Since When Is It "Wrong" To Assess The Validity of Another's World-View?

Somehow, somewhere along the line, it became, apparently, a bad thing to assess the validity of expressions of Christian faith.

Case in point: Santorum’s recent comment which assessed Obama’s theology, his world-life view.

According to news media reports, Santorum said something to the effect that Obama’s theology was “phony,” a “different theology.” And typically some folks got their ethical undies in a wad because Santorum was apparently questioning the validity of Obama’s faith.

Now he’s backed off a bit. During his appeared on “Face the Nation,” after the moderator said it sounded like Santorum was questioning Obama’s religion, he said he was referring to the current President’s views on environmentalism, not his faith.

Now who knows what Santorum was originally thinking when he first uttered the statements. Well, Santorum does I suppose. It doesn’t really matter whether he was question Obama’s world-view, his particular theological understanding or simply his views on environmental concerns.

What the incident has revealed very clearly is something we kind of already know, at least in the Western world of the 21st century: that there is a basic, underlying assumption that ANY and ALL world-views, especially framed in theological terms, are equally valid. And that it is just plain rude to question somebody’s religious statements, to assess them, to see if they (the views, not the person) can withstand philosophic scrutiny. This is a very popular and simple form of postmodernist thought.

If everything is true, then nothing is true. If there is no absolute truth, then you can’t say that there is no absolute truth.

Christians can be, I think, mislead into thinking that it is rude or improper to question the propositions of another person’s basic world-view. They can be mislead into thinking that to claim that Truth (spelled with a capital T), or as Francis Schaeffer called it, true truth, exists is rude or disrespectful.

Will it become a “hate crime” for one to say “This is Truth” and then present the gospel to someone? When Jesus said with absolute certainty that he was the way and the truth and the life" and that "no one comes to the Father" except through him, was he being rude or disrespectful or arrogant? Would he, today, be accused of "hate speech" by some?

CHRISTIAN ETHICS AIN’T EASY (A Sermon)

CHRISTIAN ETHICS AIN’T EASY

North Anderson Community Church, Presbyterian

February 19, 2012

David R. Gillespie

TEXT: Romans 7: 1-25

Life sure would be easy if there were a rule book to which we could turn that gave us specific directions for how to behave as Christians in every possible situation. There are some people who think that’s what the book we call the Bible is.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case.

Every day you and I are faced with decisions regarding our behavior. We find ourselves in situations in which alternatives are presented to us between which we must choose.

And we talk a lot about such things. Or a least we throw the word ethical around a lot. We talk about ethical eating. We talk about ethical this or ethical that.

In the Church we put the word Christian in front of ethics and try to determine what is a Christian ethic of this or that. Should I, for example, as a Christian, buy these particular items which have been made in what we would consider to be horrible conditions in some other country? Should I, as a Christian, drive a car with high gas mileage? What does it mean to live ethically as a Christian in the world today?

Those are questions with which this group often occupies itself. And you should.

It’s been my observation that more often that not, people adopt a certain ethical stance without really having thought through it. Church folks very often know what they believe but would be hard pressed to tell you why they believe that. And we’re not talking about the difference between “liberal” and “conservative” here; from one end of the spectrum to the other, the same approach is often taken. We assume something is the ethical thing to do because someone told us it is. Or we assume the stance of saying this or that behavior is ethical because it is the popular stance to maintain. Conservative or liberal — it doesn’t matter. Both arrive at an ethical stance without really reasoning their way to it.

I’m having the time of my life teaching a class in the OLLI program this winter on A Christian View of Sexual Ethics. And I’ve hopefully pointed out to the mostly “liberal” students in that seminar that if we don’t examine how we arrive at a particular ethical stance and simply throw it out there with a “Well, this is just my opinion” or “Well, this is just what I believe” that we most often end up in a unsustainable relativism where everybody’s ethic is just as valid as anyone else’s ethic with chaos as the end result. If everybody’s ethic is valid, then in reality, nobody’s ethic is valid and anyone can do anything at any time, i.e., chaos.

We have to be able to give a reasoned defense of our ethical stances. We have to be able to say not only “This is the way I behave” but also “This is why I believe I should behave this way.”

And that ain’t easy.

I said a minute ago that for those of us who are Christian, we cannot look at the Bible as simply a rule book covering every behavior in every situation. You can’t do it.

