Tag: Ethics

Are Homosexual Relationships “Unnatural”?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 2

~ Evan Lenow ~ 4 Comments

In the heated rhetoric of this political season, one issue that continues to be at the forefront of discussion is homosexuality. While much of the discussion has focused on rights and the definition of marriage, one young man has garnered national attention for making a different argument. Matthew Vines, a 22-year-old Harvard University student, has set out to defend homosexuality from a biblical perspective. Unfortunately, Vines has made grave errors in his attempt to defend what Scripture clearly condemns as sin. As part of an interview with The Christian Post, I was asked to respond to several of the arguments Vines has made. In order to provide the full context of the statements made by Vines, this series of posts will offer quotations from Vines and then my responses. Part 1 of this series can be found here.

The most significant biblical passage dealing with homosexuality is Romans 1:26–27. It is significant due to its length, context, and clear statements about both male and female homosexuality. For this reason, it is important for all discussions of homosexuality to address this passage.

Vines does not shy away from Romans 1. He states:

The idolaters are without excuse because they knew the truth, they started with the truth, but they rejected it. Paul’s subsequent statements about sexual behavior follow this same pattern. The women, he says, “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural ones. And the men “abandoned” relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men. Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality—they were naturally disposed to it just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God—but they rejected their original, natural inclinations for those that were unnatural: for them, same-sex behavior. Paul’s argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange; the reason, he says, that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him, exchanged Him for idols. Paul’s reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force, in order for it to make sense within this argument, the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and then abandon them. And that is exactly how he describes it.

But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with. And if applied to gay people, Paul’s argument here should actually work in the other direction: If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature, be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual, then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex. For them, that would be exchanging “the natural for the unnatural” in just the same way. We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation.

In his discussion of Rom 1:26-27, Mr. Vines takes a very common approach by those who wish to support homosexuality. The crux of his argument is that Paul knows nothing of committed same-sex relationships. Therefore, the violation would have to be heterosexuals (by orientation) participating in homosexual behavior. The problem with this is multi-faceted. First, it assumes that Scripture is not fully inspired by God. Even if Paul knew nothing of sexual orientation, the Holy Spirit inspired the text. This would imply that God himself was not aware of the concept of sexual orientation and was incapable of framing the message in such a way that it would be clear.

Second, the idea that homosexuals have a “natural” inclination towards relationships with people of the same sex is in fact a rejection of what God has revealed about himself. Paul’s condemnation of idolatry in verses 22-25 is based on the fact that the unrighteous “exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” Part of the truth of God is what he has revealed about the creation. As told to us in Genesis 2-3 and evident in observing nature, God created two genders that complement one another in multiple ways, not the least of which is through biological differences making sexual intercourse procreative. To reject this natural sexual function of the body is to reject how God created mankind in Genesis 1-2. Thus, Mr. Vines is committing the same sin that he rests solely on the backs of those who worshiped false gods–exchanging the truth of God for a lie.

Finally, Mr. Vines assumes as scientific fact that which has not been proven. He assumes that sexual orientation is permanent and part of one’s genetic make-up. However, there is no scientific study that proves Mr. Vines’ position. All scientific studies attempted to prove this suffer from small sample sizes and preconceived agendas.

The argument Mr. Vines puts forth falls flat theologically, biologically, and scientifically. By contrast, the traditional interpretation of Romans 1—that Paul condemns all forms of homosexuality as sin—remains the only consistent option when one considers the theological, biological, and scientific evidence.

_________________________

For the full text of article on The Christian Post, see Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

For the full text of Matthew Vines’ defense of homosexuality, see Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” http://matthewvines.com.

