Tag: homosexuality

Posted on

Review of Nancy Pearcey’s Love Thy Body

By Jim Spiegel

Every so often there appears a book which provides such an insightful cultural diagnostic that you wish everyone would read it. For me, Nancy Pearcey’s Love Thy Body (Baker, 2018) is one such book. Pearcey’s thesis is that numerous problematic trends in our culture, from the pro-choice movement to transgenderism to the hook-up culture, are all driven by a low view of the body. Specifically, a philosophical concept which she calls “personhood theory” serves as the common rationale for these movements. Personhood theory, she says, “presumes a very low view of the human body, which ultimately dehumanizes all of us” (p. 20).

Through most of history it was generally understood that to be a human being is to be a person. But in the 20th century—especially the early 1970s—philosophers began to differentiate these two things, introducing the body-person dichotomy. This concept was pivotal in the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the country (proposing that the fetus is human but not a person under the 14th amendment).

From there, the body-person dichotomy has driven secular views on many other issues, including, euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, homosexuality, transgenderism, and the hook-up culture. Pearcey says, “Christianity holds that body and soul together form an integrated unity—that the human being is an embodied soul. By contrast, personhood theory entails a two-tiered perspective that sets the body against the person” (p. 21). (Thus, it is important to note, Pearcey does affirm mind-body dualism. What she is critiquing is body-person dualism or, which is what she dubs “personhood theory.”)

The biblical, Judeo-Christian view is teleological, seeing purpose in the human body as well as the rest of nature, since it is designed by God. The modern root of personhood theory is Darwinism, which sees all of nature as an “amoral mechanism.” According to Pearcey, “if the body has no intrinsic purpose, built in by God, then all that matters are human purposes.” This means that the human body may be “manipulated and controlled to serve the human agenda, like any other natural resource” (p. 24).

This view is dehumanizing, because it implies that mere humans do not have rights.  Only persons do. But a constant theme throughout Scripture is that our bodies matter.  Nature is good. Our physical beings are created by and treasured by God.

Christianity emerged in a cultural context dominated by a low view of the body, due to the influence of Platonism and Gnosticism. With Jesus’ ministry of physical healing, his own physical resurrection, the Pauline concept of the body as God’s temple, and the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, among other things, the Bible puts a strong emphasis on the inherent sacredness of the human body. In the early modern period, the ideas of Descartes and Kant undermined this biblical view. More recently, Darwinism and contemporary materialistic philosophies rejected it altogether, and as our culture embraces materialism we see its dehumanizing effects.

Pearcey discusses some of the practical ways that personhood theory and its low view of the body are manifested in contemporary culture:

  • Euthanasia: If the body is separate from the person, then if an individual’s cognitive functions are gone the person is gone. So terminating the life of their body is acceptable.
  • Physician-Assisted Suicide: If the body is separate from the person, then I can dispose of my body whenever I autonomously choose to do so.
  • Infanticide: Since a newborn baby cannot reason and has no self-concepts, it is not yet a person and therefore may be destroyed.
  • Hooking Up: If the body is separate from the person, then I can freely involve my body sexually with others, and this need not affect me personally. Sex is just something I do with my body.
  • Pornography: If the body is separate from the person, I can view and even act in pornographic videos, since these are just bodies.
  • Prostitution: If the body is separate from the person, I can sell my body or use others for sex, since these are just our bodies.
  • Homosexuality: If the body is separate from the person, then my sexual desires and preferences are more important than my biology (genetics and genitalia) in determining who I may have sex with.
  • Transgenderism: If the body is separate from the person, then my biology is irrelevant to my actual gender.

Pearcey notes several bizarre and problematic implications of the personhood theory. One of these is that it undermines women’s rights. If a “woman” is no longer defined biologically, then we cannot identify sex-based oppression. Moreover, even biological “men” can claim that their women’s rights are violated if they identify as women, just as such individuals are permitted to use women’s bathrooms in many states.