But, for an ethic to be called Christian in any meaningful way, it must be informed by the Bible. And there are principles there, clear, unambiguous principles, which give us a foundation on which to build a Christian ethic of pretty much anything. It’s the building that’s the hard part. Of course, if you don’t consider yourself a Christian, then it really doesn’t matter what may or may not be found in the Bible.

One of those principles is found in the passage from St. Paul’s letter to the Roman Christians. But before we look at that, there is a foundational beginning point for Christian ethics which we must have in mind. And that beginning is found in the beginning, in the first chapter of the book called Genesis.

There in that story, no matter how you interpret “days” or whether you see Adam as a real, historic individual or simply representative — there in that story we are presented with the foundational presupposition on which a Christian philosophy or world-life view is built.

That principle consists of several parts.

The first of which is the eternal, independent existence of a person we call God. God has personality, God is not an impersonal force. This God exists independently of the cosmos, the universe, of creation. God is Creator; everything else is creation, including humanity. God cannot be considered in terms of beginning and ending, whereas creation has a beginning and ending.

The second is that this eternal, independent and personal God can interact in space and time, in history, and can communicate with humanity. And as Creator, this infinite-personal God can and does give standards of behavior to the creature (humankind). “Eat of every tree except this one...” So God is not silent; God communicates. And part of God’s communication is the giving of standards of behavior to which humankind is held accountable.

This Creator-creature distinction is one of two bricks which form the basis of Christian ethics.

The second is just as powerful and important and that is that not only is the creature (humankind) a creature, we have been created unlike and distinct from any other aspect of creation. We have been created in the image of God, whatever that might mean. No other aspect of creation, as valuable as it is, shares that distinction. This has tremendous and far-reaching importance for building a Christian ethic.

Viewing the person standing in front of you at the grocery store checkout line, or in our case this morning, the person sitting next to you here in this room, as the image of God fundamentally affects how we treat that person. We are to treat that person with dignity and respect and immeasurable value. That has to affect how we interact.

In the course at Furman we’re talking about a Christian ethic of sex and what that might look like and we’ve discovered that the starting point of how we sexually interact with others has to be our being created in the image of God. I’ll go out on a little limb here and say that without that starting point, it is very hard indeed, if not impossible, to establish philosophically a reasonable basis for treating people as valued and with dignity and respect. Without that basis we are left with each doing what they want to the other and can confine our behavior toward others only by the threat of punishment of law. If the human before me is not created in the image of the personal-infinite and communicative God, then why… why should I not use them or treat them badly if it lends itself to my own good and pleasure? Without the imago dei, the only possible meaningful answer is the threat of law. And law can and does constantly change.

The entire development of Paul’s thought in the book of Romans is built on this foundation. He begins the letter by describing the human condition as one of rebellion, one in which the creature has usurped that which belongs to the Creator, that the creature has, to use his words, worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator.

This is the foundational conflict between world-views. One starts with the infinite-personal God who gives meaning to the cosmos and who holds humankind accountable. The other starts with the finite creature who establishes its own structure of accountability. For one the beginning of ethics is the God who is there and who has communicated with humanity; for the other, the beginning of ethics is humankind, what we would call Humanism with a capital H. It is putting humankind, the creature, at the center and focal point, the starting point of everything. Whereas for the Christian, the starting point, the center and focal point, is the infinite, eternal, self-existent and communicative God.

That’s very important when it comes to trying to build a Christian ethic.

When we look at Paul’s very revealing and human statements in the text we read earlier, especially as he concludes his thought, we see this working out.

“Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

Here is where for Paul the tires meet the road in ethics. Having been transformed by the gospel, or in his particular case, by his vivid encounter with the risen Christ, Paul says his fundamental desires have changed. He, though formerly a rebellious creature who put himself in the place of the Creator, really does want to do good. But yet there are still rebellious moments. There are those occasions when Paul replaces, in his inner self, God as King with Paul as King. He intimately knows the struggle.

I don’t know about you, but that is a vivid and accurate description of my own life.

So not only is a Christian ethic difficult when it comes to building one, it is difficult in its daily living out. It is a struggle. And, I think we can take this from what Paul wrote, it is a continual struggle. We know what we are to do: we are to live under the Lordship of Christ. Our lives are not our own to do with as we please. Our lives belong to God as Creator, to Christ as Lord. We are not the measure of all things. That is the system of the world, a system in which humankind is the measure of all things. But having been transformed by Christ in coming to him in faith, we know that we are not. Yet we still have times in which we live as if we are the measure of all things.

