Homosexuality in the Bible

Lately there has been a huge controversy about same-sex marriages and homosexuality in general. Some would say that Bible opposes homosexuality and thus it must be staunchly opposed. Others say that the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is culturally irrelevant, and must be seen from a different angle. Others think that the Bible doesn’t actually oppose homosexuality. Who is right? I don’t want to write an extensive paper on this, but let me see if I can summarize what the Bible does say, clearly. In a sentence, here is my position: “God loves homosexuals without condition and just because a person has a sexual orientation doesn’t mean they are a sinner; however, the act of homosexual sex is a sin that must be repented of.”

1. Homosexuality is a sin
The two obvious passages in the New Testament are Pauline. Romans 1 says that homosexuality is a sin and I Corinthians 6 claims that two classes of homosexuals will not enter into the kingdom of God. I Corinthians 6 has a pair of words that would be literally translated “homosexual” and “soft one”, but would best be translated today by the terms “butch and femme”. In the ancient world, homosexuality was commonly practiced by older and younger men and a patronage model had homosexuality as a significant aspect, which is specifically what Paul is referring to, not prostitution.

Acts 15 has three sins that gentile believers must avoid: idolatrous items, eating blood and sexual immorality. These three items are a summary of Leviticus 17:1-19:18, which means that the whole of the law the gentiles were asked to obey are in these three chapters. As for “sexual immorality”, this is defined specifically in Leviticus 18 as including, incest, homosexuality, bestiality and sex with ones wife while she is on her period. Jesus also speaks of “sexual immorality” as a sin which keeps one from the kingdom of God and we can assume that he defines that idea with the same passage in Leviticus.

This should really not come as a surprise to anyone, although it may be disappointing to some. The most serious scholarship on the topic is by Robert Gagnon, who wrote Homosexuality in the Bible, and he concludes that the Bible clearly says consistently that homosexuality is a sin, although he questions the church’s practice toward homosexuals.

We need to understand, however, what sin is and is not. Sin is an act that separates one from God. It is an act that God finds unfavorable and prevents an open relationship with Him, unless we repent. However, sin is not “evil” in and of itself. I find someone’s practice of public nudity unacceptable and I won’t be with them as they practice it, however I will not find that particular practice “evil”, unless it is accompanied by unwanted sexual conduct of some sort. It is unacceptable to me, but not necessarily “evil”. Even so, there are sins that are unacceptable, but not necessarily “evil”. A person grows up worshipping idols and so continues this practice. This is unacceptable to God, and thus a sin, but that person could generally be a good person that is confused about how to worship God well. Even so, a person involved in homosexuality might be a sinner, but not necessarily evil.

2. Any certain sexual orientation is not a sin
We need to make it clear as well that the Bible is not speaking of a sexual orientation when it speaks of homosexuality. In other words, a person can come out of the closet as a homosexual, but this does not mean that the church has the right to call that person a sinner. A Lutheran pastor was found going to a support group for those struggling with same sex attraction. Many of the members of his church wanted to fire him. But cooler heads prevailed, recognizing that the man had sexual desire, even as many have sexual desire for someone who is not their spouse, but a temptation or a desire is not, in and of itself, sin.

Many have lived their whole lives having the sexual orientation of homosexuality, and this without sin. As well, many have acted upon their desire, perhaps many times, and repented of these acts and received full forgiveness. God does not look at the desire of a person as who they are, but their acts that they have not repented of.

3. Homosexual orientation could be granted by God
Romans 1 imply that homosexuality is caused by idolatry. Paul is not saying that a certain homosexual was originally an idolator. Instead he is saying that a people of idolatry would see homosexuality as a struggle. In fact, God would visit homosexuality on a society as a result of idolatry. This is a punishment of society, for this would reduce population, which is a blessing in Scripture. Thus, it is quite possible that Scripture actually supports a person to be born with a homosexual orientation.

A genetic orientation, however, is not an excuse. Many heterosexuals have an orientation toward adultery, but this does not excuse their actions. Others have an orientation toward abuse or drunkenness, but it is still sin. I do not want to say that homosexuality is as bad as these other sins or better. I simply say that we are all born with certain desires and that doesn’t give a moral green card for them.

4. Homosexual sin is no worse than heterosexual sin
Some would say that homosexuality is a worse sin than others. Paul, however, makes it clear that homosexuality is simply one sin among many. And, in fact, it might be argued that the sins of greed or slander or judgmentalism are far worse than a sexual sin.

It is interesting to see Paul’s argument all the way through in Romans. In Romans 1, Paul agrees with Jewish preachers who say that gentiles are awful sinners. He liberally lists out the sins of the gentiles—unbelievers—and says they are worthy of the judgment of God. For the next two chapters Paul then describes the sins of the Jews—the believers—and points out how they are actually worse. The Jews have the law and therefore the Law was written to them, which means that the judgments of the Law really specifically apply to the believers, not to the unbelievers. And this is because the Jews are just as much breakers of the Law as the gentiles (Romans 3:19-20).

This goes the same with unbelieving homosexuals and the church. The church has the Bible and so is required to follow the Bible. They are the ones who are to be judged according to its tenants. Unbelieving homosexuals without the Bible are not held by the same standard and while they still may practice sin, they are not judged as severely as the believer who acts knowingly according to their sin that they ignore and do not repent of. So the believer should treat the unbelieving homosexual with care, not with disdain.

