The two deaths of Ravi

"Apologetics After the Two Deaths of Ravi Zacharias" (Doug Groothuis)

Making sense of the Ravi Zacharias scandal

I've read and seen several Christians reflecting on the Ravi scandal. I think the person who gets closest to what I'd want to say is David Wood. It's a long video, but Wood makes several insightful observations and as is often the case Wood is keen in his psychological analyses.

The modern self and the sexual revolution

"A conversation with Dr. Carl Trueman on the modern self and the sexual revolution"

An excerpt from the interview to whet your appetite:

[Charles] Taylor is one of those enviably polymathic people. He’s been a politician. He’s a political philosopher. He’s a straight down the line philosopher. He’s a scholar of the German philosopher Hegel. He’s a historian. I found him particularly useful on two fronts. One, Taylor correctly identifies Romanticism as the key move in Western society where inner feelings become constitutive of who we are. He sees that as leading to the formation of a particular notion of the self which he calls the expressive individual. Essentially, what he means by that is that the self comes to be thought of as that which we feel inside, and the self manifests itself when it’s able to behave outwardly in accordance with those inner desires. That’s where we get the language of authenticity. Today in society, we often use the language of authenticity when we’re talking about people. A good example is Bruce, now Caitlyn, Jenner in his interview with Diane Sawyer when he was talking about transitioning. He made the point that ‘finally I’m going to be able to be who I always have been.’ Essentially saying, ‘finally, I can be authentic. Finally, I’m not going to be living a lie anymore.’ Now, you don’t have to be a transgender person to identify with the notion that ‘I want to be outwardly that which I feel to be inwardly.’

Second is Taylor’s notion of what he calls the social imaginary. I found this extremely helpful. The social imaginary points to the fact that most of us don’t relate to the world around us in terms of first principles. Life is not a syllogism. I don’t get up from my chair and think, ‘Okay, where do I need to exit the room from? Oh, there’s a door over there. I’ll go through the door.’ I get up and instinctively leave through the door. The social imaginary gets to the idea that that’s how we think about an awful lot of things. It’s how we think about morality. We tend to pick up the intuitions of the world around us, internalize them, and make them our own. We don’t alway think in terms of first principles when we think about morality. A good example might be provided by the gay marriage issue. Most people have not come to find gay marriage acceptable by reading heavy tomes of sexual ethics or sociology. Most people have gay friends or have seen attractive images of gay couples and things like the sitcom “Will and Grace.” It’s not that they’ve been convinced by argument. It’s that their intuitions have been shaped by broader cultural patterns. I found that very helpful in approaching this notion of the modern self. It’s not that we get up one morning and decide ‘Let’s be expressive individuals.’ The very air we breathe shapes, tilts, and bends our intuitions towards that result.

Holy sexuality

"'Holy Sexuality' – Solas in Conversation with Christopher Yuan"

I never fail to enjoy reading people's testimonies about how they became Christian and how they remain Christian "through many dangers, toils, and snares" over the years. Here's an excerpt:

Meanwhile my parents prayed for a miracle. My mother prayed that God would do “whatever it takes” for me to come to surrender my life to Jesus. She prayed and fasted every Monday for seven years, she fasted once for 39 days, and enlisted over a hundred prayer warriors to pray and fast for me. However I remained totally resistant, to the point that once, when my parents came to visit me I kicked them out! As they left, my Dad gave me his Bible, but I immediately threw it in the trash.

[...]

In prison, I was diagnosed with HIV, and hit a personal low-point. A few days after that I was walking around the cell block and I passed by a rubbish bin, and what I found on top of the trash was a Gideon’s New Testament! I took it to my cell and began reading it...

Sex appeal

1. It's a truism that men find pretty woman attractive while women find handsome men attractive. That's the physical dimension of sex appeal. Some Christians neglect their appearance because they focus on "inner beauty."

There's certainly something important to be said for that. It depends on part on natural endowment and the aging process, as well as priorities in life. It is, however, unrealistic to think members of the opposite sex are blind to physical appearance. So one needs to make allowance for the consequences. 

2. That said, attraction runs deeper than physical attraction. An attraction to something more abstract than bodies: men attracted to femininity and women attracted to masculinity. While those properties are literally embodied, they are not identical with their embodiment. 

In addition to the physical side of things, normal men and women have masculine and feminine psychological traits. And a deeper part of sex appeal is the appeal of masculinity to women and femininity to men. Psychological traits that translate into corresponding actions. 

3. Moreover, it isn't essentially romantic, although it figures in romantic dynamics. Young boys are drawn to manly role models while young girls are drawn to womanly role models. So unlike sex appeal in the narrow physical sense, masculinity and femininity can be appealing to members of the same sex. An ideal to emulate or aspire to. 

