Experiencing puberty and, thereafter, being subject to sexual attraction is an aspect of human biology. Prior to morality and religion, it occurs by nature, except when it doesn’t.
No restraint required, if you’re talking about Nicholas, a very sensible and wise interlocutor! On the other hand, with people like Jared Moore… Look up his book on the lust of the flesh and his recent tweet about Sam Alberry.
An excellent exposition of the subject, which is a subject on which Christians need greater clarity. Many do not distinguish between attraction and lust. To notice that a woman is attractive does not mean I am lusting after her, yet I have heard Christians speak as if they are the same thing.
I was single until the very threshold of middle age and while singleness was difficult for me (and while I tend to be very conscientious about the intersection of my sexuality and my faith), conflating attraction with lust was not part of the difficulty. They never seemed like the same thing, although I guess I couldn't exactly articulate what the difference is.
Thanks for that testimony! I wonder if this is more particular to my experience or the general male experience of sexual desire. Statistically, male sexual desire is more strongly physical/visual, and in a contemporary context, concerns for heterosexual men about "the male gaze" and toxic masculinity could easily lead a heterosexual man to think he's a bit of an animal for experiencing that kind of attraction. In a conservative Christian context, the same would happen for gays and lesbians who are told that even their same-sex attraction is sin.
Yeah, I was wondering if the typical male/female differences would be in play here. I was particularly struck by this difference in perspective years ago when I was laughing to my brother about a crush I had on Johnny Depp back when the first *Pirates* movie came out, and he was like, "You know he's married, right?" And I was like..."Yeah? I'm not *coveting* him--I just find him attractive." And my brother didn't get the difference that to me seemed super obvious. (Note: I'm over that particular crush!)
Joel, this is well articulated. I think this is what draws me to folks like Ephraim Radner. To discuss "nature" without discussing the fall is to fail to make sense of our "natural" condition, which is for all of us is, in fact, fallen. I could say lots on this, but I think evangelicals and, all modern folk really, have been bad at articulating and accepting these limits. Much of the modern world is a story in which our mortality - in the broadest sense of that term referring to all of the fall's effects - has become obscured. Recovering what it means not only to be created by God, but subject to the limits of the curse, I think is a place for deeply fruitful discussion and thought. The more fruitful question is, as you seem to be moving towards, is something like: how do we help accommodate those whose bodies God has mysteriously allowed to be limited in particular ways? What does living faithfully look like for the autistic, the same-sex attraction, the disabled, etc., etc.? And what point does insisting on the elimination of these broken limits reek of a self-engineered attempt to play God and change what God has mysteriously allowed?
Yes, to all of this, Jared! Thanks for reading and commenting. Is there a particular work of Radner's you would highlight?
I think it's also key to recognize that particular limits pertain to every person. All of us have a particular natural make-up, physical and psychological, that shapes and constrains us. I've found personality psychology so helpful here. There's a kind of "hard-core" Christian/biblical counseling view that sees our psychology as endlessly malleable through self-discipline, and us as to be blamed for each of our foibles. Instead, each of us is physically and psychologically constrained in significant ways and must live faithfully in our imperfect, mortal bodies. I think cultivating this sense of universal brokenness is essential to getting people to recognize the brokenness of particular neuro-atypical and sexual minority individuals, etc.
I agree that modernity overlooks limits in its scientific and technological stance. At the same time, modern psychology has turned up detailed explanations and understandings of our created, natural limits which I urge people to study. Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my other articles on same-sex attraction.
I would recommend Radner's "A Time to Keep: Theology, Mortality, and the Shape of Human Life." I would also recommend Julian Marias' "Metaphysical Anthropology."
Re: limits, I totally agree. That perspective on counseling is not unlike radical technological optimism or radical pentecostal spiritualism. The idea is: if God doesn't heal you, it's your problem.
To add: we can talk about creaturehood/nature (and all it means) from an analytical perspective all we want, but (as you're sort of getting at) it's important to keep in mind the phenomenological or empirical perspective. Limits are never experienced in the abstract; they are experienced in particular ways by particular individuals.
And this is part of the trouble with the debates around "identity language." Some interpret people as making claims ontological claims -- about identity. But, in the best case scenario, some of those who are using particular terms are not trying to make a statement about identity at all. They're just trying to describe their experience.