5. Homosexuals must be loved by the church
Finally, Jesus loved and loves all sinners of every stripe. Homosexuals, just like every outcast, every sinner, should be welcomed and loved by the church. The church should gently speak of the sin of homosexuality, but only alongside of the sins of greed and hatred that are rampant in the church. We must repent of our sin and we must love those who sin. This is the way of Jesus. Thus, we must reject no one, despise no one because of their sin. Rather, we should care for them for it is only by God’s grace that any of us are saved. If we display judgment instead of grace, we are not acting as ambassadors of God’s mercy, but as agents of the Accuser.

Sex in the Bible (Not the Fun Stuff)

As I have already stated, C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, summarizes sexual mores in this way: “Either marriage with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” We've talked about the difficulties of the term "marriage" and we've talked about how God made sex and attachment to another inseparable. What we haven't discussed is what C.S. Lewis is missing in his statement on Christian sexuality, and this is the part that we sometimes get in trouble with: the kinds of partnerships that are forbidden.

Biblical sexual mores are based on Leviticus 18. That's where almost all the laws of sexuality come from, and it is the reason why Paul talks as much about sexuality as he does. We may wonder why a passage in the Law, let alone Leviticus, is the center of New Testament morality in one subject.

Inappropriate sexual behavior is summarized by one Greek work in the NT, porneia. This word is often translated "sexual immorality" or "fornication", but in sum, it basically means "sex that God doesn't want us to have." However, there are so many different kinds of sexual behavior, what kinds of sex falls under this category. We get a hint in Acts 15.

Acts 15 has to do with a controversy between evangelists in the church who were trying to determine whether Gentiles had to become converts of Judaism before they could be admitted as members of Jesus' church. It was concluded that Gentiles did not have to, but that there were certain aspects of the law they needed to adhere to. These areas are summarized as follows: "We write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood." (Act 15:20)

These areas, in order, summarize a portion of Leviticus 17-19. And chapter 18 is the summary, or, if you like, the definition of "porneia". Jesus uses this term and, again, Leviticus 18 is the best and almost only passage to summarize what sexual behavior would be unacceptable.

One other aspect we need to remember is that the early church is only asking Gentile-- most of us, if we want to be precise-- to follow three aspects of the law, because it is God's law. To refrain from eating blood; to avoid things that connect to idolatry and to refrain from the sexual practices forbidden from Leviticus 18.

Leaving the NT behind, why is Leviticus 18 significant? Because it describes why, exactly, God is setting the Canaanites aside. Because their sexual practices are out of control. Thus, this is a standard God holds both to Gentiles as well as Jews. There are only a few actions that fall under this category:
-Oppression of the poor (Psalm 82)
-Sexual immorality (Leviticus 18)
-Enslaving a race or nation (Amos 1,2)
-Killing a human being (Genesis 9)-- the only law for beasts as well as for humans
-Excessive violence (Obediah and all the prophets)

So what, exactly, is sexual immorality? According to Leviticus 18, it is the following categories:
-Incest: specifically marrying the first order of family, even if they are step-siblings or -parents. First cousins aren't specified-- and the list is really specific.
-Bestiality
-Homosexuality
-Sex with one's partner when she is on her period-- this probably has to do with taking in someone's blood
-Sacrifice to Molech-- which is usually regarded as sacrifice of the firstborn child

That's it. Not rape-- that's excessive violence. Not sex with children-- that's oppression of the poor. Not masturbation-- that isn't mentioned as a sin in the Bible. Not pre-marital sex-- although the assumption in the law that a sexually active couple will get married and is, in some way, already married.

If Christians were truly humble, they would focus on the issue of sex while one partner is on her period. It is mentioned almost as much as homosexuality is in the Bible. But no, Christians, nay, all people, focus on the "other" the odd man out, so to speak. And that's homosexuality.

Let's focus on that in the next post.

Some Lewis Quotes on Ethics

All are from Mere Christianity:

“One man may be so placed that his anger sheds the blood of thousands and another so placed that however angry he gets he will only be laughed at. But the little mark on the soul may be much the same in both. Each has done something to himself which, until he repents, will make it harder for him to keep out of the rage next time he is tempted, and will make the rage worse when he does fall into it. Each of them, if he seriously turns to God, can have that twist in the central man straightened out again; each is, in the long run, doomed if he will not. The bigness or smallness of the thing, seen from outside, is not what really matters.”

“Good people know about both good and evil. Bad people do not know about either.”

“While the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific Islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’; proper or decent, according to the standards of their own societies; and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). “

Why Is God So Narrow Minded About Sex?

It is good that C.S. Lewis brings up abstinence. Because in many parts of our society, abstinence isn’t a real option, or worse, an unethical demand. Jesus is the one who brought up abstinence in the first place, speaking of “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven,” by which he did not recommend castration, but rather the cessation of sexual activity. Even Jesus says, though, “The one who can accept it, let him accept it,” meaning, “Look this isn’t for everyone, and I know that it’s hard for most of you, but you don’t have to take on abstinence—you can always get married.” But we need to make it clear, as Lewis did, there are two options for Christian sexuality: faithful partnership or abstinence. That’s it. Both are options, and it isn’t like God didn’t give us a choice.

