Sex and the iWorld: A Brief Review

A new book by Dale S. Kuehne called Sex and the iWorld: Rethinking Relationships beyond an Age of Individualism (Baker, 2009) is worth reading for several reasons. The author is a professor of politics at a Catholic liberal arts college and a pastor of Emmanuel Covenant Church in Nashua, NH. So he writes from unique position on a highly controversial topic.

1. Modern Individualism Warps Our Sexuality: One notable feature of this book is his critique of modern individualism. He is perceptive in his analysis of the morality of the world of modernity. He identifies what he calls "three taboos," which seem to me to function analogously to the way the Ten Commandments functioned in the pre-modern world and continue to function in the Church. The three taboos are:

1. One may not criticize someone else's life choices or behavior.
2. One may not behave in a manner that coerces or causes harm to others.
3. On may not engage in a sexual relationship with someone without his or her consent. (p. 71)

When you lay it out this way it is amazing how thin and weak the sexual morality of modernity actually is (and how it corresponds to the thinness of the modern concept of the self). And it is amazing how many sexual perversions can be seen as morally acceptable under this scheme. For example, there is no real reason to ban incest, homosexuality, polygamy, polyamory, bestiality or swinging. And when it comes to pedophilia, there is a lot of wiggle room with regard to the age of consent and re-definition of "harm," "coercion," and "consent." But this is the morality of modernity. Keuhne is right to trace all this back to the individualism of modernity and to thus show that the problem is much bigger than just sexual morality itself.

2. Sex is Only One Way to Express Love: Another interesting feature of this book that I found very encouraging is the more modest estimate of sexuality that Kuehne exhibits. He does not think that having sexual relations is necessary to human fulfillment. Full stop. Period. Now, that is a radical thought in the modern world and very politically incorrect. He thinks one can have a full and meaningful life with close friendship, emotional intimacy and deep satisfaction without sexual intercourse. He writes:

"The more intimacy we have with God, the more we are able to receive his love and then share that love with others. We receive love spiritually when we are intimately connected with God, and as we grow in the ability to be intimate with him and enjoy his love, we also can grow in our ability to be intimate with and love others. The greater our capacity for intimacy, the greater our capacity to receive love and share love.

Sexuality is not an important part of this equation, not because sex is a bad thing but simply because sex is not an essential aspect of the deepest and most fulfilling relational life that is found in a spiritual connection with God and others. Since we are physical beings, it is not surprising that love and intimacy have a reflection in our physical experience. Neither is it surprising that love and intimacy trigger many drives within us, including our sexual drive. Yet it is important to realize that the thing for which we ultimately yearn is not sexual and sex is not the means to find it . . . Engaging in sexual intercourse but never developing our capacity to love and be truly spiritually intimate with anyone, including our sexual partner, is a danger for all sexual relationships, including marriage." (169-70)

I find this approach to be very compassionate toward those with disordered drives (i.e. what is called a homosexual orientation) because it is saying to such people that the world lies when it says that you are doomed to loneliness and a non-fulfilling life because you cannot marry. Celibacy is not worse than death because sex is not the meaning of life.

Viewing sex as not essential for intimacy means that we do not need to leave marriages in which our needs for intimacy are not being met. For millennia people have found intimacy in friendship, the extended family and in the church. Marriage can be permanent because it does not bear the full responsibility for meeting all our needs. And yet nothing in this book could be taken to imply that marriage is not a wonderful thing that is rooted in creation and affected by redemption as part of God's plan.

3. The Theology of the Body: This is the first (or maybe the second) book written by a Protestant that actually quotes approvingly from John Paul II's wonderful writings on the theology of the body. I taught this material to my marriage class this Fall and it was very well received by Evangelical students who found it biblical, deep and convincing - unlike the shallow and tentative teaching they had received so far in the Evangelical church context. I predict that more and more conservative Protestants will discover this deeply spiritual and authentically biblical teaching in the coming years. Kuehne's emphasis on relationships as the alternative to modern individualism likely derives at least in part from the theology of the body.