Is Being Alone a Sin?: Answering Matthew Vines Part 1

~ Evan Lenow ~ 3 Comments

In my last post, I mentioned an article on The Christian Post for which I was interviewed. While they used the majority of my answers in the article, I wanted to provide them here with the context of the material from Matthew Vines. In the first question related to his argument, the journalist asked me to respond to Vines’ interpretation of Genesis 2:18 where God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Vines makes the following claim and my response proceeds after that:

In Genesis 2:18, God says, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” And yes, the suitable helper or partner that God makes for Adam is Eve, a woman. And a woman is a suitable partner for the vast majority of men–for straight men. But for gay men, that isn’t the case. For them, a woman is not a suitable partner. And in all of the ways that a woman is a suitable partner for straight men—for gay men, it’s another gay man who is a suitable partner. And the same is true for lesbian women. For them, it is another lesbian woman who is a suitable partner. But the necessary consequence of the traditional teaching on homosexuality is that, even though gay people have suitable partners, they must reject them, and they must live alone for their whole lives, without a spouse or a family of their own. We are now declaring good the very first thing in Scripture that God declared not good: for the man to be forced to be alone. And the fruit that this teaching has borne has been deeply wounding and destructive.

This is a major problem. By holding to the traditional interpretation, we are now contradicting the Bible’s own teachings: the Bible teaches that it is not good for the man to be forced to be alone, and yet now, we are teaching that it is.

Related to the Genesis 2 text, Mr. Vines is missing the point of the text. Prior to the creation of Eve, Adam was naming the animals. Part of the creation mandate in Genesis 1 is that the animals would reproduce after their kind. This is explicitly stated in Gen 1:22 regarding the sea creatures and birds and implied regarding the beasts of the earth in the language of “after their kind” in Gen 1:24-25. Adam surely noticed that each of the animals had a “partner” by which they could reproduce. Thus, part of the idea that it was not good for man to be alone was that he could not reproduce “after his kind” without a suitable partner. Therefore, as part of the first marriage in Genesis 2, God intended for procreation to be a part of this union.

In addition, we need to look at Adam not only as a historical figure but also as the representative of all mankind. Scripture itself views Adam in this way in Romans 5 as Paul speaks to sin entering the world through one man—Adam. Therefore, in this context, we see Adam representing all of mankind. God’s design for man is that he could enter into a complementary relationship with a woman, who is like him yet still different. At a very basic level, the complementary biological differences between man and woman make this clear. Thus, homosexual intercourse cannot be the union of a man and his suitable helper since the complementary biological differences do not exist.

Related to this, if God viewed marriage as the means for mankind to reproduce after his kind, then homosexual marriage and intercourse violates God’s command in Gen 1:28. It is biologically impossible for two men or two women to have their own biological offspring. A third individual of the opposite sex must enter the picture by way of either intercourse or the introduction of genetic material.

Finally, Mr. Vines implies that a command exists in Gen 2:18 for all individuals. At that point in the creation narrative, Adam is the only human. Of course it is not good for him to be alone because the human race could never multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Turning this into a command for all individuals reads something into the text that does not exist. As Mr. Vines acknowledges, Paul commends singleness and celibacy in 1 Cor 7:7. Mr. Vines has taken a description in Gen 2:18 and made it a prescription. In using this as an argument in favor of homosexuality, he then ignores the clear command of Gen 1:28 to be fruitful and multiply.

Christian Post Interview about Theological Arguments for Homosexuality

~ Evan Lenow
Matthew Vines

A few weeks ago, one of my students sent me a link to a video and transcript of a young man from Harvard University who was making a case for why the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. My student was hoping that I could especially address the meaning of Romans 1:26-27. I quickly perused the transcript and sent a copy of an article I wrote a few years ago.

Fast forward almost three weeks, and our Communications Office at SWBTS got an email from a reporter at The Christian Post asking for a professor to answer some questions related to that same video. The seminary asked me to respond.

Today, the article was released, and it included a significant amount of my responses. I would like to encourage you to read the article. I am honored to be included with the likes of Robert Gagnon (Pittsburgh Seminary), Sean McDonough (Gordon-Conwell Seminary), and Richard Mouw (Fuller Seminary). It is the second part of a three-part series. The first was an interview with the student from Harvard, Matthew Vines. In the days to follow, I will also post the full text of my answers to the questions.

_________________________

Lillian Kwon, “Theologians Find Vines’ ‘Homosexuality Is Not a Sin’ Thesis Not Persuasive,” The Christian Post, September 28, 2012.

