That said, this blog post lacks the usual Klavan acuity; in
particular, this paragraph:
“If, on the other hand, sex is a spiritual act, then you might have an argument that some types of sex are sinful, but if you make that argument, you are advising a fellow spirit to forgo the consolations of romantic love. And if you want to condemn an individual to a life without romantic love, you better make a much more compelling case …”
There are a few things I’d take issue with here:
- The assumption that sex is either spiritual or mechanical, and not a bit of both.
Klavan uses the word “spiritual” to mean something intrinsically higher or better than the desires of the physical realm. That is not necessarily so. The spirit beings in our
universe, per scripture, are very much divided into two camps. In fact, the New
Testament teaches that “the spirit
that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” encourages the status quo, in which humans live “in the
passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind”,
a state of being that sounds remarkably like what Klavan is imprudently
defending.
But if Klavan means to use “spiritual” in the good biblical sense, then all kinds of things are spiritual acts. What makes something spiritual in that sense is not the action itself but
the motive behind it: If an act proceeds from any combination of “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control”, it could be said to be “spiritual” in the good biblical sense.
I would draw your attention to the words “self-control”. The
qualities produced by the Spirit of God are of a piece; they do not conflict
with one another. Therefore love cannot be set against self-control. If an
act lacks self-control, it is unloving, and not of the Spirit.
Anyway, the fact that sex can potentially be a spiritual act does not
make it always so. There is nothing about sex that makes it (a) special, to be
prized above all other spiritual activities, or (b) intrinsically good.
Furthermore, in the most spiritual state of all, sex has
no place, for “in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage.”
So please, cease and desist with the magical invocation of “sex”
and “spiritual” in the same sentence.
- The assumption that anybody “condemns” anyone to anything by not enthusing about his choices.
If you are a man with an attraction to men, or a woman with
an attraction to women, you have the absolute freedom to act on that choice,
just like a person with a bad temper has the absolute freedom to engage in bar fights or road rage. In North American society, nobody is restraining you.
In fact, people are celebrating you.
If we believe in the God of the Bible, though (or, in the
case of the person with a bad temper, the legal system), we probably also
believe in consequences for our choices.
So when, out of love for Christ and respect for his word, a believer allows the Holy Spirit to restrain his or her desires and inclinations, that is
not something he or she is “condemned” to. It is a sacrifice one may personally
choose to make or not to make, just as many other Christians sacrifice things
they would prefer, or would have enjoyed, in the interests of the glory of God.
3. The assumption that anyone has a right to romantic love.
Klavan assumes this right in the absence of any evidence at
all and puts his detractors to the proof of their position (“you better make a
much more compelling case”). I would absolutely disagree.
Romantic love is one, arguably small, component of marriage.
It is not the entirety of it by any stretch. Until recently, and even today in
many countries, marriages were most often arranged. Romantic love didn’t enter into
it. Marriage was assumed to have virtues that made it worthwhile even without
soaring passions.
The experience of romantic love does not define us as human
beings, still less as Christians. I’ve been married and I’ve been single for
long periods of my life. I didn’t cease to be fulfilled, functional or happy outside
of a romantic relationship.
Furthermore, marriage and romantic love are not remotely
synonymous, as many honest married folks will tell you. Most good long-term
marriages are strong friendships with a side helping of sex, seasoned with
occasional and joyous moments of romantic love. But romance is neither the best reason for marriage, nor the sole motivating force behind it.
What about people for whom romantic love is not even a
possibility? What about people who choose to prioritize a higher calling? The Lord
seems to have managed a third of a century on this planet without a single
verse or word of scripture suggesting that he missed out on anything crucial; the
apostle Paul likewise.
Romantic love is a blessing and a privilege. It is not
universal and nobody has a “right” to it.
Still less does anyone have a right to claim that the
pursuit of it justifies what the Bible calls sin.
If as a fundamental Protestant you never wish to make the evolutionary argument, it should certainly be made here. Romantic love is here to propagate the species. It is the denial of this that causes the self-serving arguments for pursuing aberrant sexual behavior which does not contribute towards that natural goal but only results in self-indulgence to the point of addiction. The notion of applying the concept of romanticism to those types of relationships is merely another type of cover to try to make that behavior acceptable in the public eye. With the honest person that will fail, which is of course a major problem since even the concept of honesty is metastasizing into a tool to do nothing more than to serve the self.
ReplyDeleteThe evolution debate did not occur to me as being relevant to this particular subject, but it makes sense to me that a wise Designer might encourage the propagation of the species in his design. That certainly seems to be the case.
Delete