All in all, I would highly recommend this book for anyone interested in coming to a deeper understanding of human sexuality in a Christian perspective and to anyone interested in understanding the modern world better. It is a fairly accessible work for students, laity and pastors.

Ten Theses on the Kingdom of God and Social Justice

Here is a list of ten theses on the kingdom of God and social justice by Matt Harmon, Associate Professor of New Testament Studies at Grace Theological Seminary at his blog "Biblical Theology." The first five are here and the second five here. I've listed them below, but if you follow the links he has a one paragraph elaboration of each one. I think they are quite good and extremely relevant.

1. We must learn from church history.

2. We must allow biblical and theological convictions to shape our engagement in social action.

3. We must not collapse the already/not-yet tension.

4. We must recognize that evangelical engagement with these issues will take different forms
within different political, cultural and social contexts.

5. We must prioritize proclamation of the gospel without neglecting social action

6. We must realize that our actions are not self-interpreting.

7. We must recognize the trend towards increasing social action and decreasing evangelism within the church.

8. We must think through and articulate the connection between specific social action and the
gospel.

9. We must not allow people's physical needs to blind us or them to their even greater spiritual needs.

10. We must recognize the challenges that come with working with others of different beliefs.

HT to Justin Taylor at "Between Two Worlds"

Evangelism, Politics and the Mission of the Church

In the last post, I expressed my discomfort with N. T. Wright's book, which (somewhat intemperately) attacks the traditional Christian preoccupation with heaven and recommends a focus on social justice based on the doctrine of the resurrection of the body. This theology fits hand in glove with contemporary Evangelical tendencies to put more emphasis on social justice work than Evangelicals have previously done.

Sometimes trends with labels like "missional" or "emergent" seem to stand for practical outcomes and theology that is not very different from the old-fashioned social gospel movement. This is especially true for Brian McLaren and Jim Wallis, though not for Lesslie Newbigin or John Stott. (Stott's Christian Mission in the Modern World is still well-worth reading and is superior to much of the more recent writing on the same subject. And Lesslie Newbigin's work needs to be read in toto and not simply reduced to a few slogans.)

I want to stress that I do not regard this as an "either/or." I'm not saying that there is no place for Christian concern for poverty, the environment or abortion. I'm talking about balance and clearly liberal Protestantism has completely lost its balance and has lost classcial orthodoxy in the bargain. How can we avoid having the same thing happen to us as Evangelicals? What makes us think it is impossible? How do we make sure the biblical gospel, which pertains to eternity, is not submerged below the cries for social justice in the here and now?

I think we should make three key distinctions.

I. Evangelism versus Social Improvement - We should be capable of distinguishing between the work of preaching the gospel to individuals and calling them to personal, saving faith in Jesus Christ, on the one hand, and the work of improving society whether through social service, social action or politics, as a witness to our faith.

This distinction should be kept in mind when deciding what action a Church qua Church should take with regard to social improvement. Social service is the direct meeting of the needs of individuals (food banks, relief work etc.) and is the primary work of the Church. Social action is the attempt to address the problems that create injustice through lobbying and public statements. This is not really the work of the Church qua Church and more appropriate for social justice organizations created and supported by Christians. Politics is direct involvement in democratic partisan activity with the goal of changing the law so as to facilitate either social service, social action or both. The Church and clergy should stay out of politics and Christians should participate as individuals in existing parties or through Christian parties.

The rule should be that the primary goal of the Church and the clergy is to preach the gospel and convert people. Some social service activity is certainly consistent with this mission, as long as it does not become central, but social action is questionable and politics is beyond the pale. (In extreme situations, social action may be necessary and appropriate. But it cannot become the focus of the institutional Church if the focus on evangelism is to be maintained.) The Church must keep evangelism and missionary work central. If people are genuinely converted, however, they will become involved in social improvement, but this will primarily be the work of the laity.

