry à
cares for the body
iii. “Substantial
healing” (Francis Schaeffer)
“I want
to point out that when we use the word ‘substantial,’ we must recognize two
things. The first thing is that
there is the possibility of
substantial healing, but the second is that ‘substantial’ does not mean
‘perfect.’”[4]
d.
Restoration
i. Bodily
resurrection à
the great hope of Christians
ii. Resurrection
maintains maleness and femaleness for eternity[5]
4.
Gen 1.26-28; 2.15-25
a.
Matthew 19.4-6 à
Jesus points to Gen 1 & 2 for marriage
b.
Bodily: we are created as material beings
c.
Gendered: created male and female
d.
Language of “leave” and “cleave” (“be
joined”—NASB; “hold fast--ESV)
i. “The
Hebrew word translated ‘cleave,’ ‘dabaq,’
is a very interesting way of describing the sexual embrace, for it brings
together two meanings of the same word.
On the one hand, this word means to cling physically to something. This word is used when a person’s
tongues clings to the roof of his or her mouth (Psalm 137:6) or when a man’s
hand clings to his sword in battle (2 Samuel 23:10). On the other hand, this word is used to describe the tight
bonds of loyalty and affection.
During a time of intense uncertainty and fear, King David’s army was
described as clinging to him (2 Samuel 20:2). Clearly, this word is describing deep, heartfelt commitments
of loyalty and affection that endured through good and bad times.”[6]
ii. “When
Adam and Eve were clinging to each other, this was not a sign and seal of their relationship with God. However, on a human, interpersonal
level, it was a sacramental action signing and sealing a covenantal bond. Their ‘clinging’ to each other was both
the sexual embrace and the bonded relationship symbolized and confirmed by the
sexual embrace… Stated differently, more psychologically, sexual intercourse
communicates much of the marriage covenant and vow in a nonverbal and symbolic
manner. Because of the way we were
created, sex is one of our strongest forms of nonverbal communication; sex is a
promise of affection and loyalty, not only to each other but also to the
children who may result from the relationship. The physical union is a sign of a more comprehensive union,
including spiritual, emotional, and social aspects of life.”[7]
e.
Ordered toward reproduction
f.
Covenantal: Proverbs 2.17; Malachi 2.14; Ezekiel
16.8
i. “Thus
a covenant is not like a human contract that can be dissolved with little or no
sanction. The covenant of marriage
is a union which God himself witnesses and ratifies.”[8]
ii. “The
sanctions following breach of covenant are not merely human but divine. In marriage a man and a woman make a
public agreement (or covenant) to live together in a sexual and social union
until death parts them. To this
agreement God stands witness. He
is present when the covenant is made (and this has nothing to do with whether
or not there is any ecclesiastical context for the vows, for this is
irrelevant). His presence at all
marriages means that he will hold each party accountable to him for the keeping
of these vows. He places the whole
weight of divine presence in support of the vows and in judgment on any who
threaten or break them.”[9]
5.
NOTE: Philosophical Case for Marriage
a.
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T.
Anderson, “What Is Marriage?” Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy 34.1 (Winter 2010), 248-287.[10]
b.
Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T.
Anderson, What Is Marriage? Man and
Woman: A Defense (New York: Encounter Books, 2012).
c.
Ryan T. Anderson, Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Freedom
(Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, 2015).
6.
Nancy Pearcey’s concept of the modern body/mind
split
a.
Biblical view of the human body
i. Created
by God
ii. Integrated
psycho-physical unity à
no dichotomy between body and person
“We may summarize our discussion
of biblical words used to describe the various aspects of man as follows: man
must be understood as a unitary being.
He has a physical side and a mental or spiritual side, but we must not
separate these two. The human
person must be understood as an embodied soul or ‘besouled’ body. He or she must be seen in his or her
totality, not as a composite of different ‘parts.’”