Let’s talk for a minute why Christian morality is so stuck in this way. It is pretty much because of how humanity is wired. First of all, we are wired in such a way that sexuality triggers attachment. Yes, you can always find someone who has no attachment to the various sexual partners he or she has had, but this is the exception rather than the rule. Even in a day of sexual freedom, almost everyone couples up. Very rare is even a regular ménage a trois, let alone a group marriage. For the most part, multiple partners doesn’t work. Again, there are the rare exceptions, but the general rule is, the more partners involved, the more hurt there is. Life is simple with one regular sexual partner, and, of course, more healthy.
And humanity is, for the most part, built that way. Sexuality functions as a method of attachment. This is why fetishes are so common, because sexuality is attached to an object in that case. When sexuality is used in a broad way, then fetishes will abound, and even become the norm, because sexual attachment is happening willy nilly. Sexual orgasm is intended to be with our partner, and thus we will firm up our attachment to our partner and not to something else. This does not mean that there aren’t other kinds of attachments. Our attachments to children and work can be just as strong if not stronger than our attachment to our spouse. But it is a powerful attachment, and it is triggered by sexual attraction and it is consummated in sexual climax. Birds and bees, folks, it’s pretty basic stuff.

Yet our society wants to deny this regular practice. They affirm it in romances and movies and books, but they deny it as a philosophy. They glorify sexual faithfulness and vilify it. And this is because all societies have had a love-hate relationship with faithfulness in general. To keep a promise once it’s made is hard and against the grain. To make a pact of unique faithfulness is often done without words, as Carole King wrote, “Tonight with words unspoken you say that I’m the only one.” But we do not speak the words so we have deniability, even as we can non-verbally express anger or agreement and then deny it because we never said it. Even so, the act of sex is a nonverbal pact of sole attatchment. And as long as it is nonverbal, we have deniability. And we want to keep that deniability, we want the freedom to be changeable, to withdraw our commitment.

Dan Gilbert on Happiness

Dan Gilbert speaks of a study done in a university about students who took a photography class. Each student was to pick their two favorite works that they did, one to keep, the other to ship away into an exhibit. One group of students was given some time to consider their options for a number of days. Other students were only given a moment and once the decision was over, that was it. In polling both sets of students weeks after, the first group were considerably unhappier with their choice than the second group. This is because we are often happier if a decision is final and we don’t have time to ruminate over it. We make ourselves happy with our choices, we are wired to be satisfied over what we cannot change.

Even so with sexuality. If we have made our partnership choice and we can’t change it, we will make the best of it and end up being happier. We are happier when we don’t have an option to switch. But the history of human sexuality is the attempt to have more sexual choices along with the opportunity to change whenever we want. But, in the end, this isn’t what will make us happy. Happiness is found in security, in a certain amount of structure, and, especially, knowing that we can’t change our minds to get something else.

God made us this way. And while we might like this decision making process, it is how we are.

The Marriage Problem

C.S. Lewis summarizes Christian sexual morality like this: “Either marriage with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence.” I think this is generally true, but given the circumstances of the last century, I’d like to refine it a bit.

First of all, marriage. For the most part, marriage is an act of the state. Yes, it could be something a church participates in, but a church leader has to be licensed by the state to perform a state marriage, that is, one that is recognized as legally binding by the state. This is important for tax and insurance reasons, as well as any other which legally demands that one determine who one’s family is. In a single act, two legal strangers become the closest family one has, and this is marriage. This has nothing to do with sexuality, per se, of if it does, it is secondary.

It is unfortunate that the legal issue is tied with the Christian sexuality issue. Why, if a couple wants to be sexually faithful to each other before God, should they have to pay sixty five dollars to the state? God doesn’t need the processing fee, and neither should the church. If two people are devoting their lives together, why should the state get involved at all? Originally it was not so. The second marriage ceremony we have on record is this: “Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and he took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her” (Gen 24:67 NAU). Here, we have everything that is needed for a marriage: cohabitation, community recognition (Isaac’s father and servant was involved in the marriage, approving it), sexual connection and faithfulness. That is marriage.

Frankly, until the state and the church became so ingrained, there wasn’t any necessity of state recognition of a marriage. “Marriage” as we know it today with its legal ramifications and religious connection and divorce proceedings, is an accident of various historical and cultural accidents. And Christian sexual morality should have little to do with it.
The core of what Christian sexuality demands is a couple who is faithful to each other: sexually, emotionally and to meet each others basic needs. It is the core of faithful Christian community and an example of how Jesus and the church love each other. Thus, a Christian marriage is one in which the partners support each other, are faithful to each other and are committed to each other for life. And they are sexually connected with each other as well, denying any sexual connection to others. So instead of the word “marriage” which brings in with it so many unfortunate connotations, I believe that a term like “faithful partnership” would be better when speaking of Christian sexuality.

On Murder and Chastity

Fine C.S. Lewis Quotes from Mere Christianity:

“One man may be so placed that his anger sheds the blood of thousands and another so placed that however angry he gets he will only be laughed at. But the little mark on the soul may be much the same in both. Each has done something to himself which, until he repents, will make it harder for him to keep out of the rage next time he is tempted, and will make the rage worse when he does fall into it. Each of them, if he seriously turns to God, can have that twist in the central man straightened out again; each is, in the long run, doomed if he will not. The bigness or smallness of the thing, seen from outside, is not what really matters.”

“Good people know about both good and evil. Bad people do not know about either.”