Masculinity and femininity have a platonic appeal as well as an erotic appeal. The erotic is more physical, concrete, and geared to attraction between the sexes whereas the platonic is more generic and abstract. The kind of man a man or boy would like to be. The kind of woman a woman or girl would like to be. To exemplify distinctive masculine or feminine virtues.  

Withholding sex

Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control (1 Cor 7:5).

This raises an interesting question. Scripture repeatedly condemns adultery. That's one of the grave sins in Scripture. It even becomes a spiritual metaphor.

But what exactly makes adultery a sin? One can think of pragmatic reasons why adultery is bad, but what makes it wrong as a matter of principle?

In one sense, adultery is sex with someone other than your spouse. But what makes that wrong?

In another, perhaps deeper sense, adultery is withholding sex from your spouse. Instead of reserving sex for your spouse, you give it to another. You take what belongs to your spouse and give it away.

In that respect, withholding sex is marriage is similar to adultery. If sex is something you're supposed to save for your spouse, then adultery and withholding sex are both examples of not saving sex for your spouse. In one case you keep it to yourself while in the other case you share it with someone who's not entitled to your body.

By the same token, if adultery is grounds for divorce, is withholding sex grounds for divorce? Mind you, there can be extenuating circumstances for why a spouse might withhold sex. But that's not what I have in mind. I'm thinking of motives like revenge, getting even, an unforgiving attitude.

There can also be a vicious cycle where a bad marriage poisons conjugal relations while bad conjugal relations poison a marriage.

Masturbation and prostate cancer

Typically progressives don't have a problem with pornography or masturbation. In fact, typically they encourage watching porn and masturbating.

Hence when men struggling with these encourage one another to abstain from watching porn and masturbation (e.g. No Nut November, NoFap), progressives are triggered. Others may be triggered as well, but progressives especially.

One argument progressives bring up is that if men don't watch porn and masturbate, then they'll have an increased risk of prostate cancer:

1. At the risk of stating the obvious, porn and masturbation are separable. One could masturbate without watching porn.

2. However, even on progressive terms, it's not really about masturbation but ejaculation. A man can be happily married and engaging in regular sex with his wife. He should be routinely ejaculating in a marriage with regular sex.

3. By contrast, one big reason men encourage one another to abstain from watching porn and masturbating is because these men realize it's causing them to lose control over their lives. They've become losers. Coomers. So these struggling guys want to turn away from watching porn and masturbating. They want to regain control over their lives. They want to seek a real woman with whom to have a relationship with and hopefully marry. Are progressives against men seeking long-term romantic relationships with women? Are progressives against couples getting married?

4. As far as the medical science behind the idea that frequent masturbation lowers the risk for prostate cancer, see UpToDate:

   An association between ejaculatory frequency and a lower risk of prostate cancer has been suggested in two case-control studies:

   • In a study which compared men under the age of 70 who had prostate cancer with age-matched controls, men who had five or more ejaculations per week while in their 20s (but not their 30s or 40s) had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer (odds ratio 0.66) than those who had fewer ejaculations [148].

   • A report from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study compared men who developed prostate cancer (n = 3839) with controls of a similar age group who had similar ejaculatory frequency but no prostate cancer [149]. On multivariable analysis, the incidence of prostate cancer was significantly reduced for men having more than 21 ejaculations per month compared with those with 4 to 7 ejaculations per month between ages 20 and 29 years (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92). The HR for those reporting more than 21 versus 4 to 7 ejaculations per month between ages 40 and 49 years was 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.89).

   The validity of this relationship has been called into question because of the lack of association of prostate cancer with ejaculation frequency in older men and the fact that other studies have failed to show a protective effect from being married or having more sexual partners [150]. Moreover, the problem of recall bias also casts doubt on the interpretation of studies that use this methodology.

I kissed marriage and Christianity goodbye

View this post on Instagram

My heart is full of gratitude. I wish you could see all the messages people sent me after the announcement of my divorce. They are expressions of love though they are saddened or even strongly disapprove of the decision.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ I am learning that no group has the market cornered on grace. This week I’ve received grace from Christians, atheists, evangelicals, exvangelicals, straight people, LGBTQ people, and everyone in-between. Of course there have also been strong words of rebuke from religious people. While not always pleasant, I know they are seeking to love me. (There have also been spiteful, hateful comments that angered and hurt me.)⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ The information that was left out of our announcement is that I have undergone a massive shift in regard to my faith in Jesus. The popular phrase for this is “deconstruction,” the biblical phrase is “falling away.” By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ Martin Luther said that the entire life of believers should be repentance. There’s beauty in that sentiment regardless of your view of God. I have lived in repentance for the past several years—repenting of my self-righteousness, my fear-based approach to life, the teaching of my books, my views of women in the church, and my approach to parenting to name a few. But I specifically want to add to this list now: to the LGBTQ+ community, I want to say that I am sorry for the views that I taught in my books and as a pastor regarding sexuality. I regret standing against marriage equality, for not affirming you and your place in the church, and for any ways that my writing and speaking contributed to a culture of exclusion and bigotry. I hope you can forgive me.⁣⁣ ⁣⁣ To my Christians friends, I am grateful for your prayers. Don’t take it personally if I don’t immediately return calls. I can’t join in your mourning. I don’t view this moment negatively. I feel very much alive, and awake, and surprisingly hopeful. I believe with my sister Julian that, “All shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