The influence of personhood theory has been vast in Western culture. Yet no one can agree on exactly what constitutes a “person”! Philosophers have proposed all sorts of conditions and criteria, but there is no consensus. In contrast, on the Judeo-Christian view that all humans are persons, there is clarity as to who are persons, and it is scientifically verifiable. For this reason, Pearcey maintains that the body-person dichotomy is anti-science.

Love Thy Body provides a much-needed constructive critique of a prevalent perspective in contemporary American culture. Although it contains many significant philosophical insights, the book is written in a semi-journalistic style which is fit for a popular audience. My only critique is that it is that the book is a bit heavy with examples which illustrate Pearcey’s points such that the discussion sometimes seems repetitive. It could have been tightened by 50 pages or so. But this is a relatively minor flaw which should not dissuade readers. I highly recommend this book!

Posted on

Defending Daniel Murphy’s Freedom of Thought

By Jim Spiegel

In his August 21 Chicago Tribune column Steve Rosenbloom calls into question the “character” of new Chicago Cubs player Daniel Murphy simply because Murphy has declared his disagreement with the homosexual lifestyle of former player Billy Bean.  Rosenbloom never bothers to explain exactly why Murphy’s convictions should be considered problematic, much less why his character should be called into question.  Apparently, Rosenbloom was content to use cheap innuendo, which of course is irresponsible and lazy journalism.

Since when did it become morally objectionable to disagree with a person’s lifestyle choices?  And given the fact that historically orthodox devotees of all three Abrahamic religions—Jews, Christians, and Muslims—have the same conviction as Daniel Murphy, Rosenbloom is effectively

NY Post

questioning the character of billions of people.  And all without a single argument.  That is closed-minded dogma.

Perhaps Rosenbloom would insist that it is irrational or wrong to oppose homosexual conduct because same-sex orientations are innate, based in, say, a genetic disposition.  There are two major problems with such reasoning.  First, there is no evidence, scientific or otherwise, for this claim.  The notion that people are “born that way” is a cultural myth which has taken hold only because it so conveniently fits the LGBTQ narrative.

Secondly, even if it turns out to be the case that homosexual attractions are innate for some people, it does not follow from this that homosexual behavior is morally appropriate.  Not all desires need to be acted upon.  Human beings are free to resist particular sexual desires, regardless of how strong they might be.  We are not automatons or animals.  To say that a person must act according to their same-sex desires is to affirm hard determinism, which is a deeply problematic view, since it implies that all of us are slaves to our strong desires and not culpable if we act on them.

Or maybe Rosenbloom would say that Murphy’s belief is somehow dangerous or threatening to LGBTQ people.  But if mere disagreement with a person’s lifestyle is dangerous or threatening and therefore grounds for moral censure, then shall we also impugn the character of those who disagree with other lifestyle choices, from pot-smoking to NRA membership?  This is a slippery slope to an Orwellian world.

In short, however Rosenbloom might try to rationalize his assailing of Daniel Murphy’s character, it is indefensible.  And he owes Mr. Murphy an apology.

It should be obvious to everyone that our culture has turned decidedly in the direction of a gay-affirming stance in recent years.  But the mere popularity of a view does not show that it is true.  To reason from popular opinion is a basic logical fallacy—a fallacy that much of our culture has sadly embraced.  And the tacit assumption that consensual sexual behavior should be exempt from moral assessment is not only historically aberrant but ethically foolish.  It is indicative of a culture whose idol of sexual license has become its most ascendant god.  Every culture ultimately makes sacrifices to its gods, and American culture is no different.  Evidently, we are now even prepared to offer up our freedom of thought.

Posted on

WANTED: Gay Affirming Christian Scholar from Before 1950

By Jim Spiegel

I am currently researching and writing a chapter for an upcoming book on sexual ethics, to be entitled Venus and Virtue (edited by Jerry Walls, Jeremy Neill, and David Baggett and published by Wipf and Stock). The aim of the book is, in the editors’ words, to “recover Christian wisdom about sexuality by exploring again the biblical and theological foundations that teach us how to celebrate sex while seeking sanctification.”