“While the rule of chastity is the same for all Christians at all times, the rule of propriety changes. A girl in the Pacific Islands wearing hardly any clothes and a Victorian lady completely covered in clothes might both be equally ‘modest’; proper or decent, according to the standards of their own societies; and both, for all we could tell by their dress, might be equally chaste (or equally unchaste). “

Lewis on Giving to the Poor

C.S. Lewis wrote about giving to the poor, but he also lived it out. All of the royalties for his books-- including the Chronicles of Narnia, The Screwtape Letters and Mere Christianity-- he gave to the poor. And he also had a set amount from his salary as a professor from Oxford which he used for his living expenses and the rest he gave away. I don't know exactly how much he gave away, but it was substantial. We should consider this as we read these quotes:

“When Christianity tells you to feed the poor, it doesn’t give you lessons in cookery.”

“Some people nowadays say that charity ought to be unnecessary and that instead of giving to the poor we ought to be producing a society in which there were no poor to give to. They may be quite right in saying that we ought to produce this kind of society. But if anyone thinks that, as a consequence, you can stop giving in the meantime, then he has parted company with all Christian morality.

“I do not believe one can settle how much we ought to give. I am afraid the only safe rule is to give more than we can spare. In other words, if our expenditure on comforts, luxuries, amusements, etc, is up to the standard common among those with the same income as our own, we are probably giving away too little. If our charities do not at all pinch or hamper us, I should say they are too small. There ought to be things we should like to do and cannot do because our charities expenditure excludes them.”

Should The Church Replace Secular Programs?

“People say ‘The Church ought to give us a lead.’ That is true if they mean it in the right way, but false if they mean it in the wrong way.” -C.S. Lewis

Allow me to summarize what Lewis is saying. Many people say, “The government should get out of the job of taking care of the poor. The church should do that.”

Lewis would say, “If you mean by that that Christians who know how to take care of the poor should care for them, then you are right. But if you mean that the institution of the church and the clergy should be the political institution that cares for the poor, that is silly.” It is a summary of what he says in his chapter “Social Morality”

Why is this? Clergy are trained to be students of Scripture, readers of ritual, comforters for the afflicted and to give general principles of worshipping God and assisting one’s neighbor. But they are not trained to help the poor. That is what social workers, food service workers and administrators are trained to do. If the church gives opportunity for these experts to do what they do well, then that is all fine. But usually the church doesn’t have the finances to support these people.

Where the church should step in is if society is heading the wrong direction. For instance, when American society was going in the wrong direction with slavery, with female suffrage or with civil rights, then the church should step in and point the right direction, and the church did take the first step in determining the right in all these circumstances. Not all the church, mind you, but a prophetic segment of the church that was appointed by God to show the right way.

Even so, now the church is showing society how to treat the homeless humanely, and society would do well to listen to the direction of the church, or else greater suffering will result. But this does not mean that the church should be the location for all the homeless. Maybe it will, but it isn’t necessary. It doesn’t mean that all food banks should be located at churches—it is well for churches to do this, but there is nothing wrong for churches to support other locations.

The church is supposed to point the way of Jesus and follow it themselves. That’s the church’s job. Not to be politicians or even social workers. It is, however, the job of Christians to do what they are trained to do according to Jesus’ words—with mercy and with the idea “I need to treat others as I would be treated”.

How Does Jesus Do Ethics?

“The first thing about Christian morality between man and man is that in this department Christ did not come to preach any kind of brand new morality. The Golden Rule of the New Testament (Do as you would be done by) is a summing up of what every one, at bottom, had always known to be right. Really great moral teachers never do introduce new moralities: it is quacks and cranks who do that.” -

Frankly, humanity has enough ethical systems already. There are so many rules and principles and laws and precepts and policies that we hardly need more. Jesus’ morality is inventive in the following ways:

-Jesus is giving general principles to apply in a variety of circumstances, not rules or laws that are very specific. Thus, the application of Jesus’ morality is to be worked out among his people, led by the Spirit, and not dictated from the beginning.

-Jesus’ principles of right and wrong have more to do with prioritizing rather than being startlingly new. Jesus is teaching old principles, often directly quoting other authors, but the unique aspect of Jesus’ teaching is how he prioritizes these teachings. That principles of love and mercy get prioritized above all other religious principles.

-Although Jesus’ principles are very conceptual, he expects the applications to be very hands on. Jesus quotes the principles “Mercy is greater than sacrifice” and he applies it to men harvesting heads of grain on the Sabbath and healing when it is illegal.

-Jesus easily does away with certain principles, if they contradict mercy in application. Keeping the Sabbath is good, but insignificant to helping others. Keeping a vow to God is good, but not at the cost of supporting one’s parents when they are old.

-Jesus applies the most basic principles to the smallest possible action. Many mistakenly think Jesus is speaking of judgment of one’s mind, but really Jesus is speaking of one’s gaze or one’s insult. These are still actions, actions that some might consider insignificant. But Jesus is saying that every action shows what we really lust, who we really are.

Cardinal Virtues for Today

The classic cardinal virtues are those described in C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity, as listed below:

Prudence: Using one’s wisdom to do the right act.

Temperance: Moderation in all things.

Justice: Acting fairly to everyone, and making sure that everyone obtains fairness.

Fortitude: The courage to stand strong in virtue.