II. Moral Issue versus Political Issues - When the Church, as Church speaks out on politically charged issues it must not do so in a partisan manner. The best way to ensure that this does not happen is to limit the voice of the institutional Church itself to the morality of the issue and to leave aside the partisan political aspects. The Church must speak to actions which are good or evil and not to debatable methods of achieving desirable social outcomes. For example, abortion is an intrinsic evil and the Church must condemn it. On the other hand, the best way to address global warming is debatable and complex. The principle of stewardly responsibility for the environment can be proclaimed by the Church, but the best legislation dealing with carbon emmissions is beyond pastoral competence.

This will be difficult because even if the Church's pastors get it exactly right, those whose interests are harmed by the the moral stand of the Church will inevitably accuse the Church of partisan interference. But confronted with the demands of morality, it is the responsibility of those on the wrong side of the issue to change their stand and not the responsibility of the Church to pretend that it can change basic morality.

III. The Presence of the Kingdom Now versus the Presence of the Kingdom in the Future - When we pray the Lord's Prayer, we pray for the kingdom to come and this is an admission that there is a crucial sense in which the kingdom is not here already. Christians generally agree on the blessed hope of Christ's glorious return and the full manifestation of the Kingdom in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Yet, since the kingdom was present in the King and since we are the body of Christ, the kingdom already came in the past in one sense and is now present on earth in another sense. This raises a huge question: How is the Church related to the Kingdom? The short answer is, I think, as a witness to the kingdom. But what is the nature of that witness? Here we find Christians divided in their answers.

1. Christ's Presence in the Sacraments: This is the view of the Roman Catholic Church. The kingdom is present in the sacraments, especially the sacrifice of the mass where the real presence of Christ may be found. The Lutheran view, insofar as it tries to be Catholic but is inhibited by Luther's nominalism, may be regarded as a defective version of the Roman Catholic View.

2. Christ's Presence in the Word of God: This is the Reformed view. The kingdom comes in the reading, preaching and hearing of the Word of God, which bears testimony to Jesus Christ and makes him present. The authoritative voice of Christ is present in the proclamation of the Gospel. The exposition of the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures is constitutive both of the kingdom of God and of the true Church as well.

3. Christ's Presence in the Relationships Between Christians Within the Church: This is the Anabaptist view. It views the kingdom as visible in the sanctified lives of believers living in relationship to one another. If not disciplined by the Reformed view, it can easily slip into the Liberal Protestant view.

4. Christ's Presence in the Renewed Society Resulting From Social Improvement: This is the Liberal Protestant view. It views the kingdom as being present wherever one seek social justice, relief of poverty, peace etc. This may occur either in the Church itself or in the general society surrounding the Church. This is why the Church is called by those holding this view to discern where God is working and go there. The kingdom, in this view, is often reduced simply to secular ideals of peace and justice.

It seems to me that the fourth view is deficient and to be rejected. The third is dangerous insofar as it tends toward either perfectionism, on the one hand, or toward the fourth view, on the other. The debate is between the first two, especially between the Roman Catholic and Reformed views. Here the challenge is for the two sides to see that they have more in common with each other than with the other views because both see Christ present in a real and saving way in the Church.

Summary:

1. Evangelicals should take care to make preaching the gospel of personal faith in Christ central in their churches and to keep our focus on heaven and hell and the eternal destiny of every human being.

2. Evangelicals should understand social improvement as the work of the laity, a natural witness to the gospel by those who have been converted. The Church should equip its members for the work of influencing society for good, but the primary goal of pastors is not social improvement.

3. Evangelicals should be wary of any theology that pits the Synoptics against John and Paul or Jesus against Paul or which makes the coming of Christ's kingdom a human accomplishment in history. The Christian hope must not be reduced to secular, modern, liberal notions of progress or human perfectibility. It is much greater than that and the mission of the Church is to preach Jesus Christ and His Eternal Kingdom.