A post shared by Joshua Harris (@harrisjosh) on Jul 26, 2019 at 12:04pm PDT

1. Josh Harris made the announcement about no longer being a Christian after he made an announcement that he and his wife are "separating" from one another. Here he explicitly says it's a "divorce".

Feminist double standards

i) There's a stereotypical difference between men and women. If a pretty girl grabbed the butt of a young guy, or slapped him on the butt, or kissed him, or put her hands up his shirt, or walked up to him on the beach and ran her hands up and down his chest, a normal guy (especially if he's single) wouldn't be offended by that.  He'd find that flattering and amusing. And those are mild examples. A pretty woman could push the envelop further without repercussion (e.g. grab his crotch or yank his jams down). 

At the moment I'm not discussed what's morally proper. I'm just making the obvious point that what might constitute sexual harassment or assault if a guy does it to a girl isn't sexual harassment or assault if a girl does it to a guy. Men and women are wired differently.

ii) Up to a point I don't mind a double standard. The problem is with an arbitrary double standard where we simultaneously pretend that men and women are interchangeable, should be treated the same in every respect. Intolerance for male spaces (e.g. the Boy Scouts) or male-only occupations (e.g. combat). 

We need to have a consistent policy. Either admit that men and women are different in some fundamental respects, in which case we allow for male-only spaces and male-only occupations, or have a uniform policy in treating male and female alike (not my recommendation).  

Secular progressives try to have it both ways. Another example is affirmative consent policies on college campuses which discriminate against male students, begin with the presumption that the male is always the guilty party in a male/female sexual transaction. 

iii) It's also a fact that some women are attracted to certain kinds of men. Handsome guys can get away with things homely guys wouldn't dare do. Bad boys get away with things that square boys wouldn't dare do. Some women are attracted to rich/powerful men, even though they know the men are promiscuous. 

Modesty

I'm not an art historian, so it's possible that some of the my generalizations in this post are overgeneralizations. 

1. Standards of modesty are culturally relative. At one extreme are Muslims. To my knowledge, Islam even has nudity taboos about members of the same sex. They also have hangups about showing skin in general. At the opposite extreme is Classical Greek and Indian art. Some Indian statues are overtly erotic. There's also the phallic symbol (lingam). Greek art is characterized by both male and female nudity. Some Greek art is explicitly pornographic. The Greek cult of homosexuality presumably contributes to the prominence of the male nude in Greek art. 

2. Christians agree that modesty is a virtue, but disagree on what constitutes modesty. It's ironic that Catholic theology makes a big deal about concupiscence, yet nudity is a prominent theme among Catholic sculptors and painters. In addition, Marian iconography gave Catholic artists a pretext to paint gorgeous women. Likewise, artistic depictions of martyrdom are sometimes an excuse for sadistic eroticism. Since, moreover, a lot of Catholic art was sponsored by popes and prelates, it can't all be chalked up to randy laymen. 

3. Botticelli, Bernini, Raphael, Ingres, Renoir, and Dante Rossetti are artists paradigmatic for celebrating the female form. It's my impression that generally speaking, French and Italian artists celebrate physical perfection (especially female) in a way that many Northern European artists do not. English artists split the difference. 

One reason may simply be that warm sunny climates are less inhibited about exposing skin than chilly climates. That may be a partial explanation for the exuberant nudity in Greek, Roman, Italian, and Indian art. 

It's amusing that after his "conversion," Botticelli switched from Classical to Christian themes, yet his Madonnas look just like the women who populate his Classical paintings. The setting and outfit has changed, but the women remain the same! Nothing wrong with that. Beauty is universal. 

Although Rembrandt paints nudes, they're not beautiful women. Rather, they're the women he loved. 

4. In Christian art, male nudity seems to be more confined to depictions of Adam and the Day of Judgment. You also have artists like Michaelangelo and Eakins. That raises questions about their "sexual orientation"–although Eakins also did female nudes. 

5. To my limited knowledge, skinny-dipping was the norm until the Victorian invention of swimwear, although I assume it was usually sexually segregated. The public Roman baths were unisex, but that reflected pagan mores. 

6. In traditional Western art, there seems to be a tacit code about pubic hair. Artistic nudity is permissible so long as pubic hair is brushed out. I don't know the rationale for that convention. Was it an arbitrary custom in which pubic hair was deemed to be too realistic and therefore obscene, whereas full-frontal nudity was permissible so long as the artist omitted that detail? Or did it trade on the "innocence" of prepubescent nudity? Of course, if the nude model is evidently sexually mature, then that's a ruse. 