What is rarely recognized, however, is that these virtues are not particularly Christian. They have been espoused as Christian virtues, but this short list is just as comfortable in Greek or Roman society as they are in modern Christian society. Plato describes them, and every Roman schoolboy would have them memorized as well as other virtues. These are classic ancient virtues, not specifically Christian ones.

I think that these are chosen by the Christian church because of their ability to be used in almost every circumstance. However, they, by themselves, do not always lead to right actions. It is a common joke when thinking of Aristotle’s principles, “Moderation in all things” to say, “I wish to be moderate in my adultery, or in my drunkenness.” And this is exactly the kind of thinking that we end up in seeing these four virtues as the primary or “cardinal” virtues.

Jesus was not moderate in all things. He died for our sins, which was not a temperate act. It may have been prudent, but not in the short term. And if dying for our sins is an example of fortitude, then what is walking through the crowds, unharmed, when they are looking for your blood? Also, was it just for Jesus to have sent the rich man to hell, in his parable, when the rich man was only using his justly gotten gain in accord with his desire?

I am not saying Jesus was in opposition to these virtues. I am saying that we can use these virtues to enact a life that is the opposite of what Jesus stood for. Thus, if these virtues are “cardinal”, then they are not the Christian cardinal virtues, but the virtues for the classical West.

I would make a suggestion for a new set of cardinal virtues, ones that reflect characteristics that are particular to Jesus and ones that are seen to assist one in passing the Final final exam on the day of judgment.

a. Compassion: This is also called “empathy”. It is seeing with another’s eyes, and experiencing the suffering of another. However, the virtue of compassion does not just feel, but it acts and it acts in a way that truly benefits the other person. A compassionate person will not give a homeless person in the cold a dollar (which does little for the homeless person, but salves a guilty conscience), but will take them to a motel room and give them a place to sleep.
b. Forgiveness: This is restoring one who has wronged against a person or a community back into relationship. It is not just the surrender of bitterness—that is obtaining personal healing, not granting healing to another. Forgiveness is recognizing a wrong done, and deciding to retain relationship despite that. If a spouse decides to remain married to an adulterous partner, that is forgiveness.

c. Humility: This is taking a lower social position than is deserved. Humility could be something as small as accepting a social snub, or as large as being killed as a criminal when one was innocent.

d. Sacrifice: This is surrendering what one needs for another who has a greater need. This is what Jesus called the “greatest love”.

Correcting C.S. Lewis (again)

I want to affirm the main point of the last post, and even the reasons that Lewis is making. God is looking for character, not simply acts. We are in Jesus to be like Jesus, not to slavishly imitate particular acts of Jesus. It wouldn’t necessarily be loving to spit on the ground, make mud and put it in someone’s eyes, even if they were blind. It was loving for Jesus to do that in his context, but we should be healing the blind and poor in a different way today. And we need to recognize that character is important because is speaks of the nature of a person, not the outward appearance. And God is forming a people, a kingdom that will be full of certain kinds of people. Not just people who know how to say the right words when in church, but people who will, out of church, make a habit of acting in a certain manner.

However, I have a couple caveats to Lewis’ important statement in the last post.

a. When we are first being trained in virtue, we will, almost without exception, be acting out of obedience for all the wrong reasons, and we will be doing the action itself all wrong because of that. However, this is not cause not to begin the process of acting out the virtue. We all have to start somewhere to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling” and a misstep in the right direction is better than no step at all. This is important for people in recovery (and we are ALL in recovery from something) to remember. We’ve got to start walking that road and be ready to be corrected as we do that walk.

b. I think that there will be the need for courageous and just actions in the future. There is a universe to explore and to bring to God’s will. There are people, when Jesus first returns, to teach justice to, to train in the ways of love. There will still be discomforts to accept for the sake of need. There will still be sacrifices, although less than some of the sacrifices that people make here. This is all the more reason why God wants people whose character is justice, love, and sacrifice.

Why Virtues and Not Obedient Acts?

From C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity:
“There is a difference between doing some particular just or temperate action and being a just or temperate man. Someone who is not a good tennis player may now and then make a good shot. What you mean by a good tennis player is a man whose eye and muscles and nerves have been so trained by making innumerable good shots that they can now be relied on. They have a certain tone or quality which is there even when he is not playing, just as a mathematician’s mind has a certain habit and outlook which is there even when he is not doing mathematics. In the same way a man who perseveres in doing just actions gets in the end a certain quality of character. Now it is that quality rather than the particular actions which we mean when we talk of a “virtue”.

This disctinction is important for the following reason. If we thought only of the particular actions we might encourage three wrong ideas:

1. We might think that, provided you did the right thing, it did not matter how or why you did it—whether you did it sulkily or cheerfully, through fear of public opinion or for its own sake. But the truth is that right actions done for the wrong reason do not help to buile the internal quality or character called a ‘virtue’, and it is this quality or character that really matters.
(If the bad tennis player hits very hard, not because he sees that a very hard stroke is required, but because he lost his temper, his stroke might possibly, by luck, help him to win that particular game; but it will not be helping him to become a reliable tennis player.)

2. We might think that God wanted simply obedience to a set of rules; whereas He really wants people of a particular sort.

3. We might think that the ‘virtues’ were necessary only for this present life—that in the other world we could stop being just because there is nothing to quarrel about and stop being brave because there is no danger. Now it is quite true that there will probably be no occasion for just or courageous acts in the next world, but there will be every occasion for being the sort of people that we can become only as the result of doing such acts here.