There is a way through — notice I did not say a way out, but a way through — this struggle in which we all live as Christians.

Paul wrote: “Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

But I don’t think Paul here is simply referring to our being freed from the moral guilt that all humankind bears. I think he is referring to the indwelling Spirit which is at work in us to make us more and more like Christ. In other words, we’re not left on our own to try to be ethical people. There are some folks who speak often of our trying to be ethical people, of our trying to walk in the footsteps of Jesus, of our trying to live our lives based on the ethic taught by Jesus. And that’s fine. We should be ethical people. We should follow Christ, that is what it means to be a disciple. We should live our lives based on the truth which Jesus taught.

The point here is we don’t have to struggle with that alone. I don’t know about you, but if it were left up to me, I’d fail miserably. I know me. Paul knew himself. But this is not the case. We are not left alone to struggle. The spirit of Christ the Lord dwells in us and works in our hearts conforming us more and more to the image of Christ. Indeed, we can say with confidence, as Paul does in his letter to the Philippian church that our help is in the Lord and that he who began a good work in us will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

Now what does all this mean on a day by day practical level?

It means that those of us who have come to Christ in faith can begin to construct an ethic, a way of being and doing in the world, which reflects Christ.

We start with the realization that humankind is unique in all of creation, that humankind is differentiated from creation by this essential fact: being created in the image of God.

Each day, as we go through our routines, as we go to work, as we interact with people, we are encountering the image of God. Because of that, we are to highly value all humankind as image bearers. We are to treat all humankind with dignity and respect and love.

Does that mean we have to like everyone we encounter? Not necessarily. Does that mean we have to agree with everyone we encounter? Not necessarily. What does it mean, then? What does it mean to truly respect another person, even if we don’t like them or agree with them, or even know them? What does it mean to value another person, even if we don’t like them or agree with them, or even know them? What does it mean for us to recognize the inherent dignity that each human being carries with them by virtue of being God’s image-bearer?

This fundamental proposition of Christian faith — that each person we encounter is the personal-infinite and communicative God’s image-bearer — has sweeping implications for us and I leave those for you to hammer out but we can at least say this, any behavior on our parts which assaults the dignity of a human or in any way lessens their value is behavior in which we should not engage.

One of the great influences on my own life and thinking was the late Francis Schaeffer, who put it simply when, in a lecture entitled Priorities, he said:

“We must understand that human life stands at a unique place. Human life stands at a crucial place because there is an unbreakable link between the existence of the infinite personal God and the unique dignity, intrinsic dignity of people. If this God [and by that he mean the triune God who has revealed himself in the person of Jesus and the Christian holy writings] does not exist and he has not made people in his own image, there is no basis for an intrinsic, unique dignity of human life.”

Christian ethics ain’t easy. It’s not easy to construct and it’s not easy to live. But it is incumbent upon those of us who call ourselves Christian to do. The great thing, the wonderful thing, the absolutely necessary thing is that we don’t have to do it on our own. We have help, the indwelling Spirit of Christ in our own hearts and in the Church.

May God continually give us the grace to be the people of God, the called out ones; may God continually give us the grace to live that out in our daily lives.

Abortion: A Personal View of a Christian

There was a lot in the news about abortion recently.

In the mid-1980s, the woman I was dating became pregnant. I paid for the abortion she wanted. Since then, undergoing a shift in my thinking and convictions, I have sought the forgiveness I’m convinced of needing for that.

At the time, I suppose my thinking was along the lines of a lot of people at the time. Abortion had become legal in the previous decade (January 22, 1973 was when the decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court) per Roe v. Wade.

What changed my mind? It was a confluence of both my theological/philosophical development and an event which I’ll never forget.

That event was watching the birth of my first granddaughter. My own children had been delivered via C-section and so, given things at the time, I’d not seen them enter the world. But there I stood in a delivery room at AnMed watching the entrance of my granddaughter into the world. I was simply amazing.

When, I have to ask, did she become a human person — and thereby to be treated with the dignity and respect (i.e., not taking a life) that is due an image-bearer of God? When did my granddaughter become imago dei?

My church (the Roman Catholic Church), indeed a very large part of the Church world-wide (Protestants and Catholics), answer that question firmly: at conception. And to be honest, I can find no compelling reason to not agree with that. That gets to my main point, I suppose.