My own chapter, entitled “The Sexual Pluralist Revolution: Reasons to be Skeptical,” will discuss the dramatic shift of perspective that has occurred in the West within the last generation regarding sexual morality—a shift away from the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic of sex as appropriate only within heterosexual marriage and in the direction of affirming any sexual relationship so long as it takes place between consenting adults. I dub this view “sexual pluralism.” I think there are several reasons to be skeptical of sexual pluralism, not the least of which is the fact that there appear to be no gay-affirming Christian scholars (theologians, philosophers, ethicists, etc.) in history until the latter part of the twentieth century. So with this post I am beckoning our readers to help me out here. Can anyone give me a plausible example of such a scholar?

This matter of historical precedent is quite germane to the question of a Christian’s skepticism about sexual pluralism, and here’s why. As Christians we should take seriously the wealth of moral and theological wisdom that has preceded us historically, and where there is strong consensus among our best thinkers about an issue, as there is on the sexual conduct question, then that forms a strong presumption in favor of the prevailing view. Now since sexual pluralism constitutes a rejection of the Christian consensus about sexual ethics, then, to say the least, we ought to be rather skeptical of this view. In fact, it seems to me, to dismiss the strong consensus of all of the greatest Christian minds who have written on the subject down through history is actually quite arrogant or else historically myopic (or perhaps, to a degree, both).

Now it is very clear that there is, as I have said, a strong historical consensus among Christian scholars on sexual ethics until the last few decades. (This point is strongly confirmed in Fortson and Grams’ new book Unchanging Witness.) But what I want to know is whether there is actual unanimity—agreement without exception—among Christian scholars regarding the traditional sexual ethic until the mid-twentieth century. Not that my argument depends on such, of course. One would expect at least a few historical exceptions, given the many thousands of Christian scholars who have weighed in on the issue over nearly twenty millennia. Identifying a few outliers would not undermine the argument. But I am intrigued by the possibility that there are no such outliers and that there really was complete unanimity on the issue among Christian scholars until recently. So again, I beseech your help in identifying an example for me. This would then confirm that I should avoid use of the term “unanimous” in my chapter in describing the Christian scholarly consensus on the issue prior to the mid-twentieth century.

Now, a couple of caveats. First, it will not do to point to a given scholar in history who might appear to have engaged in same-sex practices or to cite historical innuendo in that direction. Not only is this potentially slanderous regarding the scholar in question but it misses the point of my argument, which regards the studied views of Christian scholars down through history, for it is this which carries some epistemic authority for Christians today.

Also, it won’t do to appeal to the dangers of being a sexual pluralist or gay affirming in past times, thus ostensibly explaining the silence of dissenting Christian scholars on the subject. This is because down through history thousands of Christians—scholars and lay people alike—have suffered severely for rejecting other doctrines, even those as relatively minor as particular views on communion and baptism, as well as the doctrine of salvation and creedal matters. (Here is one partial list.) So if some Christian scholars were gay affirming in such dangerous contexts, surely at least a few would have been willing to make this known despite the damaging consequences. Also, the threat of execution or even severe prosecution would not apply to all Christian contexts in all countries down through history. In some places and times, the ramifications for affirming sexual pluralism would be less severe, thus making the supposed “silence” of all sexual pluralist Christian scholars less plausible.

Posted on

The Sexual Pluralist Revolution: Reasons to be Skeptical

By Jim Spiegel

In the United States the last generation has seen a decisive move away from the Judeo-Christian sexual norms that have reigned in the West for centuries.  This shift has involved a move toward sexual pluralism, the view that any sexual behavior is morally permissible so long as it takes place between mutually committed adults.  This is nothing short of revolutionary, as it constitutes a radical and abrupt change of practice and moral perspective.  This should be troubling to anyone who prizes the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition, because it flouts both natural law and biblical teaching on sexuality.  But it is also troubling for non-theological reasons.  Here I will consider several reasons why we should be especially skeptical of the rise of sexual pluralism.  I will give special attention to homosexual conduct both because this issue is so heavily emphasized by sexual pluralists and because it is now a point of controversy within some Christian communities.