Milbank and Yoder on the Church and Society

In his Theology and Social Theory, John Milbank notes Max Weber's point that "salvation-religions . . . are generally most promoted by lower-middle class strata in towns and cities." (88) For Weber, this means that the strong ethical emphasis of salvation-religions must be connected with an "individualistic, enterprising and socially aspiring way of life, to which rational predictability, the matching of promise to conduct, and strong eschatological expectation make a great appeal." Milbank grants that, as a near tautology, it is obviously true that Christianity, (for it is clear that Weber only has Christianity in view, despite his use of the abstraction "salvation religion"), "has an affinity with certain modes of social action and not with others." (88) Milbank's point here seems solid. As he says, it did not require sociology to teach us that it is easier for an artisan to be a Christian than say a wealthy merchant or a warrior noble.

The more important point of Milbank's analysis, however, is his challenge to Weber's contention that what he has showed by his analysis is that the form of religion preferred by certain people is a function of their prior economic and social status, as if religion were an epiphenomenon of sociology or economics. Weber's recognition, described by Milbank as, "the medieval town, dominated by guilds of self-regulating producers, an economics of frugality, and relatively free from aristocratic and kinship dominations, was uniquely able to instil a Christian ethos" is true because of the nature of Christianity. As Milbank points out, there is little point in making the "social" prior to or fundamental to religion since "there is nothing identifiably 'social' that can be separated from political, economic or religious arrangements." (88) Practices engendered by Christian faith lead to the social organization of the medieval town and to try to "explain" religion in terms of social and economic structures is to confuse effect for cause.

Milbank says that military-aristocrats are not attracted to salvation-religions because they practice a way of life which is "itself sustained by a particular ideological code, itself a kind of religion." (90) Here he is deconstructing modern sociological explanations of religion that rest on the assumption of the secular as the given and religion as the odd thing that requires explanation. Behind such assumptions are a whole set of narratives and presuppositions that themselves are never brought to the surface or debated in modern social science. The modern understanding of "the secular," (as opposed to the Augustinian understanding) thus functions religiously as a starting point accepted by faith and used as the basis for understanding everything else. The hypocrisy comes when those who do this criticize Christians for staring with the particularity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and using that as the basis for understanding everything else. Hence, we see the meaning of Milbank's claim that theology must abandon its false humility and take its place as the master narrative it must be if it is true to the Gospel.

The question I find fascinating in all of this is the issue of what forms of social practice encouraged by the Church on the basis of theological presuppositions ought to inform the way the Church lives in the contemporary world? And are such practices even possible in modernity, with its massively-constituted, bureaucratic, managerial state with its commitment to social engineering in the name of perpetual progress? Does social space exist for the Church to be the Church without attracting persecution? The ethos of Medieval towns still exists to a certain extent in the sense that much rural life continues to resist modernity to this day in some ways. But to the extent that the Church lives out radically Christian practices within the limits of modernity, is it not the case that either the practices tend to be trivialized by virtue of being limited to the sphere of the "private" or they attract persecution and get denounced as "oppressive" to the exact extent that they infringe on what some interest group perceives as the "public?"

There is an interesting parallel between Yoder and Milbank on the question of how the social practices of the Church are to impact society in general. In both cases, the Church simply goes about its business and the resulting way of life seeps out in the wider society a little bit at a time. In Body Politics, for example, Yoder speculates about the possible relationship between the "rule of Paul," New England town hall meetings, and Anglo-Saxon democracy. In describing his own position, Milbank says that there is no need for a Christian social theory. Instead, he says: "the social knowledge advocated is but the continuation of ecclesial practice, the imagination in action of a peaceful, reconciled social order, beyond even the violence of legality." (6)

There is no doubt that there are serious differences between Yoder and Milbank on how the Church should influence society, but the puzzling thing is how these differences arise from two starting point that are so similar. Both Yoder and Milbank see Christianity as resting on a mythos of peace, in distinction from both pagan antiquity and modernity. Both are theological realists who nevertheless accept a great deal of modern historicism and therefore see the task of Christianity as being to try to "outnarrate" our opponents. Yet Yoder is a pacifist and Milbank is not. Does this indicate some deep contradiction in their basic beliefs? Or does it mean that both pacifist and just war forms of Christianity can express the social ethical task of the Church adequately?