The point is not that God will refuse you admission to His eternal world if you have not got certain qualities of character: the point is that if people have not got at least the beginnings of those qualities inside them, then no possible external conditions could make a ‘Heaven’ for them—that is, could make them happy with the deep, strong, unshakable kind of happiness God intends for us."

What We Do And Might Not Believe

Below is a discussion that I have explained with the Bible text. But, as usual, C.S. Lewis describes the truth far better than I:

“Now before I became a Christian I was under the impression that the first thing Christians had to believe was one particular theory as to what the point of this dying was. According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make.

“What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity. The central Christian belief is that Christ’s death has somehow put us right with God and given us a fresh start. Theories as to how it did this is another matter. A good many different theories have been held as to how it works; what all Christians are agreed on is that it does work.
“I will tell you what I think it is like. All sensible people know that if you are tired and hungry a meal will do you good. But the modern theory of nourishment—all about the vitamins and proteins—is a different thing. People ate their dinners and felt better long before the theory of vitamins was ever heard of: and if the theory of vitamins is abandoned is some day abandoned they will go on eating their dinners just the same.

“Theories about Christ’s death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works. Christians would not all agree as to how important those theories are. My own church—the Church of England—does not lay down any one of them as the right one. The Church of Rome goes a bit further. But I think they will all agree that the thing itself is infinitely more important than any explanations that theologians have produced. I think they would probably admit that no explanation will be quite adequate to the reality.”

C. S. Lewis

Lewis' Classic "Poached Egg" Argument, Part 2

However, Lewis is certainly right. You can’t look at Jesus clearly and call him a good moral teacher, but not because of some claims of divinity. Rather, it is because of the reasons for his morality. You can see that his morality has a pretty crazy streak—

“Bless those who persecute you”

“Do good to those who harm you”

“Love your enemies”

“Lend money and do not expect it back”

“Give to those who ask of you”

“He who is angry at his brother is guilty”

“He who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery”

“If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off”

“If you hold a feast don’t invite your friends or family”

“Sell all your possessions and give to the poor”

“He who becomes my disciple must surrender all their possessions.”

“If anyone would come after me he must… take up his cross…”

This is frankly an insane morality. This is the reason that Christians have been spiritualizing and explaining it away for millennia. They can’t make sense of it, either. Almost every Protestant reformer simply dismissed it and every orthodox Christian faith marginalizes it because it makes no sense for a community that is trying to live in the world, to make some progress. It is the morality of anti-progress. It takes the basic moral ideas of reciprocation, responsibility and personal survival and dismisses them out of hand. Frankly, if this is the teaching of a “great moral teacher”, then morality really is a personal preference.

There is only one way, one piece of the puzzle of the foundation of Jesus’ morality, that makes any of this make sense: That this world is not where justice is contained. Jesus made it clear that the rewards and benefits of living out his morality is not in this world, but in the next. Rewards come in “the kingdom” or in “heaven”. All benefit comes, not from society, but from the Father, who rewards what is not seen. The heroes of Jesus’ morality, those who achieved the highest goals, are prophets and martyrs.

This means that Jesus’ morality is based on a completely spiritual basis, with no benefits to this world. This doesn’t mean that Jesus’ doesn’t give the occasional nod to benefits in the present life. Jesus says that the community of faith will be so strong as to give each apostle the wealth of a hundred people, but it is so noticeable, first of all because it is rare, but secondly because he says that these benefits come “with persecutions” (Mark 10:29-31).

Jesus’ morality is so heavenly-minded that it has no personal earthly good. It could be of great benefit to others, potentially. The poor, for they gain great benefit, and the persecutors because they don’t have to go looking for you. But the one who follows Jesus’ morality gains their only real benefit after their life is over. This is truly living by faith, and only faith. This is the confidence that Jesus’ morality is based.

Thus, Lewis is completely correct. Either Jesus has some amazing revelation from God and knows more than any human could know about the nature of reality, or Jesus is insane. No other teacher has been so out of touch with the reality we see and touch. So we cannot call Jesus a “great moral teacher” and still hold to our materialistic ideas. It’s either one or the other.

Lewis' Classic "Poached Egg" Argument, Part 1

“I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” -C.S. Lewis

In looking at this paragraph, we must first of all realize what Lewis was not saying: He was not using this argument to convince anyone that Jesus is God. He is simply saying it is hard to have a good opinion about a man who claims to be God Almighty unless he really WAS God Almighty. Either we have to take him deadly serious, or we need to ignore all he said. Lewis isn’t saying which one we should choose, simply that we have to make the choice. So Campus Crusade’s use of this passage as a proof for Jesus’ divinity doesn’t really work.

The only weakness of Lewis’ argument is what if Jesus didn’t claim to be God. Certainly a couple of Jesus’ first century disciples claimed this for him. John (or John’s student) says right off the bat that Jesus is God (John 1:1). Paul says that Jesus created all things, is before all things and sustains all things (Col. 1:16-17).

But did Jesus himself claim to be God? He said, “The Father and I are one” (John 10:30), but we can see later in John that Jesus’ idea of “oneness” also includes all of Jesus’ disciples (John 17:11), so it can’t be the sharing of the Father’s essence that is often described in Christian theology. Thomas proclaimed Jesus his God, and Jesus didn’t stop him, but that’s a little less than the “man who claims he is a poached egg.”