Yes, I understand, very well, the emotional content which goes into the whole issue of pregnancy and abortion.

Yes, I understand, and can agree with to an extent, the WHO’s definition of what is typically called “reproductive rights” —

“Reproductive rights rest on the recognition of the basic right of all couples to decide freely and responsibly the number, spacing and timing of their children and to have the information and means (that’s where it gets a bit sticky) to do so, and the right to attain the highest standard of sexual and reproductive health (we have to figure out what that ‘highest’ standard is, I suppose). They also include the right of all to make decisions concerning reproduction free of discrimination, coercion and violence.”

No woman should be forced to become pregnant.

My purpose here is not to get into a philosophical/theological discussion of the concept of “rights” at all. That’s for another, and much longer, post. I would simply say this at this time:

To engage in abortion requires that we have an absolute answer to that question of when human life begins. And I can find no compelling reason to chose any point along the way in the development of a human child in the womb. Therefore, I am content — and happen to think that the Scriptures teach this — that an unborn human is a human nevertheless and, therefore, is to be treated with dignity and respect and not to be killed. The defining characteristic of a human being is as image-bearer of God. And since science cannot help answer the question of when a fertilized egg does in fact become a human being — i.e., become the image of God — I can find no other conclusion than human life beginning at conception.

When did my granddaughter become the image of God? That’s the fundamental and personal question for me. At three months? At six months? At nine months? When she took her first independent breath? None of those are satisfactory. From the moment she was conceived, she was imago dei!

And, from a Christian ethical point of view, no one has the “right” to take the life of another image-bearer. While doing so may be legal, we all know that being legal does not mean being right or moral.

Reflection on a Church Sign

"Knowledge puffs up; love builds up." That's what I saw on the sign of a Lutheran church (ELCA) here in town today.

Regardless of what the intent in putting this on the sign was, this observation can be made: It can be safely said that the intent of the pastor was not the same as Paul's in I Corinthians 8:1 where he made the original statement. It is a safe assumption that the congregation of that church is not embroiled in a controversy about eating meat that had been sacrificed to idols.

Paul is not drawing an abstract contrast between knowledge, on the one hand, and love, on the other; or between the cognitive and the emotive. Paul is not saying knowledge is unimportant and love is. Both, for the Apostle, are important. In fact, one might could argue that in the context of the historic Christian faith (read: reflected in the Apostle's Creed and Nicene Creed), knowledge is impossible without love and love is impossible without knowledge.

At best, this is simply a jerking out of context a particular phrase of Paul's. And engaging in such a "sound bite" approach to the Scripture is a sin committed by both some of those who self-identify as "progressive" Christians and by their nemesis, some "conservative" Christians.

At worst, it represents an anti-intellectualism which, again, infects some of those at both ends of that theological spectrum. One will search in vain in the Scriptures to find knowledge qua knowledge contrasted with agape. Paul, for example, was a highly intellectual person who wasn't afraid to ascribe — in certain instances — certainty to his knowledge.

In some "progressive" circles, certainty is anathema. Thinking such as that very often will declare with absolute certainty that there can be no absolute certainty. That form of "progressive" Christianity is just as anti-intellectual as certain forms of "fundamental" or "evangelical" Christianity. But then, it's always easier to accuse others of the same faults which we have ourselves...maybe in hopes that if we point out theirs first, then ours won't be so noticeable.

Sometimes folks feel the need to pooh pooh knowledge in order to make up for their own lack thereof. Anti-intellectualism, whether of the progressive or fundamentalist kind, is still anti-intellectualism. And there's nothing anti-intellectual about Christian faith.

But back to the point: life as a Christian is not a life in which one must choose between intellectual content (and increasing that intellectual content) and some warm and fuzzy, but empty of meaning, notion of love. Biblical love is always defined in terms of how we act, not how we feel. And our actions must be informed (an intellectual activity). To live the Gospel, one must know the Gospel.

Born This Way, Pt. 2 — Good For Cynthia Nixon

Apparently, viewing one's sexual behavior as a choice (i.e., choosing to do it) will get your "gay card" revoked, as actress Cynthia Nixon recently found out.

I recently posted a reflection prompted by a question with which my seminar class on "A Christian View of Sexual Ethics" was wrestling: does genetic predisposition to a behavior give us, in and of itself, an ethical assessment of the behavior?

In other words, (1) just because I may have a genetic predisposition to a certain behavior does not mean I have to engage in that behavior, and (2) just because I may have a genetic predisposition to a certain behavior does not tell me whether or not I should engage in that behavior.