To raise the stakes a bit higher, can Yoder's goals of social ethics be attained without adopting Milbank's frank endorsement of "Christendom?" Is a Christendom without violent coercion, i.e. based on evangelism, social consensus and a shared commitment to Christ, possible? Is Yoder's vision all that different from Milbank's in the end? If coercion is all that separates them, does that not mean that in certain historical situations (i.e. ones in which a Christian consensus prevails at least temporarily) their ecclesiologies and understandings of mission might be virtually indistingushable from each other?

Socialism versus Christianity

A socialist is a man who implores the Government to take money from people richer than he is and give it to people poorer than he is and who thinks he is virtuous because he asks for nothing for himself. This fact is allowed to overshadow the inconvenient truth that he also demands nothing of himself. All his virtue is external; all he must do is write a few letters, vote for the right party and receive the congratulations of his enlightened friends for having fulfilled his Christian duty to society. Such a man, of course, deceives himself and does not understand the meaning of Christianity at all.

The Bible talks a lot about the poor and the needy and commands believers (Israel in the OT and the Church in the NT) to give alms and work to improve the conditions in which poor people live. The Bible says nothing about the Christian demanding that the Government do it for us. The role of Government in passages like Rom. 13 is to enforce justice. The Government must prevent or punish crime, establish a level playing field and eliminate oppression of the weak by the strong (insofar as that is possible in a fallen world). Of course, any Government which does these things will help poor people immensely, primarily by giving all poor people a chance to escape poverty, or at least to see their children do so. But none of this, take note, has anything to do with socialism.

The Church is called to take care of widows, orphans, the weak, the poor, and the disabled and Acts 2 gives us a snapshot of the early Church doing exactly that. Christians are to give sacrificially of their time and money to help those in need. Socialism is a political doctrine designed to eliminate the need to do that. Moreover, socialism today is opposed to caring for the weakest among us and in fact sanctions their murder if they are inconvenient.

Yet, for most Christians who have obtained higher education the idea that of course a Christian must be a socialist in politics is so obvious and self-evident that anyone who questions it must be ignorant, selfish or mad. Yet, millions of Eastern Europeans and Russians rejoiced to be set free from the chains of the most thoroughly-implemented, large-scale socialist experiment so far in history. Perhaps, instead of the USSR crumbling, it would have been better if the oppressed masses of the Soviet Empire could have simply changed places with the Western intelligentsia that so openly admired socialism. Then everyone would be happy.

Since it is primarily university-educated Christians who accept socialism as self-evident and others who do not, many observers of culture come to the conclusion that all smart people understand that socialism is good and that stupid or ignorant people fail to get it. This theory is premised on the assumption that people who attend universities are smarter than those who don't, which I think is a rather dubious assumption, as one who grades papers in university. Could there be another theory? Could it be that the liberal culture of universities, which is in the air one breathes and the water one drinks in those social settings, is the source of the socialist ideas that liberals love to flaunt as "daring violations of the conventions of liberalism?" In other words, is socialism simply the "group think" of a certain class, part of the radical image that (particularly young) social conformists so love to cultivate? Could it actually be a character flaw? Is not a character that asks others to implement justice and asks nothing of himself a flawed character? Be that as it may, it certainly is not Christianity applied to social life.

I'm Working on Serenity

I tend to major on lament and minor on praise - quite unlike the Psalms, which include both but never get stuck permanently in lament mode. Two experiences in the past 18 hours have made me realize that I need more serenity.

1. Last evening I had the pleasure of hearing Archbishop Charles Chaput speak in person at St. Basil's Church on the University of St. Michael's campus. Archbishop Chaput is the author of Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholics Beliefs in Political Life (Doubleday, 2008) . He is one of the most candid, courageous and articulate spokesmen for orthodox Christianity in the United States today and a model bishop. His book is a great gift to lay people who struggle with how to be effective witnesses in the public arena. His witness is a great blessing to the Church.