“My preference, however, is to
speak of man as a psychosomatic unity. The advantage of this expression is
that it does full justice to the two aspects of man, while stressing that
unity.”[11]
iii. Teleological
à purpose driven;
designed
“The implication is that the
physical structure of our bodies reveals clues to our personal identity. The way our bodies function provides
rational grounds for our moral decisions.
That’s why, as we shall see, a Christian ethic always takes into account
the facts of biology, whether addressing abortion (the scientific facts about
when life begins) or sexuality (the facts about sexual differentiation and
reproduction). A Christian ethic
respects the teleology of nature and the body.”[12]
b.
Naturalism and the body
i. Charles
Darwin Origin of Species (1859)
1.
Materialism
2.
Appearance of design is an illusion
3.
Humanity is the result of purposeless forces[13]
ii. “The
next step in the logic is crucial: If nature does not reveal God’s will, then it is a morally neutral
realm where humans may impose their
will. There is nothing in nature
that humans are morally obligated to respect. Nature becomes the realm of value-neutral facts, available
to serve what values humans may choose.”
iii. “And
because the human body is part of nature, it too is demoted to the level of an
amoral mechanism, subject to the will of the autonomous self. If the human body
has no intrinsic purpose, built in by God, then all that matters are human
purposes. The body is reduced to a
clump of matter—a collection of atoms and molecules, not essentially different
from any other chance configuration of matter. It is raw material to be manipulated and controlled to serve
the human agenda, like any other natural resource.”[14]
iv. Descartes
two-story dualism[15]
|
MIND
A free autonomous self
|
|
BODY
A mechanism operating by natural law
|
v. “The
main reason people today find it difficult to understand biblical sex ethics is
that their thinking has been trained by the two-level mindset to sever the
natural order from the moral order.
In the academic world, a teleological view of nature as purpose-driven
has been ousted by a materialist view that sees nature as devoid of spiritual
and moral meaning… As a result, most people no longer ‘hear’ the body’s own
message—for example, how the very structure of male-female differentiation
speaks of relationship, mutual love, and self-giving.”[16]
vi. “And
if morality is disconnected from nature, then it becomes merely a social
construction. It is whatever we decide.
A modernist view of nature
leads inevitably to a postmodern view
of morality. Postmodern gender
theory grounds your identity not in your biology but in your mind. You are what you feel.”[17]
vii. The
postmodern body/person divide[18]
|
AUTONOMOUS SELF
Free to impose its own interpretation on the body
|
|
PHYSICAL BODY
Raw material with no intrinsic identity or purpose
|
7.
What does this have to do with the “hookup”
culture?
a.
“What does it mean to say the hookup culture is based
on Cartesian dualism? Most college
students have probably never read Descartes. But they can describe the split mindset perfectly. In an interview in Rolling
Stone magazine, a student named Naomi said hooking up has made ‘people
assume that there are two very distinct elements in a relationship, one
emotional and one sexual, and they pretend like there are clean lines between
them.’”[19]
b.
The hookup culture: “clean lines between them”
|
PERSONAL
Mental & emotional relationship
|
|
PHYSICAL
Sexual relationship
|
c.
Voices from the frontlines of the hookup culture[20]
i. “Hookups
are very scripted… You learn to turn everything off except you body and make
yourself emotionally invulnerable.”
--Alicia (college student)
ii. “Sex
should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right
now.” --Fallon (college student)
iii. “It’s
the body first, personality second.”
--Stephanie (college student)
d.
Hookup culture is a symptom of a cheapen view of
sex and the body!
i. Peter
Singer (Princeton ethicist)
“Sex raises no unique moral issues at all. Decisions about sex may involve considerations of honesty,
concern for others, prudence, and so on, but there is nothing special about sex
in this respect, for the same could be said of decisions about driving a car.”[21]
ii. “Some
may think sexual hedonism gives sex too
much importance, but in reality it gives sex too little importance.
It treats the body as nothing more than a physical organism driven by
physical urges. It treats sex as a
strictly physical act isolated from the rich inner life of the whole
person. Thus is deprives sex of
its depth by detaching it from its meaning as self-giving between a man and a
woman committed to building an entire life together.”[22]
8.