One exception to this unspoken rule is a 5C Byzantine ivory diptych of Adam in paradise (in the Museo nazionale del Bargello in Florence). Perhaps that dates back to a time before the later tradition became entrenched.  

7. In Christian ethics, the notion of modesty revolves around the concept of lust. Standard prooftexts include Prov 6:25, Mt 5:28, Rom 1:24,27, and 2 Tim 2:22.

i) In context, Prov 6:25 refers to prostitution

ii) In context, Rom 1:24,27 has reference to homosexual attraction (and behavior).

iii) In 2 Tim 2:22, does "lust" refer to something in the mind (attraction, imagination) or behavior? In the 1C Roman empire, sexual immorality covers premarital sex, extramarital sex, promiscuity, prostitution, rape, incest, sodomy, lesbianism, pederasty, and abortion. Christians were obligated to foreswear that behavior. 

iv) Mt 5:28. This is the locus classicus:

a) A problem with the traditional interpretation is that lust comes in degrees, so on that interpretation, the text offers no concrete guidance on where you cross the line. 

b) In addition, the traditional interpretation has been challenged: 

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/12/lusting-in-your-heart.html

8. Of course, lust can't be entirely detached from sexual misconduct since that's the motivation. They are asymmetrically related. It's possible to lust without acting on your impulses, but lust provides the incentive for the corresponding behavior. 

9. Then there's the question of how to define lust. Consulting a Greek or Hebrew lexicon isn't the answer, since that will simply give you an English synonym. One issue is whether the concept of lust can be determined by Scripture, or whether Bible writers expect the reader to have a cultural preunderstanding of lust based on human experience, especially against the pervasive backdrop of heathen sexual mores. 

10. There's the additional question of whether there's a more restrictive (indeed, exclusive) standard for married couples than for singles, especially in the realm of the imagination. Sex outside of marriage is forbidden for both groups, but what about art or fantasies? The alienation of affections is a danger in marriage. 

11. Modesty is a broader category. Take Christ in the House of His Parents, by Millais. That was quite controversial in its time. It offended conventional Victorian piety. Not because there was anything slightly erotic about it, but critics considered it an indecorous way to represent the Holy Family. Too down-to-earth. The hostile reaction reflect the artificiality of some religious sensibilities. 

12. In Christian theology, the human body is both a divine gift as well as God's handiwork. A marvel of engineering. Man is the apex of creation in our solar system. Perhaps in the entire universe. If it's permissible to make artistic depictions of lesser things in nature, why not the greater? Take athleticism. When I watch joggers, some men and women are natural runners while others are manifestly not. They have no idea how to hold their arms or coordinate their arms and legs. By contrast, young runners with innate coordination have an elegant gait. It's enjoyable to watch the natural grace of a good runner. Beauty can be simple. Wildlife photographers take pictures of cheetahs chasing down antelope. It's exhilarating to watch. Art it motion. And of course, we have a special affinity for the human body.  

13. Even if we consider artistic nudity to be permissible, there are ancillary issues. Take Renoir's Les Grandes Baigneuses. Consider the girl in the water, painted from behind, who's splashing the women on the riverbank. She appears to be in her mid-teens. Fresh ingenue beauty, projecting playful, unaffected innocence. But I assume she was a real person, like the other two women. What's the fate of models when their springtime bloom wears off? What happened to that girl? Did she die of old age? Did she die young, from TB or influenza? Did she die in poverty? Did she contract venereal disease and die on the streets? In the painting, she's frozen in time, in the flower of youth, but she lived and died. Do viewers every wonder what became of them? I'm reminded of Anton Chekhov's short story about the model exploited by art students and medical students ("Anyuta"). Used, passed around, then discarded. That's fictional, but based on real-life examples.

Touch

In our oversexed, X-rated age, this scene illustrates the sensual power of touch:

A G-rated gesture. Yet it carries such a charge.

Touch is so important in human relationships. There's platonic touch. A mother caressing a child. A father holding the hand of his young son. Friends and brothers hugging each other.

Then there's erotic touch. In this scene, the gesture of a very pretty women putting her hand on his hand. It's like the difference between potential energy and kinetic energy. A boulder on a hilltop doesn't look very energetic. Indeed, it looks decidedly unenergetic. But if it rolls down the hill, by the time it hits the chalet at the bottom of the hill, it has obliterating force.

There can be such potency in small, subtle, mundane gestures. That's lost on so many modern directors.

Is there a gift of celibacy?

1. There's an entrenched tradition that I assume originates in Roman Catholicism and carries over into Protestant theology, according to which some Christian men and women have a "gift of celibacy". The prooftext is 1 Cor 7:7. Perhaps that's correct, but there's the danger that when we think we know what a passage means, we stop asking questions. Or rather, we think there are no questions to ask. 