Anyway, the point is that what I noticed from listening to him speak and field questions for 90 minutes or so and then in a personal word with him after the talk was (you guessed it) his serenity. He is not mad or angry and yet he says things more directly and clearly than many who are. For example, on the topic of ecumenism he said that 12 years ago when he went to Denver most of their interactions were with "mainline" Protestants but that now they don't have so much to do with them and are much more likely to be involved with joint ventures with Evangelicals. Another example was his treatment of the topic of hope. He criticized the lame, thin, sloganering version of hope offered by certain recent political campaigns that one could name and the Christian theological virtue of hope. One more example; he pointed out that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. It is a pragmatic response to public disagreement that is strategically necessary (even prudent) at times, but it is not a virtue because it is not an end in itself.

He gives the impression that he takes God very seriously, political issues such as abortion also very seriously and himself not very seriously. He reminds me of the saying of St. Francis de Sales that one should take the truth and dip it in charity until it is sweet to the taste. He can be the public spokesman for my faith any day of the week.

2. Today I read an article by John Webster entitled "Principles of Systematic Theology" in the new issue of IJST. Here is a quotation:

". . . it is worth remarking that the contraiety of the conception of systematic theology in what follows ought not to be allowed to generate an enduring posture of lament for a lost dogmatic culture. Lament is fitting on some occasions, but as a permanent attitude it can do damage, breeding intellectual vices such as vanity or pessimism, inhibiting a clear-sighted view of the situation and drawing theology away from its contemplative vocation. Likewise, polemic arrests and coarsens the mind when allowed to become habitual. What should hold lament and polemic in check is a gospel-derived awareness of the necessary pathos which attends theological work, the roots of which lie in the fact that the world is at enmity with the church and is reluctant to learn about the divine wisdom with which the saints have been entrusted. Yet even a due sense of pathos ought not to overwhelm the tranquil pursuit of theology, made possible and fruitful not by the capabilities of its practitioners or the opportunities afforded by its cultural settings, but by the infinite power of divine goodness shedding abroad the knowledge of itself." (International Journal of Systematic Theology, vol. 11, no. 1 (January 2009): 58)

Neither Chaput nor Webster will ever be mistaken for craven compromisers; yet both are characterized by serenity and tranquility, both of which are the virtues of the faithful. They are examples to be emulated and gifts of God to His Church, for which we give thanks.

The Intellectuals Have Hitherto Only Changed the World; the Point is to Understand It

In the final chapter of Robert Inchausti's book, Subversive Orthodoxy: Outlaws, Revolutionaries and Other Christians in Disguise, we find the following remarkable statement:

"The point that many moderns fail to grasp about Christian thinkers is that they have very little interest in changing the world. They seek merely to see things clearly in the light of God's hidden logic. And if, by so doing, they expose the narcissism of their contemporaries, the false agendas of their leaders, and the didactic pornography of their artists and entertainers - well, that is all to the good. but unlike their more utilitarian peers, they desire to live in the truth even more than they desire to be effective in the world, and this puts them on the far side of a very important and very deep intellectual divide: it puts them in the camp of the stoic poor, the moral outcasts, and the political and literary pariahs. . . As one Parisian graffiti artist wrote in 1968, "the intellectuals have hiterto only changed the world; the point is to understand it." (188)

This sentiment expresses the foundation of all Christian action in the world for the Christian is one who above all else wishes to live in the truth and knows that the truth is that this world is 1) fallen and 2) not the only reality. Because of #1 it is not possible for human revolution or human science to make a utopia on this earth and because of #2 we can expect an intervention from a transcendent God who will judge the world in righteousness and set up an everlasting kingdom of perfect peace. Knowing these two truths is more important than all the Marxist, Liberal, Democratic, revolutionary, Liberationist, Social Gospel or Progressive schemes in the world.

Why then do Christians today so often give the impression that the only way to "make Christianity relevant" is for the Church to join one or another social engineering project and become the religious cheer leader for it? It is a rhetorical question - I haven't got a clue why this should be so. It makes no sense.