Why talk about the hookup culture?
a.
See in stark relief the degradation of a
non-biblical view of sexuality
b.
Contrasts the key philosophical and theological
ideas
c.
Hopefully highlights the beauty of the sexual
ethic
9.
The hookup culture: not simply for shock value
a.
Need to see people as both “sinners” and “sinned
against”
b.
The New Testament sees people as both
responsible agents (“sinners”) as well as caught in the bondage of sin and the
dominion of Satan (Acts 26.18).
i. Ephesians
2.1-3
ii. Ephesians
4.17-19
iii. 2
Timothy 2.25-26
c.
“We have been addressing people only as sinners. Surely they are sinners, all of them—all of us. But we have forgotten the sinned-against, those who are victims of
the sins of others.”
“I am prepared o make a bold suggestion: that compassion for people is
possible only when we perceive people as the sinned-against. If we look at people as sinners (as
distinct from the sinned-against), we have concern for them, affection or pity,
but not compassion, i.e. suffering together with another, fellow-feeling,
sympathy. Many of the evangelistic
activities of today have little perception of people as the
sinned-against. Many are thus void
of compassion. We must recover compassion in our
evangelism.”[23]
10. Pulling
some thoughts together from week one and today
a.
1 Corinthians 6.12-20: theological importance of
the physical body
b.
Creation, Fall, Redemption, Restoration:
importance of the physical body
c.
Implications for our view of the body that flow
from a biblical worldview and from a naturalistic worldview.
d.
What we find: in all the areas of non-biblical sexuality
that we will examine there is a denigrating view of the body.
i. Just
a “wet machine” or “juicy robot”[24]
ii. The
body does not provide us direction for its teleology/purpose.
“The implication is that the
physical structure of our bodies reveals clues to our personal identity. The way our bodies function provides
rational grounds for our moral decisions.
That’s why, as we shall see, a Christian ethic always takes into account
the facts of biology, whether addressing abortion (the scientific facts about
when life begins) or sexuality (the facts about sexual differentiation and
reproduction). A Christian ethic
respects the teleology of nature and the body.”[25]
[6]
Thomas K. Johnson, What Makes Sex So
Special? MBS-Texte 132 (Berlin: Martin Bucer Seminar, 2009), 6—online: https://theoblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Ethics-of-sex.pdf.
[13]
Nancy Pearcey quotes historian Jacques Barzun, “This denial of purpose is
Darwin’s distinctive contention.”
She also quotes Zoologist Richard Dawkins, “Natural selection, the
blind, unconscious automatic process which Darwin discovered… has no purpose in
mind.” Nancy R. Pearcey, Love Thy Body:
Answering Hard Questions about Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids, Mich.:
Baker Books, 2018), 24. For a more
extensive list of modern thinkers arguing the same point of purposelessness see
my blog post “Quotations on the Meaning of Life” White Rose Review (October 22, 2016)—online: https://whiterosereview.blogspot.com/2016/10/quotations-on-meaning-of-life.html.
[15] Nancy R.
Pearcey, Love Thy Body: Answering Hard
Questions about Life and Sexuality (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books,
2018), 50. It is not appropriate
to blame Descartes for how later philosophers described his views (i.e., “ghost
in the machine”). Descartes may
have had a notion of the unity of the mind and body that is more robust than is
normally recognized. “For
Descartes, to refer to the soul is simply to refer to the self. I am my soul.
Or, to put it differently, the term ‘soul’ refers to what I am speaking of when
I use the term ‘I.’ For Descartes, a person has a body, and indeed has a
particularly intimate relation with that body. He says, for example, that the
soul does not simply reside in the body ‘as a pilot resides in a ship,’ but
rather forms a kind of natural unity with it.” C. Stephen Evans and Brandon L.
Rickabaugh, “What Does It Mean to Be a Bodily Soul?” Philosophia Christi 17.2 (2005), 323.