That discussion had been prompted by a discussion of the “biological basis of homosexuality.” In that discussion, I had raised the issue of epigenetics and research being done as to why this or that genetic trigger, should it exist (and the verdict is still out on that, but for the sake of argument we’ll say that it does), is expressed in some while not in others — and the role of environmental stimuli on whether or not a given trigger is expressed.

Of course, the elephant in the room was homosexual inclination and behavior.

It has become a matter of faith, a doctrine, an unquestionable presupposition for some folks that homosexual behavior is ethically justified, and therefore certain “rights” belong to those who so self-identify and engage in such behavior, because of its alleged biological (i.e., genetic) basis. It is basically the “I was born this way, therefore...” or “I can’t help it because of my genetic makeup” kind of argument.

Not all folks, even those who are in same-gender relationships with a sexual component, agree with that line of reasoning, however. And apparently they pay dearly when they voice such disagreement.

Witness the recent statement by actress Cynthia Nixon, who is in a romantic/sexual/emotional relationship with another woman, who reportedly said in an interview:

“Why can’t it [same-gender sexual relationships - drg] be a choice? Why is that any less legitimate?”

Nixon is in a same-gender sexual relationship, the acknowledgement of which was applauded by “gay” media and “gay rights” groups. Her statement reflects the attitudes of, for example, the website, Queer By Choice. And the questions she raised are valid and those who seek to tie same-gender sexual behavior to biological compulsion have to answer them. Why would such behavior, if it is chosen rather than biologically determined, be less legitimate?

Apparently, however, viewing the entering into of such relationships as a choice is a heresy and a denial of one of the fundamental canons of “gay law.” It violates a supposedly necessary dogma of some gay apologists.

And now Nixon, for whatever reasons [not the least of which is pressure from “gay rights” groups and “gay” media], has had to clarify her original statement and explained to The Advocate that she self-identifies as bisexual, which for her is not a choice, but that she has, in fact, “chosen to be in a gay relationship.”

I am struck by the very real and significant intolerance here of those who cry out for tolerance.

Apparently for some self-identified gay folks there is no room whatsoever for divergence of opinion on the subject of the causes of homosexual behavior. Nixon, who was applauded by the “gay community” for making public her relationship with another woman, is now being criticized for saying she chose to be in that relationship.

Why, because the whole discussion of “gay rights” has mistakenly been tied to a yet to be proven biology and even if that biology was clear and unambiguous and conceded by all, it is questionable whether or not we can construct a notion of “rights” solely on the basis of it, much less give an ethical assessment of the behavior. There are much better ways to argue for people who engage in same-gender sexual behavior to be granted the same civil standing as those who don’t.

This confusion of sexual attraction and sexual behavior is what lies beneath such ridiculous statements like the one I heard on my local news the other day when a self-identified gay couple who had been denied a marriage license described it as the state “denying their love.” The state wasn’t telling them they couldn’t love each other; not at all. But such is the nature of political rhetoric, I guess.

There is most likely a genetic component, which may be triggered by environmental factors, in being physically attracted to members of the same gender. I don’t see how you can get around that. But that, in and of itself, cannot justify same-gender sexual behavior.

My physical attraction to a person does not compel me to have sex with them.

For Christians wrestling with this issue, the question is what might be a biblically informed and church tradition informed view of sexual behavior in general? To wit; who should have sex with whom, when and where and in what context?

If one argues that sexual intercourse should be reserved for the context of marriage and then defines that word, marriage, as a one man-one woman (at a time) governmental recognized contract, then yes, same-gender sexual relationships would be, in that view, morally wrong.

The fundamental question, however, is whether or not you can establish that view given a serious consideration of the biblical material.

Sexual behavior, like all of life, comes under the Lordship of Christ. What that means in its practical outworking is what we're dealing with here.

And this is not an essential doctrine of the faith! There is room within what can legitimately be called orthodox Christianity for a divergence of views of just what constitutes a Christian ethic of sex.

Split P's: The Newest Presbyterian Denomination

The “Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians” [or ECO for short] has been born. According to a statement from the Fellowship of Presbyterians (a group of disaffected ministers and lay persons from the Presbyterian Church, USA (PCUSA), “ECO is a denominational entity under the umbrella of The Fellowship of Presbyterians...”