No restraint required, if you’re talking about Nicholas, a very sensible and wise interlocutor! On the other hand, with people like Jared Moore… Look up his book on the lust of the flesh and his recent tweet about Sam Alberry.
An excellent exposition of the subject, which is a subject on which Christians need greater clarity. Many do not distinguish between attraction and lust. To notice that a woman is attractive does not mean I am lusting after her, yet I have heard Christians speak as if they are the same thing.
I was single until the very threshold of middle age and while singleness was difficult for me (and while I tend to be very conscientious about the intersection of my sexuality and my faith), conflating attraction with lust was not part of the difficulty. They never seemed like the same thing, although I guess I couldn't exactly articulate what the difference is.
Thanks for that testimony! I wonder if this is more particular to my experience or the general male experience of sexual desire. Statistically, male sexual desire is more strongly physical/visual, and in a contemporary context, concerns for heterosexual men about "the male gaze" and toxic masculinity could easily lead a heterosexual man to think he's a bit of an animal for experiencing that kind of attraction. In a conservative Christian context, the same would happen for gays and lesbians who are told that even their same-sex attraction is sin.
Yeah, I was wondering if the typical male/female differences would be in play here. I was particularly struck by this difference in perspective years ago when I was laughing to my brother about a crush I had on Johnny Depp back when the first *Pirates* movie came out, and he was like, "You know he's married, right?" And I was like..."Yeah? I'm not *coveting* him--I just find him attractive." And my brother didn't get the difference that to me seemed super obvious. (Note: I'm over that particular crush!)
Joel, this is well articulated. I think this is what draws me to folks like Ephraim Radner. To discuss "nature" without discussing the fall is to fail to make sense of our "natural" condition, which is for all of us is, in fact, fallen. I could say lots on this, but I think evangelicals and, all modern folk really, have been bad at articulating and accepting these limits. Much of the modern world is a story in which our mortality - in the broadest sense of that term referring to all of the fall's effects - has become obscured. Recovering what it means not only to be created by God, but subject to the limits of the curse, I think is a place for deeply fruitful discussion and thought. The more fruitful question is, as you seem to be moving towards, is something like: how do we help accommodate those whose bodies God has mysteriously allowed to be limited in particular ways? What does living faithfully look like for the autistic, the same-sex attraction, the disabled, etc., etc.? And what point does insisting on the elimination of these broken limits reek of a self-engineered attempt to play God and change what God has mysteriously allowed?
Yes, to all of this, Jared! Thanks for reading and commenting. Is there a particular work of Radner's you would highlight?
I think it's also key to recognize that particular limits pertain to every person. All of us have a particular natural make-up, physical and psychological, that shapes and constrains us. I've found personality psychology so helpful here. There's a kind of "hard-core" Christian/biblical counseling view that sees our psychology as endlessly malleable through self-discipline, and us as to be blamed for each of our foibles. Instead, each of us is physically and psychologically constrained in significant ways and must live faithfully in our imperfect, mortal bodies. I think cultivating this sense of universal brokenness is essential to getting people to recognize the brokenness of particular neuro-atypical and sexual minority individuals, etc.
I agree that modernity overlooks limits in its scientific and technological stance. At the same time, modern psychology has turned up detailed explanations and understandings of our created, natural limits which I urge people to study. Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on my other articles on same-sex attraction.
I would recommend Radner's "A Time to Keep: Theology, Mortality, and the Shape of Human Life." I would also recommend Julian Marias' "Metaphysical Anthropology."
Re: limits, I totally agree. That perspective on counseling is not unlike radical technological optimism or radical pentecostal spiritualism. The idea is: if God doesn't heal you, it's your problem.
To add: we can talk about creaturehood/nature (and all it means) from an analytical perspective all we want, but (as you're sort of getting at) it's important to keep in mind the phenomenological or empirical perspective. Limits are never experienced in the abstract; they are experienced in particular ways by particular individuals.
And this is part of the trouble with the debates around "identity language." Some interpret people as making claims ontological claims -- about identity. But, in the best case scenario, some of those who are using particular terms are not trying to make a statement about identity at all. They're just trying to describe their experience.