Indeed, it's customary to posit a gift of celibacy and leave it at that, with very little explanation of what a gift of celibacy actually amounts to. They don't bother to delve into that. Has anyone ever actually met a Christian with the "gift of celibacy"? Or is that an idealized abstraction based on the received interpretation? 

One thing a gift of celibacy might mean is that some Christian men (and women) lack any heterosexual libido. Or, if not quite devoid, have a very low libido. As if the man suffered from a severe testosterone deficit. 

Is that what Paul means? Possibly. That, however, would be highly abnormal, and I wonder if Paul is saying that physical abnormality qualifies some men for full-time ministry. Seems odd that something that unnatural and anomalous would be a prerequisite for full-time ministry. 

Is it the supernatural equivalent of chemical castration? Possibly. However, Scripture doesn't generally treat an unnatural misfortune as a necessary qualification for serving God. 

In addition, the human sex drive isn't just physical but psychological. It includes memory, imagination, anticipation, and longing for a special kind of companionship (spouse and kids). Is there a gift of celibacy that erases all that from the psychological makeup of some Christians? Did Paul think he was a freak? 

2. The traditional interpretation hinges on a single word–charisma–which is usually rendered "gift". Is that reliable? In 1 Corinthians, Paul uses charisma as an umbrella term to cover a variety of phenomena. Are such disparate examples reducible to a one core idea? Is he using the same word for stylistic unity? Should we define the examples by the word or define the word by the examples?

3. Rom 11:29 provides an instructive comparison. When Paul refers to "gifts" and "calling", are those meant to be distinct concepts, or do they function as rough synonyms? That passage is assumed to refer back to Rom 9:4-5. What's the allocation? Are some of those items gifts while other items are vocations? Are all those items both gifts and vocations? 

If we distinguish between the meaning of words and the meaning of concepts, the concept of a divinely impose duty captures the basic idea. Israel had (has?) a divine calling, with corresponding obligations. The ideas of gift and calling merge in mission or commission. 

4. Rather than approaching the question from a philological standpoint, suppose we approach it from a biographical standpoint. We know from Acts and Galatians that God singled out Paul to perform a particular mission. A mission which will entail great personal hardship and sacrifice. Similar in that respect to the vocation of OT prophets who had a thankless ministry. 

5. In addition, Paul discusses the Christian obligation, as circumstances demand, to forswear what's in your best self-interest for the benefit and common good of others. All told, I'm inclined to think that what Paul is talking about is not a "gift of celibacy" but the fact that on occasion, celibacy is an onerous necessity. Sexually, they are wired the same way as normal men and women, but God has put them in a situation where they are obligated to tough it out, despite the personal strain. Again, that's comparable to the sacrificial mission of some OT prophets. 

Unplanned pregnancies

Critics of Calvinism like to bring up hard cases. That's legitimate inasmuch as Calvinism can't duck the hard cases. It is, however, self-deluded for freewill theists to imagine that their alternative exempts themselves from equally hard cases. 

Let's take the case of "unplanned pregnancies". From a theological perspective, are unplanned pregnancies good or evil? 

In popular parlance, I think an "unplanned pregnancy"is generally a euphemism for a pregnancy resulting from premarital sex, extramarital sex, failure to use contraception (even though the couple didn't want a child), or contraceptive failure. From the standpoint of the couple, the pregnancy was unintended and usually undesirable. The most extreme example is a child conceived in rape.

From a human perspective, such pregnancies are unintended. But are they unintended from a divine perspective? According to open theism, just about every pregnancy is unplanned from God's viewpoint since God doesn't know the future. Exceptions might be Isaac and Jesus, although it's an interesting question how the God of open theism could promise Abraham a child if God doesn't know or control what human beings will do, including sex.

However, it's hard to see how any pregnancy can be unplanned under Molinism or Arminianism, for God's actions in creation and providence are necessary causes of every particular pregnancy, and God knows the end-results of his actions in creation and providence.

From a Reformed perspective, every pregnancy is predestined. Do freewill theists think humanly unplanned pregnancies are evil? Freewill theists often charge the God of Calvinism with hypocrisy for decreeing what he forbids. 

But that's morally complex. If a child is conceived in sin, the process is evil, but does that mean the product is evil? Do freewill theists think the child is tainted by the process (e.g. premarital or extramarital sex)? Presumably not. Does it impugn divine benevolence if God welcomes every child into the world? Presumably not. 

Assuming that every pregnancy is a providentially planned pregnancy, even if many pregnancies are humanly unplanned, the good outcome is inextricably linked to sinful causes in however many cases. Do freewill theists regret the outcome? Open theists might. 