Jesus did claim to be the Son of God (John 11:4), but we can see that the Son of God really just meant the Messiah, or Christ, or king of Jerusalem (John 1:49; 11:27). Jesus did proclaim himself the King of Jerusalem, clearly, as he rode into Jerusalem on a fowl, which fulfilled the prophecy of Jerusalem’s king (Matthew 21:1-9). It is interesting that when Peter made his bold, but private, proclamation that Jesus is the Messiah, that while Jesus approved of this, he also told his disciples not to tell anyone (Matthew 16:16-20). During Jesus’ ministry, it wasn’t clearly stated that he was the Christ, which would explain the confusion of all who listened to him as to his identity, and in John it says he only pointed to the miracles to explain who he was (John 10:24-25). Only to the Sanhedrin, which was a court, but it was only semi-public, did he finally make a clear statement that he was the Christ (Matthew 26:63-64) and that is only clear if you know and have understood Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 7:13). Jesus’ statements about himself were an enigma wrapped in a controversy.

But even then, his statements were about him being king, certainly not clearly about being God. That was left to His disciples. I am not denying it’s truth, I am speaking about Lewis’ argument. His argument is that Jesus clearly called himself God, which means it is either true or he was insane. (It’s frankly not likely that Jesus was a liar, since it would be a very ineffective lie in first century Judaism, as well as pretty much any other monotheistic culture). But if Jesus was only hinting at his divinity, not stating it clearly, then that makes him neither here nor there. Jesus was smart enough—sane enough—not to come down clearly on his divinity, let alone his messiahship. If he is sane enough to dance around these subjects, surely he is sane enough to be a good moral teacher.

Is Atheism Too Simple?

“Atheism is too simple,” Lewis says. How does he come to this conclusion? Because we all have a sense of right and wrong, and we all make moral arguments. If there was no Christian God—or someone like Him—then where does a sense of morality come from?

But really, Lewis isn’t saying that all atheism is too simple, but only his sort. Lewis, when he was an atheist, felt that the world was too unjust for there to be a just God, and that the arguments of the Christians were just too complicated. But that just argues the point that there is an idea of justice, and that it had to come from somewhere.

What Lewis is actually saying, without explicitly stating it, is that pantheism makes more sense than his sort of atheism. That God is in everything, and thus everything—even cancer or child pornographers—is just as much a part of God as a saint. In other words, justice and morality is just an illusion. If the atheist continues to hold to morality, it makes no sense. But the nihilist, who admits that there really is not cause for any morality, can keep a simple atheism. The problem, Lewis seems to indicate, is not atheism, but morality.

So the question is, can anyone actually set aside morality? Can we live a life without a sense of morality? Or, even more so, is it possible to have a rational, God-absent, basis for morality? Although I believe that God is the source of human morality, yet still I think there is an argument to be mace for godless morality, and one that looks similar to Christianity, especially the popular form.

All Truth Is God's Truth

It is very important for all Christians to note Lewis’ point at the beginning of “What Christians Believe”: that Christians do not necessarily think that other conceptions of God or truth are all wrong just because they consider themselves right. This is something Christians seem to misunderstand, especially when they see another particular worldview as “the enemy”.

For instance, many Christians want to claim that the Muslim Allah is a different God than the one they worship, even after they have studied Allah in Islamic texts. Does this mean that they have to deny that their God is merciful, beneficent, all-powerful and creator? Because we don’t have the right to tell other religions or worldviews what they believe. We can only explore what they believe. We can, however, determine what we personally believe. So if we see that another religion believes that God is omniscient, wise and all powerful, we can’t change their belief. All we can do is change our own. So if those outside of Christianity believe what we believe, must we change our own belief to keep their status as enemies?

The fact of the matter is, worldviews overlap a lot. We need to agree when we can agree and disagree when we must. And just because we disagree doesn’t make us enemies. However, if we see each other as enemies due to a different belief, then the enmity is created, not by the different belief, but because of the attitude of enmity.

Christian Ethics are Human Ethics

Previously I spent some time arguing against Lewis’ conclusion that a moral law in humanity necessarily means that there is some kind of Director of moral reasoning. My friend heard me present this argument and he asked me, “So where do you think the Moral Law came from?” I replied, “It was created by God within us. I am arguing against the necessity of that conclusion being true because of the existence of Moral Law. Human reasoning can come up with more conclusions than just one.”

Now, in Lewis’ fifth chapter of Mere Christianity, he tells us that his point was not to have us believe that there is a God. Even if he could draw that conclusion, he says, he wouldn’t have come close to the God of Christianity. The God of Christianity is the God of Jesus Christ, and even if you could possibly connect the creation of the universe and the placing of the Moral Law into human hearts, that is still distant from the God of Jesus, who caused the Old Testament to be written, who interacts with humans in the real-time universe, who heals and has mercy.

Rather, Lewis says that his point of this whole section is to prove to us that Christianity’s formulation of morality is correct. First of all, that there IS a standard by which we all can agree. It is not as specific as any given lawbook, nor is this morality agreed upon in all points, but there is a standard.

Secondly, we all must agree that we have all failed the very moral standard we agree upon. We have all screwed up and hurt people when we should have helped. In Christianity this is called “sin” but it could just as much been called a moral failing.

Next, the Moral Law shows us that these failings must be “repented” of. This doesn’t necessarily mean doing some penance, or some other dramatic ritual, but it does mean that we need to change our failings into successes. We cannot continue to live with our moral failings, but we need to act in accord with the moral law.

Finally, because we (almost) all have guilt due to our failings, we need to have a sense of forgiveness, of resolution of our guilty feelings.

Thus, Lewis says, the Moral Law shows that every single human deals with the outline of Christian truth. There is a moral standard, we have sinned, we need to be forgiven and we must repent. Even if you don’t agree with the Christian God, Lewis says, we must agree that this outline is a significant part of human life. So Christianity, even if it could be proven wrong, at least it deals with real human experience in an effective way.

Cause: Unknown, Therefore God?

Let’s look at the moral argument, as Lewis presents it. It is basically the same argument as Aquinas’ proofs of God. We see reality. Reality cannot be formed on its own, but needs a creator. Therefore, there must be a creator. Lewis is just narrowing this argument to moral law. There is a universal moral law. It is inexplicable that such a moral law could exist amidst complex cultures. Therefore there must be a Source of Moral Law outside of humanity.

However, this is not the only possible explanation. For instance, one of the basic premises of this Moral Law is that the Other is equal to the Self, or, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” But neuroscience has recently discovered “mirror neurons”. These are cells in the brain that observe and then create a facsimile of what is observed in the brain. In other words, we might observe someone jumping off a cliff—in our minds we experience ourselves jumping off that same cliff, without all the messy bits that happen at the bottom of the cliff. This is why, when watching a video of someone jumping off a cliff, we find our heart beating harder, our breath catching, perhaps we might get a little dizzy. This is because our observation of the other is being experienced ourselves. The Other is the equal of our Self because we have actually experienced it. This is a part of our brain, and we have stronger mirror neurons than animals have. Thus, this could very well be a neurological basis for a basic principle of morality.

And all of the arguments about the existence of God typically go this way. Someone takes that which has never been explained and then claimed that it proves a higher reality. Until someone comes along with an explanation for the complexity without the need for a higher reality. Then those who believed in that argument for God looks foolish, because human interpretation has a greater imagination than was ever thought. Then the argument descends into heated philosophical and theological arguments that cannot be won by anyone.

Personally, I think that we should leave behind the “reality proves Gods existence” argument completely. Not because it isn’t true, but because it is terrible proof, and just makes everyone look foolish when an alternative reason is discovered. Ultimately, the argument is a bet against the human imagination. “I bet,” the argument says, “That you can’t find a reason for this mountain, therefore the reason must be God.” And when the human imagination finds a reason apart from God, then the arguer looks like an idiot. “I bet you can’t find a reason for consciousness, therefore it must be God,” says Francis Schaeffer. “I bet you can’t find a reason for all the stars in the sky…” “I bet you can’t find a reason for agreement in human morality…” etc. These bets are always lost. Human imagination is as vast as the universe and the fictions it can create are unlimited. It is best never to bet against it.

Isn't Morality Simply Personal Preference? Part II

Of course, some ethical standards are determined by personal preference or culture.

It seems that we as humans have a tendency to take what we see as 'everyday' and to normalize it to such a degree that any activity that is not "normal" is ethically wrong. This isn't everyone, and in many cultures the "normal" is being degraded, but in general, for most of the world, that which is "normal" is also that which is ethically correct.

However, in a real discussion of ethics, we have to admit that this just isn't the case. Recently, on Science Friday, a group of scientists and ethicists were talking about the role of science in ethics. There was getting to be an agreement that science's role is in observation and experimentation, determining if a particular act is beneficial or detremental to people in general. Then one of the group piped up and said that we can "know" if some things are wrong without having done a study of it, for instance, having women wear burkas as a cultural standard. He said that such a standard is so "obviously" wrong that they don't need a study to determine if it is wrong or not.

The funny thing is, for me, that is exactly the sort of thing that should be studied. Yes, probably most women would find it oppressive. However, in that culture, perhaps women find the burka comforting or safe. We don't know if we don't ask the question. But just making the decision, a priori, that burkas are ethically wrong, is just a cultural presupposition. While forcing a woman to wear a burka who finds it oppressive would be ethically wrong, that doesn't mean that it is wrong for most people. That would be saying that insisting that people wear more than a loincloth is wrong. Our society demands it, others do not. But if a person feels oppressed if they wear more than a loincloth, then to make them do so, is that ethically wrong? No matter what the cultural standards are?

The fact is, there will be different ethical rights and wrongs within cultures. But oppression is always wrong. Injuring another permanently is always wrong. Treating some people one way and ourselves another way is wrong. There ARE moral standards. It is just the application of those moral standards that change.

Perhaps having a law saying that women must wear burkas is wrong. But if there are standards of modesty for both men and women, perhaps it is not wrong. It is something to investigate and to consider.

But for us to even consider such a thing, we need to know what moral standards are, what should and should not be the basis for cultural standards, and then apply these moral standards.

In a sense, C.S. Lewis' argument is weakened because he talks about a general sense of "fairness", but he doesn't tell us what that sense consists of. Just because I think it is not fair that Paul Allen has billions of dollars and spends it on entertainment doesn't make me right. It just means I have that sense. We don't know if there is a universal Moral Law unless we actually see what it is. What does this Law consist of, that everyone can agree on?

I think I have a list of principles that we could work on. Coming up.