And though I am no longer a member of any Presbyterian group (or Protestant, for that matter), the now PCUSA was the denominational tradition of my birth, childhood and young adulthood. I have many treasured memories of the people and ministers whom I encountered there. So I do have an emotional interest in Presbyterian happenings; and I have an ecclesiastical one as well.

I’ve heard estimates that now, with this newest split, the PCUSA could possibly lose somewhere between 500 and 1000 churches. For a denomination that’s now less than half its greatest membership already, that ain’t nothing to sneeze at or dismiss. Though membership in the ECO does not require a minister/congregation to completely break ties with the PCUSA, I think it safe to say that if property ownership does not become the  greatest motivating factor (as it might with some churches who want to go but have multi-million dollar physical plants), most will probably just go ahead and leave the PCUSA altogether. At least that’s what I’m thinking.

What one has to understand is this: causation of this split (and similar ones in other mainline denominations) cannot be assigned solely to the whole “gay ordination” thing.

While movement by the PCUSA (along with the Episcopal Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church) to allow for non-celibate self-identified gay/lesbian persons to be ordained is, no doubt, the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back, the issues are much deeper for most of these folks and go to the heart of what genuine Christianity is.

John Shore, in his piece at Huffington Post, titled “Evangelical Covenant Order of Presbyterians: Cowardly Lions,” was absolutely wrong when he wrote: “What is certainly most notable, however, is ECOs refusal to anywhere, in any way whatsoever, just come out and say that they formed in response to PCUSA’s sanctioning the ordination of gay people. Everyone knows that’s why ECO formed.”

He couldn’t be more wrong. He does not take into account the long perceived decline in doctrinal integrity [read: commitment in theory and practice to historic, orthodox Christianity] in the PCUSA. I don’t know of anyone who wants to seriously debate that. It is pretty much recognized by all — although, in all fairness, some would not characterize it as decline so much as evolution or development. Regardless of what we call it, the fact of the matter is, the doctrinal commitments of the current PCUSA are not, for better or for worse, the same commitments which characterized the previous denominational expressions which have been brought together in the PCUSA and that the theological landscape begin to shift in the early and mid-20th century.

We can say the same of The Episcopal Church or the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (and former groups which now make up that denomination).

To put it another way, some folks have been and are taking the late Christopher Hitchens’ statement — to the effect that he didn’t see how a person who didn’t believe in Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah or his atoning death on the cross or his historical resurrection could in any meaningful sense call themselves Christian — and applying it to denominations as a whole. In other words, if a denomination qua denomination does not affirm those doctrines, can it in any meaningful sense be called a Christian denomination?

Folks forming ECO say no, and here’s why:

According to the PCUSA’s own survey, about 45% of PCUSA pastors believe, in essence, that reconciliation with God is possible without coming to Christ in faith. Only 66% of pastors and 45% of specialized clergy agreed or strongly agreed that “the only absolute truth for humankind is in Jesus Christ.” About 25% of pastors and 40% of specialized clergy agreed to one degree or another that “all the world’s religions are equally good ways of helping a person find ultimate truth.”

This is much, much deeper than the whole “gay ordination” thing. It goes to how one defines and understands the gospel of Jesus Christ; it goes to the question of whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth; it goes to fundamental theological/philosophical questions about God and how God has or has not revealed himself (pardon the non-neutral gender language) to a fallen humankind — and what the nature of that “fall” is and how it may be remedied.

I tend to agree with those folks who say it requires extremely good vision and detective skills to find the historically understood “marks of the church” in the PCUSA, TEC or ELCA.

On the other hand, it is another observable division among those who call themselves Christians — those for whom Christ prayed for unity in order that the world would know that the Father had sent the Son. It is a matter of an ecclesiology of integrity and raises the same question which has been raised throughout the Church’s history but especially since the inception of the Protestant project: what, if anything, justifies splitting the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church? And this is one “mark of the church” which cannot be ignored: Unity.

Here’s my take: I think Hitchens was very wise and on target with his observation and it can be applied to denominational groups. When a denomination — through both it’s official pronouncements and in practice — no longer affirms the core doctrines of Christian faith [as found in the great ecumenical creeds] then it can no longer be called in any meaningful sense Christian. Those denominations should at least have the integrity of the Unitarian Universalists who for sometime have eschewed the label “Christian.”