The Song of Songs

The couple in Song of Songs was not married. Or engaged. The most literal reading of the Bible is that they were sneaking around having wild and enthusiastic premarital sex.

I’m sorry people have been telling you lies about this.

— Lura Groen (@lura_groen) April 3, 2019

i) Apparently, Lura is ordained in the ELCA.

ii) To the contrary, the couple seems to be bride and groom. And as one commentator observes:

The centerpiece of the book is a wedding scene that concludes with the consummation of their relationship. Iain Duguid, The Song of Songs: An Introduction and Commentary (IVP 2015), 41.

iii) It's artificial to isolate the sexual mores in the Song of Songs from Proverbs or the Mosaic Law.

iv) The "most literal reading"? This isn't a prosaic narrative, but a highly stylized set of love poems with a loose narrative thread.

v) Unfortunately for Lura, it's overwhelmingly heteronormative.

vi) I think the book is a fictional depiction of the sexual fantasies of a man and woman engaged to be married. Erotic poetry to celebrate the sexual passion and anticipation of the bride and groom. That accounts for the blurry, fluid, dream-like plot.

Rome's moral compromise

That the Roman Catholic church has been morally compromised by the sodomite subculture is now part of its indelible public image. However, the moral compromise doesn't begin with that.

Historically, Roman Catholicism became the state religion of Europe and (prior to the Reformation) Great Britain. To enjoy that monopoly required royal patronage. But there was a price for that. It meant the Catholic church had to be very indulgent towards the never-ending promiscuities of kings, princes, and nobles. Royal harems, royal courtesans, as well as mistresses to service aristocrats, and so on and so forth. Court preachers were privy to all that. But it's not as if they routinely denounced it from the pulpit. Had they done so, they'd rapidly fallen out of favor with the royals and nobles.  As a result, the European ruling class has never taken the moral authority of Rome seriously. That wouldn't be possible. There was always a Gentleman's agreement between the church of Rome and the sex life of the ruling class. 

The Song of Songs

The Song of Songs has always been controversial in some circles. To some degree it retained its canonical status through the auspices of the allegorical interpretation. The motivation for the allegorical interpretation is the dubious that it would be unfitting for Scripture to celebrate erotic love in such sustained and uninhibited terms.

Some people would probably prefer that it never made its way into the canon. Yet if Scripture didn't include a book like that, we'd have a dualistic piety in which, on one side, we have a rather monastic biblical piety and on the other side, a sensual imagination and carnal lifestyle outside of Scripture. Given the centrality of erotic love in human experience, the Bible would be very defective if it failed to acknowledge that, and not just in abstract terms, but unashamedly concrete terms. Finally, despite the provocative imagery, it's very artistic depiction of sexual passion.

Finally, at a time when heteronormativity is under relentless attack from the queer lobby, the trans lobby, and their straight enablers in the liberal establishment, as well as the cautionary tale of mandatory celibacy in the Catholic priesthood, the Song of Songs has never been more opportune as an inspired testament to the heterosexual paradigm of erotic love between man and woman.

The Song of Songs needs to be supplemented by other Biblical stressing marriage as the proper outlet for sexual longings. Yet it makes an essential contribution to the overall package. 

The Billy Graham rule

i) Vice President Pence revived debate over the Billy Graham rule. According to that rule, a man shouldn't be alone with a woman other than his wife. Presumably, the Graham rule has an implicit codicil for female relatives. 

I think the rule is extreme. In a way it's similar to Muslim sensibilities. According to Muslim mores, men and women are sexual animals with no more impulse control than an animal in heat. A woman is a seductress simply by virtue of being a woman. As such, it's necessity to protect men from women by putting women in burkas. Protect the roving eyes of men from moth-like attraction to the candle. By the same token, it's necessary to subject adolescent girls to cliorectomies, according to the savage logic that if they don't find sexual intercourse physically enjoyable, they won't be tempted to commit premarital or extramarital sex. It says something about Islam that Muslim men want sex with women who don't want sex with them. But that's one of the many cultural pathologies of Islam. 

ii) That said, while I don't defend the rule, I respect the motivation. The only thing that deters most men and women from promiscuity is religious restraint or fear of repercussions. Indeed, a major reason many people commit apostasy or never consider Christianity in the first place is due to Christian sexual ethics (i.e. monogamy). 

iii) Although the rule is an overreaction, it is prudent to avoid gratuitous sexual temptation.  

iv) Ironically, the people who mock Pence for following the Billy Graham rule are apt to be the very same people mocking Trump's Hollywood sexual lifestyle. No attempt to be logically or morally consistent. 

v) Finally, it's my impression that the Billy Graham rule had a specific background. When you consider the experience that gave rise to the rule, it's not so easy to ridicule. According to Templeton's memoir:

Billy and I had taken two days off in Copenhagen and were scheduled to join the others in Paris. We arrived a day early and wandered the streets, grateful that the city had not been pulverized as London had. Paris was thronging with Allied soldiers on leave and seemed a city of prostitutes. They paraded the main thoroughfares, soliciting openly. In civilian clothes, we were particular targets. On a daylight walk down the Champs Elysees from the Arc de Triomphe to our hotel we were accosted at least fifty times. The girls stood in front of us, impeding our progress, whispering. One threw open her fur coat to reveal that she was wearing nothing but a garter belt and stocking. Billy's face was grim. "Chuck," he said, "we've got to get out of here." We set off at a half trot, literally shoving the girls aside.