Stoyan Zaimov, “Matthew Vines: Bible Does Not Condemn Homosexuality,” The Christian Post, September 25, 2012. (Part 1 of the series)

Matthew Vines, “The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality,” matthewvines.com.

Genetic Screening for Ethical Babies

~ Evan Lenow ~ 2 Comments

In the most recent issue of the British Reader’s Digest, Professor Julian Savulescu argues that parents may have a moral obligation to genetically engineer babies with more ethical traits. With the advances in medical technology and genetic screening, Savulescu believes that couples can use genetic mapping of embryos in combination with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) to ensure that their children do not exhibit traits that may be harmful to themselves and others.

While rejecting the coercive tactics of previous eugenics practices, Savulescu states:

Modern eugenics, from testing for diseases to deciding whether you want a girl or boy, is voluntary. So where genetic selection aims to bring out a trait that clearly benefits an individual and society, we should allow parents the choice. To do otherwise is to consign those who come after us to the ball and chain of our squeamishness and irrationality.

Notice his language here. He believes that squeamishness and irrationality (admittedly traits found in many humans for the entire history of mankind) are a “ball and chain” on society. Such undesirable traits apparently prevent progress for the human race.

However, Savulescu does not stop at the idea of progress. He continues his “moral” argument with the idea of obligation. He writes:

Indeed, when it comes to screening out personality flaws, such as potential alcoholism, psychopathy and dispositions to violence, you could argue that people have a moral obligation to select ethically better children. They are, after all, less likely to harm themselves and others.

This moral case for genetic engineering comes on the heels of an announcement about the first whole-genome sequencing of a fetus. Savulescu believes that in the next five years, we will “be able to screen for every gene that determines who we are physically and psychologically.”

What should we make of this call for genetic engineering to produce “ethical” babies? First, we need to evaluate Savulescu’s worldview. It is clear from his brief article that he holds to a naturalistic worldview. He believes that the material world is the only reality. He has no room for God or the supernatural in his view. He even subtly mocks the idea of God when he states, “Some people believe that babies are a gift, of God or nature, and that we shouldn’t mess with their genetic make-up. But most of us already implicitly reject this view.”

Within his worldview, progress seems to be the ultimate goal. He never really defines progress apart from an ethic of non-malevolence. As long as people are not harming themselves or others, Savulescu seems to be satisfied.

Another commitment that seems evident in this proposal for genetic engineering is the idea of genetic determinism. This is the concept that man is simply a collection of genetic material. His personality, intelligence, relationships, etc., are determined completely by his genetic makeup. If this genetic makeup could be altered or enhanced, then we could generate a race of superior individuals. Even though Savulescu would not go so far as to say that we are required to take part in this genetic manipulation, he does believe we have a moral obligation to do so.

Francis Schaeffer noted similar trends in the thinking of Francis Crick (famed for discovering the DNA code with James Watson) forty years ago. Schaeffer writes:

Philosophically, therefore, Francis Crick is a reductionist—that is, one who would reduce man from a complex personal being made in the image of God to an electro-chemical machine. Unfortunately, such a notion not only makes man meaningless but soon leads to the idea that man can, and just as well may, be manipulated with impunity.

This very manipulation is what Savulescu desires to see. But more than that, he believes it is the morally right thing to do as parents. He states:

Screening embryos like this is illegal at present, but isn’t rational design something we should welcome? If we have the power to intervene in the nature of our offspring—rather than consigning them to the natural lottery—then we should. Surely trying to ensure that your children have the best, or a good enough, opportunity for a great life is responsible parenting?

While Savulescu objects to the forced sterilization and extermination of the “genetically unfit” from the days of Nazi eugenics programs, he still leaves the door open to some authority declaring that such a “moral obligation” should be enforced. He proclaims, “Whether we like it or not, the future of humanity is in our hands now. Rather than fearing genetics, we should embrace it. We can do better than chance.”

We need to recognize with Schaeffer that man is a complex personal being made in the image of God (Gen 1:27). We are more than DNA and chemical bonds. We have souls. And despite Savulescu’s praise for technology, genetic engineering cannot undo the effects of the fall (Gen 3). We are sinners. We often act in opposition to our own rational thought. We seek after our own desires—many times to the detriment of others and ourselves. Genetic screening will not solve this problem. Only Christ conquers sin.

_________________________

Julian Savulescu, “The Maverick: ‘It’s Our Duty to Have Designer Babies,’” Reader’s Digest (British edition), August 21, 2012.

Richard Alleyne, “Genetically engineering ‘ethical’ babies is a moral obligation, says Oxford professor,” The Telegraph, August 16, 2012.

Francis A. Schaeffer, Back to Freedom and Dignity, in vol. 1 of The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer (Wheaton: Crossway, 1985).

*Image credit: Ben Birchall/PA, The Telegraph

Holding Penn State Responsible

~ Evan Lenow

Back in November, I posted this article about the lost ideas of personal and corporate responsibility at Penn State University. This morning, the NCAA held a press conference announcing the sanctions against the university (and particularly the football program). In light of what I wrote 8 months ago, I want to evaluate the actions of the NCAA to see if they will actually serve the purpose of reinstating the ideas of personal and corporate responsibility.

Here are the sanctions imposed by the governing board of college athletics:

  • $60 million fine, roughly equivalent to one year’s gross football revenue, to be placed in an endowment for “external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university.”
  • 4 year ban on postseason appearances
  • Reduction of scholarships from 25 to 15 per year for 4 years
  • Vacating all wins from 1998-2011 (111 total wins)

The NCAA also put in place measures to change the culture of the university. The university must create a compliance committee and have quarterly reports from an independent monitor to make sure that athletics do not overwhelm the priority of academics at the university.

Let me recount the major faults that I saw in November. First, the university (and the individuals involved) lacked a respect for the dignity of the victims. There seemed to have been a concern for the personal interests of the perpetrator and those with knowledge of the crime, but there was no concern for the dignity of the boys. As each person up the chain of command refused to take personal responsibility for alerting the authorities, they diminished the opportunity for the university to take corporate responsibility.

The fine and intended use of the funds goes a long way to help address this problem. The NCAA acknowledges that the endowment cannot correct what has happened in the past, but they are at least attempting to recognize the dignity of the victims and their families.

Second, the problem at Penn State is that the university saw its own “family” interests as more important than protecting the institution of the family. These boys have been assaulted, abused, and scarred for life. Their family structure has been permanently altered because they have been subjected to a version of sexuality that is distorted far outside God’s design. There was absolutely no respect for the institution of the family on the perpetrator’s part, and there was indifference to the institution of the family on the part of the university.

On some levels, the punitive actions taken by the NCAA address this problem. With the reduction of scholarships, postseason ban, and vacated wins, the NCAA put Penn State and other universities on notice that their “family” cultures were not more important than society’s family culture. While it is not a clear admonition for supporting the family, the underlying problem is being addressed.

Finally, a fair and effective system of law and government is crucial to a healthy society. In this case, that system was in place to handle the problem, but no one alerted the proper authorities.

I believe this is the issue addressed in vacating wins, particularly as it has a huge impact on the record books. 111 wins will be removed from the record books. Perhaps more significantly, 111 of 409 wins will be removed from Joe Paterno’s record of the most wins in college football history. Coach Paterno will no longer hold that record. His failure to act in properly reporting the accusations against one of his assistant coaches to the police have tarnished his legacy on many levels. Now future generations will not even see his name near the top of the list of coaches with the most wins. The system of law and government has spoken in the case of Jerry Sandusky, who will now spend the rest of his life in prison. The NCAA has spoken regarding the failure to use that system on the part of the university.

The actions of those involved in the scandal at Penn State University are reprehensible. When given the opportunity to stop the perpetrator, the university failed to act and failed to take responsibility. Only after the egregious behavior was allowed to continue for 13 years has the university been held responsible. I applaud the NCAA for their actions, but I only wish they had not been necessary. I wish the university has stepped up in 1998 to stop the problem. Responsibility is best taken on one’s own initiative rather than forced by the governing authorities.

_________________________

Evan Lenow, “Penn State and the Lost Idea of Personal Responsibility,” November 10, 2011.

“Penn State sanctions: $60M, bowl ban,” ESPN, July 23, 2012.