My personal prayer is that those who have recognized that denominations like the PCUSA, Episcopal Church and Evangelical Lutherans, which can, according to Hitchens’ standard, no longer in any meaningful sense be called Christian, would find their way back into the, albeit flawed, Catholic Church, taking seriously those creedal words: One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic.

BORN THIS WAY....SO WHAT?

Author's note: this is a blog post, not a dissertation for a philosophy degree. As such it is brief and does not FULLY address certain issues, but rather, simply raises them for discussion. I welcome your reactions, as long as they are reasoned, rational ones.

“I’m beautiful in my way,

‘Cause God makes no mistakes

I’m on the right track, baby

I was born this way.”

So goes the refrain from Lady Gaga’s anthem, Born This Way. In the song, Gaga seeks to make the case that whether one “is” gay, straight or bi, lesbian or transgendered — and no matter what color your skin — the justification for “being” such is simply to be found in having been born that way. In her theological reflection she posits that a) you are the way you are because of your having been born that way; b) being born that way means created that way by a God; c) God only creates perfection (i.e., makes no mistakes); therefore, whatever I am is okay.

That kinda sums it up. More popularly, however, the song has been latched onto by those seeking to make the case for a positive ethical assessment of same-gender sexual behavior (read: gay) as a somehow authoritative statement of fact.

Put simply the argument goes something like this: “I engage in sexual behavior with members of my own gender. This is because I was born this way [read: genetically predisposed]. I didn’t choose so; I can’t help it. Therefore, it is okay (in an ethical/moral sense of the word)."

This is the question which was raised this past week at the end of a session of the seminar on Christian Sexual Ethics I’m leading at a local university for adult learners: Does genetic predisposition offer to us — in and of itself — an ethical/moral assessment of a certain behavior?

Based on popularized attempts at assessing same-gender sexual behavior as morally permissible or ethically justified, one might think so. And it spills over into ecclesiastical debates on “gay” issues such as ordination and marriage. Of course, some arguments go, we must ordain persons engaging in same-gender sexual behavior (as long as it is in a context which we define — most often with words like “committed” or “monogamous” or “long term and publicly accountable relationships) because people are born that way. They can’t help it.

There are, it seems to me, some problems which come with making such a case.

The first is that making the case thus seems to be the same as saying because a phenomenon is, we must ethically/morally approve of it.

The second is that making such a case will require one to also make the case that not all genetic predispositions are equal. For example, say, for the sake of argument that there are genetic predispositions to other types of sexual behavior which have yet to be discovered. While not many want to argue for the moral/ethical acceptability of those behaviors, one does have to rationally explain why genetic predisposition in one case provides such acceptability but not in others.

I say “rationally” explain because on the popular level, most arguments put forth on either side of the issue aren’t too rational and consist mainly in shouting matches.

Third, it seems that in making an argument thus, the very important distinction between behavior and a socially constructed notion of self-identity is lost, or at least blurred. In other words, there is that notion of self-identity which needs no moral/ethical assessment and there is the behavior, which does.

Moreover, the self-identity, in this context, really has no meaning apart from the behavior. For example, what does it mean if I stand up at church and say, "I am a sexually promiscuous person." And someone asks: "Does that mean you're having sex with a lot of different people?" And I say, "No, I'm not having sex with anyone. It's just who I am." To identify as "gay" or "lesbian" for example, really doesn't have much meaning unless you're having sex with a member of your own gender — in this discussion. What might those words mean if there is no sexual behavior content to the definition — even if the content is "I want to have sex with members of my own gender"?

But back to the question at hand: genetics is not destiny (see this well written piece: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/11/21/when-dna-is-not-destiny.html).

To make an ethical/moral assessment of a behavior requires, it would seem, that there be alternative behaviors in which one can possibly engage, between which one can choose. One must be able to do or not do. In terms of sexual behavior, to make a moral/ethical assessment, either positive or negative, requires that a person be able to choose between engaging in such behavior or not engaging in it.

There is quite possibly a genetic component in sexual behaviors. But to argue for moral/ethical acceptance based solely on that is, it seems, to be saying there are no other possibilities of actions for the person; that, in effect, the genetic predisposition is more compelling that having a gun to one’s head (for even in that case there are options, alternatives of actions).

Which gets us back to the core question of all of the “homosexual” debates which have torn various denominations apart: What types of sexual behavior are acceptable from a moral/ethical point of view and in what context?

In other words: who can have sex with who, and when, and in what context? And that’s what trying to establish a biblically, informed Christian ethic of sex is all about.