Inside the hotel lobby, laughing and breathless, I turned to Billy and said, saying it for both of us, "My Lord!"

That evening we went looking for a restaurant. We chanced  upon an attractive and "very French" place. It had a fairly large room with a bar to one side, the tables arranged around a postage-stamp-size dance floor. A trio of blacks were playing American blues. We ordered Cokes and looked about. I'd told Billy not to worry about the menu; my high-school French would suffice. In fact, I was immediately at a loss when the waitress began to respond to my questions.

Two girls stopped at our table, and before we were quite aware of what was happening, joined us and ordered drinks. They were very young, not yet in their twenties, and quite beautiful. Neither spoke English. I tried to carry on a conversation but was soon at sea. Attempting a compliment, I said to one of them, "Vous avez tres beaux chevaux rouge." When they burst into laughter I realized that I had told her she had beautiful red horses, rather than beautiful red cheveux, hair.

Our meal came and we proceeded to eat it, two simultaneous conversations going on; Billy and I in English and the girls in French. As we paid the check, it became clear that they were planning to leave with us. I tired to make excuses but each had taken an arm and, as we emerged into the street, clutched tightly. My girl was pointing toward a massive apartment block across the street, Billy's was pulling him away. Over a shoulder, he gave me a despairing look. I grimaced and said, "Guess we'll have to walk  them home." In truth, we didn't know how to extricate ourselves. 

Inside the apartment building, a broad staircase led to the second floor. As we mounted the stairs- wanting to get out of my predicament but not sure how to-I spied a W.C. on the landing. I pointed and said, "Excusez." It occurred to me that I had wandered into danger and was at risk of being mugged. In the W.C. I looked for a place to hide my wallet; in it was all my money and identification. I stood on the toilet bowl, reached up and stashed it on top of the water chamber. As I emerged the girl was talking to a rough-looking man who turned and went quickly down the hall. She called out to me, "Viens ici." I shook my head, said, "Non, Non" and went down the stairs three at a time. Outside, I watched until I saw her come out and cross the street to the restaurant. I went back up the stairs, retrieved my wallet and returned to our hotel.

At the hotel, no Billy. An hour passed. When two hours had gone, I began to worry. I considered calling the police but realized that there was little I could tell them; I had no idea where he might be. Close to midnight, he burst through the door, panting, his face shining with perspiration, his hair dishevelled, his tie in a pocket, the collar of his shirt open. 

He threw himself on the bed breathing heavily. "Chuck, you have no idea what's happened to me. I thought I was going to walk the girl home and the leave her, but she hailed a cab. We drove and drove and drove. Somewhere outside the city in a dark little suburb, the cabby stopped. He didn't speak any English, neither did she, and I couldn't understand what he was saying about the fare. I took the money from my wallet and held it out, expecting him to do what the London cabbies do- take what was his and leave the rest. He took it all. 

"The girl had me by the arm and she led me toward this place where she lived. It was a dump. We got inside and she closed the door. I was trying to think of something I could say or do to let her know I was leaving. She went over to the bed, and without a word, unbuttoned her dress, tossed it aside and fell back on the bed. And Chuck, she was stark naked! 

"I turned, opened the door and got out of there. In the street, I started to run. I don't know how far I ran; it could have been a mile or two. When finally I stopped, I looked around. I had no idea where I was. I was going to hail a cab, and then realized I didn't have any money. I asked some people the way to the downtown area but they just looked at me or rattled on in French. So I started to walk. I walked and walked and walked until I saw the Eiffel Tower in the distance. Then I knew where I was..."

https://www.templetons.com/charles/memoir/evang-graham.html

Modesty

i) On Facebook I read a comment thread about swimwear. Some Christians think beachgoers should revert to Victorian swimwear. That raises some tricky issues regarding modesty. 

ii) Hopefully it's possible to strike a balance in-between nude beaches and burkas. Some of the Christian commenters had a position that's very similar to Muslim sensibilities regarding modesty. But surely we need to do better than that.

iii) Questions of modesty raise the sorites paradox. Because modesty ranges along a continuum, it isn't possible to draw an absolute line. It's a matter of degree. And ethics in general confronts us with borderline cases. In situations like this, our intuitions are firmer at the extremes. 