One reason to be skeptical of sexual pluralism is that this movement has not been driven by rational argument, unlike other revolutionary developments such as the Protestant Reformation, the scientific revolution, and the abolitionist movement.  Rather, the sexual pluralist revolution has been powered by postmodern relativism, pop culture influences, and a confused view of tolerance that is really a disguised form of dogmatism.

Many say the sexual pluralists do have an argument, specifically the argument from nature—science has proven that our sexual orientation is innate, not under one’s control.  Yet here is another reason to be skeptical of sexual pluralism.  The so-called argument from science is spurious.  No credible studies have proven a biological basis for homosexual orientation.  Some cite the LeVay or Bailey-Pillard studies of the early 1990s, but these are seriously flawed.  Moreover, even if there were a genetic or congenital disposition toward homosexual attraction, this proves nothing regarding whether homosexual practice is ever morally appropriate.  For even if homosexual orientation is biologically determined, this does not imply that such people must choose to behave accordingly or that they are not morally culpable for their sexual choices.  To insist so is to embrace hard determinism, the view that since human choices are caused we are neither free nor morally responsible for our behavior.  The fact that sexual pluralists must appeal to such deterministic thinking shows how thin their rational grounds are.

A third reason that Christians should be skeptical of sexual pluralism is the fact that significant disagreement about the issue within the Church is historically unprecedented.  Never before the last generation was there ever serious debate among Christian theologians or ethicists regarding the moral legitimacy of homosexual behavior.  In fact, there has been considerably more debate about such fundamental doctrines as the Trinity and the divinity of Christ than there has been about this.  Other sexual issues (e.g., polygamy) have been debated, of course.  But not until the late twentieth century have Christians seriously debated the moral permissibility of homosexual practice.

This leads to a final reason to be skeptical about sexual pluralism: debate in the Church has occurred almost exclusively in North America and parts of Europe.  Christians in Africa, Asia, and South America almost uniformly affirm the traditional view.  Because of this, it is extremely misleading, even ethnocentric, to glibly declare that “Christians are very divided on the homosexuality issue” as some are wont to do.  Consult a typical Christian in Kenya or China or Brazil, and they will shake their heads in disbelief, perhaps even asking “What is wrong with American Christians that they could actually disagree about this issue?”  Good question.

For these reasons Christians are well-advised to hold fast to the historic Judeo-Christian sexual ethic.  In the coming years, doing so will be increasingly difficult, since this will demand a firm resolve to resist cultural currents.  Those on the side of biblical orthopraxy will be dismissed or, worse, persecuted.  And although sexual pluralism has no rational grounds—theologically, historically, or scientifically—it might be useless to resist with rational argument.  For a view which rises to prominence by abandoning reason can hardly be defeated through the use of reason.

Posted on

Homosexuality, State Dogma, and the Censoring of Christians

By Jim Spiegel

A lot of attention is being given to two recent legal cases regarding Christian counseling students who are being censored because of their views on homosexuality.  Last week a federal court upheld Eastern Michigan University’s expulsion of Julea Ward, a graduate student, due to her belief that homosexuality is immoral.

And down in Georgia, school officials at Augusta State University have informed counseling graduate student Jennifer Keeton that she must complete a remediation program to change her views about homosexuality or else she will be dismissed.  Keeton has decided to sue ASU.

Now a few observations.  Notice that the issue in both cases is the students’ beliefs about homosexuality, not their conduct.  This is, as one of the attorneys in the Ward case said, “scary stuff,” and I would add that it is just the sort of thing that John Stuart Mill warned us about in his classic On Liberty.  The State has no business controlling or attempting to control people’s consciences.  And to shut down freedom of opinion on such a crucial issue as sexual immorality is especially frightening.

The district court judge, George Steeh, declared that the university was justified in “requiring students to counsel clients without imposing their personal values.”  And EMU is not imposing its values on Ward by insisting that she change her views?  Clearly there are values at stake in this case, but it is not just Ward’s personal, or Christian, values.  EMU’s values, specifically that homosexuality is morally appropriate, are involved too.  To insinuate that EMU is value neutral here is ethically naïve or, worse, disingenuous.  The truth is that EMU, Augusta State, and no doubt most other state universities, have an ethically dogmatic position on the homosexuality issue, no less dogmatic than that of Ward, Keeton, and other conservative Christians.

Also, consider the irony that the EMU and ASU officials aim to change these students’ beliefs when it is also presumably the view of these university officials that homosexuals cannot change.  The notion that homosexual orientation is somehow fixed and immutable is, after all, the most popular argument in defense of its moral legitimacy.  The irony here is that between the two, beliefs and conduct, the latter is far more susceptible to voluntary change.  In fact, many philosophers would argue that one’s beliefs are not at all under one’s control.  (Try changing your belief about even a trivial matter, and you’ll see this is so.  And even the prospect of long-term intentional change of one’s beliefs is a controversial matter.)  But one’s sexual conduct is under one’s control.  The decision to have sex is a choice (except in cases of rape, of course, but that’s beside the point).  Human beings have free will, and that applies in the sexual sphere as well as anywhere else.  To deny this and insist that those with homosexual attraction (even if it is innate, though there is little evidence to suggest it is) “cannot help themselves” is to affirm hard determinism, a radical and morally deadly view in itself.

Yet, despite these problems, moral permissivism about homosexuality is becoming a dogma in our culture, including the academy and the legal sphere.  This is bad news—not just for religious freedom in America but for the state of our public discourse.

Posted on

The APA Controversy Over Religion and Sexuality

By Jim Spiegel

Some members of the American Philosophical Association (APA) are circulating a petition that aims to censure orthodox Christian colleges and universities.  The authors of the petition are requesting that the APA not allow these institutions to advertise open positions in their publication Jobs for Philosophers. The crux of the issue?  The non-permissive stance of these schools regarding homosexual behavior.  You can read the petition here: http://www.petitiononline.com/cmh3866/petition.html

The implications of this petition are severe, not only for Christian colleges but for orthodox Jewish and Muslim schools as well.  The petition amounts to a frontal attack on the religious liberty of private educational institutions. In response, some Christian philosophers have drawn up a counter-petition, which you can read here:  http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/apa/.  I have already signed this petition and encourage you to consider doing so as well.

Mark Murphy of Georgetown University has drafted a very insightful response to this controversy, which you can see here:  http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/murphym/APAStatement-Murphy.htm. Murphy makes several illuminating observations, many regarding the history of the APA nondiscrimination provisions and other points pertaining to the faulty logic of the petition to change the APA’s advertising policy.  Here I will summarize and embellish some of Murphy’s points:

First, the accused Christian colleges do not single out homosexual activity as unacceptable.  Rather, such colleges prohibit all extramarital sexual practice, which also includes adultery, premarital sex, polygamy, pedophilic sex, and bestiality.  The expectation at these Christian colleges is that their employees and students will refrain from all sexual activity that is outside the bounds of Christian marriage.  While some homosexuals might consider the expectation to refrain from extramarital sexual activity to be a burden, it is not a special burden placed on them, since heterosexuals are also expected to refrain from extramarital sex.

Second, note that this is a behavioral prohibition which is consistent with nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (per the language of the APA nondiscrimination policy).  To be sexually oriented in a certain way, whether heterosexually or homosexually, is to be physically attracted to members of a particular gender.  But to act or not to act on these desires is a matter of choice, just as it is a matter of choice as to whether to have sex at all.  To insist that persons, whether homosexual or heterosexual, are not free to choose whether or with whom to have sex, assumes a form of hard determinism—a view which, to say the least, is highly contentious.  (See my January 26 post about this.)

Third, the moral norm of confining sex to marriage between one man and one woman is inherent to the religious commitment of these Christian colleges.  Moreover, this is the long-standing belief and practice of all major theisms—Judaism, Islam, and Christianity—and many other religions besides.  So to sanction schools for observing this ideal would be blatant religious discrimination—against, in fact, the religious beliefs of the majority people in the world.