Unless you take an absolutist position (e.g. burkas), the question of where to draw the line is a challenge for both sides, the stricter as well as the more permissive. Changes of degree in either direction. 

iv) Modesty is culturebound. But that doesn't necessarily mean it's completely arbitrary. Many cultures are morally decedent, so the fact that scruples regarding modesty are culturebound doesn't entail that there can't be any right or wrong. That's a special case of moral relativism based on cultural relativism. But Christians reject that inference.

v) Conversely, social mores regarding modesty are often arbitrary. For instance, National Geographic style nudity was acceptable at the same time Playboy was pornographic. Images of native nudity in the jungle was uncontroversial, while images of nude white women were pornographic. 

And there's the long history of the nude in western art. Is that pornographic? Probably an issue on which Christians disagree. The artistic nude ranges along the same continuum as pornography, but do they overlap? 

vi) Much of this is bound up with the notion of "lust". A problem is that many Christians simply plug their popular notion of lust into biblical prohibitions. But that's not exegesis. That's beginning with an extrabiblical definition, which a reader plugs into the text of Scripture. 

vii) Is there something wrong with a teenager boy on the beach who admires the body of a teenage girl on the beach, or vice versa? Or is that healthy and innocuous? 

viii) Feminist sociologists often frame the debate in terms of the "objectification" of female bodies or treating women as "sexual objects". 

I rarely if ever see the same criticism in reverse. Is it wrong for a female viewer to objectify a handsome man? Do men feel demeaned if women view them as "sexual objects"?

ix) If we mean sexual "objectification" in a reductionistic sense where that's the only thing we care about in the opposite sex, then that's wrong. But it's hard to see how sex appeal as one component of the overall male/female dynamic is intrinsically wrong. 

x) In addition, examples of sexual "objectification" typically fixate on particular body parts, but that's arbitrarily restrictive. For instance, some women have beautiful eyes (e.g. Maureen O'Hara, Elizabeth Taylor). If I admire their eyes, that's "objectification", but is it sinful or degrading to admire their eyes? 

For that matter, it's my impression that many women admired the eyes of Paul Newman. By the same token, here's a woman describing Omar Shariff: "And there, in the flesh, were those eyes: warm, dark, liquid". Are they guilty of degrading sexual objectification? 

Some women have gorgeous hair. Is it misogynistic to admire their hair? Some women have a beautiful complexion. Anything can be objectified. 

xi) Sexual objectification is usually cast in visual terms, but some men and women find voices sexy. Consider women who relish the sound of operatic tenors (e.g. Corelli, Carreras, Pavarotti). Or men who relish the sound of operatic sopranos (e.g. Sutherland, Caballé, Price, Ponselle, Milanov).  

I can't speak for women, but it's my impression that women find men with deep voices sexy. Isn't that "objectification"? Is so, is that sinful? 

xii) Fact is, humans like to "objectify" beautiful things, such as flowers, sunsets, seascapes, mountain ranges, &c. Sexual objectification is just a special case of that general phenomena. 

Aesthetically, we're selective. We take things out of context. We single out appealing elements. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. 

xiii) A common argument is that since fornication is wrong, kissing is wrong because they lie on the same continuum. That relocates the fight from premarital sex to danger zones that might lead to fornication. The need to avoid gratuitous temptation. There's a legitimate issue there, but that's a prudential judgment about behavior that's not intrinsically wrong, but risky, as a potential pathway to actual immorality.  

xiv) One reason for modesty is that immodesty is distracting. There are situations in which it's okay to be distracted by beauty (e.g. in a park, at the beach). But we need to avoid an oversexualized culture in which viewers are constantly bombarded with sensual stimuli. We need to be able to think about other things. We need to avoid a social climate where the human imagination is sexually obsessed. The media promotes a culture that's all about sex all the time. 

Marriage in crisis

1. Marriage was never risk-free, but it's currently a high-stakes game in which the odds are heavily against men. If a man fathers a child, the mother has the unilateral right to abort the child even if he wants to keep and raise the child. It's usually the wife who initiates divorce. Usually the wife who's awarded custody. Plus taking half the man's income, even if she initiated the divorce. Thanks to feminism, we now have a system where wives have all the rights while husbands have all the responsibilities. If social trends continue, many men will remain bachelors, play video games, have buddies, and sexbots.

Evangelical leaders are failing men, both inside and outside the church. The failure of evangelical elites is driving disaffected men into the arms of Jordan Peterson. 

Struggling With Pornography And Assurance Of Salvation

I just posted this on Facebook. Anybody who wants to add comments here can do so, or you can post on my Facebook page.

Here's something I recently wrote to a Christian struggling with pornography and assurance of salvation. I'm posting it with his permission, and I hope it will be helpful to other people. If anybody wants to add to what I've said below, you can do that in the comments section of this thread if you want. It could be helpful to this individual and others looking on if those of you who have anything to add will do so. Here's what I wrote: