The category of “sexual orientation” has arisen by scientific observation of fallen, broken nature. And it is nature, in its unnatural condition, that must be incorporated into Christian theology.
It seems likely to me that Paul, in Romans 1, was observing that in Greco-Roman culture, which encouraged bisexual relations, there were some men who then chose to give up heterosexual relations in favor of homosexual relations exclusively. That can be an accurate observation by Paul, and something rightly to condemn, without saying ANYTHING about unchosen attractions.
The passage is often interpreted by modern Christians as if it said: "In any place, at any time, if you come across someone who describes himself as homosexual, he has chosen to be so." While still forbidding any sexual relations outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage (as I do), we should be able to see that this rephrasing is just bad interpretation. It is common among many examples of bad interpretation for readers to read into the text absolute words (all, always, never, everywhere) that are not present in the text.
I don't know if the language in Romans 1 about "exchange" and "giving up" necessarily implies an exclusive pursuit of homosexual relationships. Admittedly, I'm no Greek scholar here, but I think the general practice of bisexual relations could be what Paul is aiming at.
Great thoughts, Clark. I can't adjudicate the Romans 1 matter, but absolutely, it doesn't say anything about unchosen attractions or orientation. The idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice certainly doesn't work. There was a mid-century Marxist man who once tried to have homosexual sex out of leftist principle. Afterward, he thought, "Never again. I can be leftist in other ways." Or so I heard in a talk once! But it illustrates the point - just choosing to have the opposite sexual orientation isn't how it works.
Good thoughts here and much to agree with. Our theology of nature has to take into account that fallen nature is our day-to-day experience and recognizing that same-sex attraction is usually pre-volitional does help us to show compassion to people struggling with sin and/or misery.
I can see how it might be a hinderance to communicating with unbelievers to restrict the word "nature" to creation as designed/intended when it's commonly used to refer to the world as we experience it today which is fallen from the original design. Using "nature" to refer to the world as it is now in a fallen state and then using a modifier like "created" or "ideal" when referencing the unfallen natural order is one way to approach it. This allows you to use the word "nature" the way most unbelievers define it.
However, it seems misleading to use the unmodified word to refer to a modified natural order and then use a modifier to signify the unmodified order. It starts to form notions that fallenness is the baseline and unfallenness is the modification.
For example, it may be common in some regions to specify that you want "unsweetened tea" when you want tea without added sugar, but that's a misnomer because tea doesn't come naturally sweet and then go through an unsweetening process to become unsweetened; tea itself is not sweetened. It's more accurate to use "tea" to refer to the drink in its unmodified state, and then call it "sweet tea" when it's modified. It may seem like pointless pedantry but calling normal/natural tea "unsweetened" over time causes people to view natural tea without modification as in fact a deviation from the norm.
Applying this to the issue of same-sex attraction, I don't think it's an accident that Paul uses the unmodified "nature" to refer to the ideal, and then modifies it to refer to a fallen experience. He's not just trying to describe the world but he's trying to form our souls and help us become attuned to the ideal. Talking about human sexuality as designed in creation, labeling it "heterosexuality", and making it one of many "natural" orientations distributed out to human beings creates the same kind of misconceptions about human nature that "unsweetened tea" does about the nature of tea.
Hmm... how do we hold both natural nature and unnatural nature? That seems to be the question!
In agreement with you, Joel, and the apostle Paul, I would also argue that heterosexual sex is indeed natural (though interestingly Augustine thought that it was actually the specific form of natural sexual relations that Paul was referring to, not primarily the gender of the people involved, though natural sexual relations would require a man and woman), and that alternatives are antagonistic to nature, or "contrary to nature".
Yet, we have to give space for atypical occurrences in nature (which may appear to us as "unnatural") to actually be a part of a healthy diversity that yields to flourishing in accordance with nature. For example, could we consider the possibility of a version of the fraternal birth order effect on sexual orientation that didn't yield to sinful temptations, but rather to unique celibate vocations in the community? And even aside from this, it is God's business to take on our unnatural/fallen/sinful/miserable experiences and creatively redeem them. I am especially eager to do more thought on how disability fits into these conversations.
In the first sections, it gets a little confusing as you move between sexual desire/attraction (concupiscence) and sexual orientation/capacity. I'm content with the reformed technical distinction of concupiscence as sin, and so I lean on the differences between attraction and concupiscence. And still, I think you make a fair argument that colloquially, desire/attraction as sin may not be an accurate statement in modern English, and that we have a responsibility to state things clearly and truthfully in our context.
Good point! I originally - in “SSA and the Most of Our Condition” - tried only to defend sexual orientation as non-sinful. Then, I decided that certain basic desires/attractions that arise from that orientation and provide the opportunity for temptation must also be non-sinful.
I don’t find “concupiscence” helpful. Aquinas used it to refer to the faculty of desire, which is part of human nature, Adam had before the fall, and of course, Christ possessed. In the later usage, and the protestant Catholic debates, it becomes much more ambiguous. I prefer to use language now in circulation.
"certain basic desires"... hmmm... I wonder how you distinguish which desires are basic or otherwise?
I actually find "disordered" desire very helpful, as it is more specific and doesn't have the guilt connotation that "sinful" does (guilt as it pertains to original sin is of course a pertinent point here, though I find it strange that many who may argue for original sin and guilt, particularly under the framework of covenantal/federal headship, take strong opposition for bearing any responsibility towards system, cultural, or national sins).
Good point of clarification, David - I fear that the position will be that every bit of sexual inclination prior to the moment of marriage is actual sin, following under Christ's prohibition of lust in Matthew 5. But that is an unreasonable standard that sounds far too much like Augustine and the ancient church's discomfort with sex altogether.
So, if we're not going to say that, we need to draw a distinction somewhere. I don't think wanting to have sex with someone someday is sinful, for instance. It's created, in-built, God's design. By the same token, the sex drive itself has its place in God's good creation, with God's design being that it be ordered toward the good of marriage, whether that's getting married, or respecting others' and our own potential for marriage by being chaste.
The fundamental expression of the sex drive is in desires that seek an object in a person of one's "preferred sex." In that, we feel a drive toward companionship, beauty, marriage itself, etc. That can be stewarded will or it can descend into lust.
Now, I can't parse specific episodes of sexual desire - this one's not sinful; this one's lust, etc. But my point is that these distinctions can be and need to be made. The most fundamental aspect and dimension of sexual desire is *not* disordered but ordered by God, a good aspect of our created nature (and I think that can all be said for either heterosexual or homosexual desire).
I think your thoughts are intriguing Joel, and pieces of this are compelling. But I think your charge of pelagianism isn’t correct re: the PCA position paper, and here’s why. Keller and DeYoung don’t deny that Jesus could have had sexual desires. But presumably, those would have occurred within the context of an engagement or marriage. Meaning: sexual desires ought to be aroused as the fruit of a meaningful relationship. Otherwise, we’re to think of the opposite sex (or same sex) as sisters (or brothers) in Christ.
It seems to me that experiencing sexual attraction outside this context is inherently objectifying. If I’m experiencing sexual attraction to someone outside the context of the pursuit of marriage, don’t you think there’s at least a chance that this comes from swimming in a culture where everyone is encouraged to sinfully objectify others, always?
If that seems like it’s denying our humanity, or the goodness of sexuality, I think that’s not quite right. For instance, family members feel repulsion at the idea of sexuality with immediately family members...is that a denial of our humanity? Or is it our deep understanding of what relationships are for that is actually informing what feels like a “natural” repulsion? And if we rightly conceived of one another as siblings in Christ, shouldn’t our sexual affections be likewise ordered?
In short, I think you’re underestimating the corrosive nature of sin in our hearts and our culture.
Two other smaller things.
I think we need to keep the word “natural” to refer to God’s intended telos for creation. Trying to use it to refer to what feels natural after the fall is muddying the waters, I think, because now you’re using it in a way Paul wouldn’t have (and in fact an opposite way).
I like your point about using common words to express meaning. I just think you’re now asking “natural” to do too much work. And no, consupience is not a oretty word or an ideal word. But I think the way the report uses it, it’s doing more work than the way you’re using the word “natural.”
Finally - I’m a little disappointed at your framing this as a more compassionate take. I’d think your philosophical mind would snuff that out as a subtle ad hominem. More pragmatically, I don’t think you’ll win much if a hearing when you introduce things from the moral high ground.
This took me a while to chew on and clarify my own thought, which at the end of the day I think is what you’re wanting us all to do. So I appreciate your work on it. Thanks.
Nicholas, thank you for taking the time to think about this and sharing your thoughts! I do think a project to work on is determining the right distinctions between orientation, attraction, desire, internal temptation, external temptation/trial, levels of desire Jesus might have felt, levels we might non-sinfully feel, lust, objectifying desire, etc. I'm going to try to connect this to what I think is the greatest modern philosophical work on the subject, Roger Scruton's "Sexual Desire."
The main thesis I want to stand by is the legitimacy and non-culpability of having a sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual. But I do think there has to be a level of the experience of this orientation in the form of standard-issue, low-grade sexual attraction that we do not call actual sin or lust. Even Jesus hit puberty, and given that he never pursued human marriage, he must have experienced sexual attraction of some kind - or I think we would have to deny that he was "tempted in every way just as we are." Calling this purely a external temptation, i.e., the Greek word that also means "trial" or circumstance, seems hard for me to distinguish from saying that a completely asexual man is "tempted" when you put a naked lady in front of him. If it's only external temptation, it's not temptation.
I would say that, for us, sexual self-control comes with how we respond to and steward these attractions, which are the result of our sexual orientation. Do we let them fester into lust, or even positively indulge them in fantasy or action, or do we constrain them by recognizing the humanity of the individuals around us and the regulative ideal of monogamous marriage?
In part, I'm trying to have a wide enough range of what is non-culpable so that celibate, gay Christians aren't just stuck, but that also means reckoning with the significant role that unbidden desire plays in all of our lives, heterosexual as well. Before I dive into any of the other topics you raised, how does that strike you?
Well it’s hard for me to say. I think my concerns still stand, so I think until I heard your answers to those I wouldn’t know whether your project seems workable or not.
I do think Jesus, like all of us, experienced attraction. But attraction is not always sexual. I’m attracted to a beautiful sunset, or a job offer, or a style of film. That I would say is our natural attraction to beauty. I’m also attracted to certain people because of their personality or beauty, both male and female. And I think Jesus experienced all of these But I wouldn’t say all attraction I feel toward someone else is sexual. I don’t really see much scientific literature telling us orientation is an objective category. These days I hear a lot of folks talk about percentages of orientation, like it’s a spectrum.
On the temptation thing...I think you’re begging the question, there. Jesus being internally tempted in every way is only a necessity if you define it the way you’re defining it. Which is what I’m arguing against, and I think the Greek doesn’t support.
I think I gave some clear ways we could think of Jesus having a sexual nature without the kind of sexual attractions you’re describing, so I’d like to hear you wrestle with that.
One more quick thing: I think you should explore the Greek semantic range of “temptation”. You’re wanting to restrict it to internal temptation, but I’d argue that’s more of an English evolution than a good sense of the Greek, which actually leans much more heavily on external factors, so that even circumstances (and in fact more often circumstances) are considered “temptation.”
It seems likely to me that Paul, in Romans 1, was observing that in Greco-Roman culture, which encouraged bisexual relations, there were some men who then chose to give up heterosexual relations in favor of homosexual relations exclusively. That can be an accurate observation by Paul, and something rightly to condemn, without saying ANYTHING about unchosen attractions.
The passage is often interpreted by modern Christians as if it said: "In any place, at any time, if you come across someone who describes himself as homosexual, he has chosen to be so." While still forbidding any sexual relations outside of heterosexual monogamous marriage (as I do), we should be able to see that this rephrasing is just bad interpretation. It is common among many examples of bad interpretation for readers to read into the text absolute words (all, always, never, everywhere) that are not present in the text.
I don't know if the language in Romans 1 about "exchange" and "giving up" necessarily implies an exclusive pursuit of homosexual relationships. Admittedly, I'm no Greek scholar here, but I think the general practice of bisexual relations could be what Paul is aiming at.
Great thoughts, Clark. I can't adjudicate the Romans 1 matter, but absolutely, it doesn't say anything about unchosen attractions or orientation. The idea that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice certainly doesn't work. There was a mid-century Marxist man who once tried to have homosexual sex out of leftist principle. Afterward, he thought, "Never again. I can be leftist in other ways." Or so I heard in a talk once! But it illustrates the point - just choosing to have the opposite sexual orientation isn't how it works.
Good thoughts here and much to agree with. Our theology of nature has to take into account that fallen nature is our day-to-day experience and recognizing that same-sex attraction is usually pre-volitional does help us to show compassion to people struggling with sin and/or misery.
I can see how it might be a hinderance to communicating with unbelievers to restrict the word "nature" to creation as designed/intended when it's commonly used to refer to the world as we experience it today which is fallen from the original design. Using "nature" to refer to the world as it is now in a fallen state and then using a modifier like "created" or "ideal" when referencing the unfallen natural order is one way to approach it. This allows you to use the word "nature" the way most unbelievers define it.
However, it seems misleading to use the unmodified word to refer to a modified natural order and then use a modifier to signify the unmodified order. It starts to form notions that fallenness is the baseline and unfallenness is the modification.
For example, it may be common in some regions to specify that you want "unsweetened tea" when you want tea without added sugar, but that's a misnomer because tea doesn't come naturally sweet and then go through an unsweetening process to become unsweetened; tea itself is not sweetened. It's more accurate to use "tea" to refer to the drink in its unmodified state, and then call it "sweet tea" when it's modified. It may seem like pointless pedantry but calling normal/natural tea "unsweetened" over time causes people to view natural tea without modification as in fact a deviation from the norm.
Applying this to the issue of same-sex attraction, I don't think it's an accident that Paul uses the unmodified "nature" to refer to the ideal, and then modifies it to refer to a fallen experience. He's not just trying to describe the world but he's trying to form our souls and help us become attuned to the ideal. Talking about human sexuality as designed in creation, labeling it "heterosexuality", and making it one of many "natural" orientations distributed out to human beings creates the same kind of misconceptions about human nature that "unsweetened tea" does about the nature of tea.
Hmm... how do we hold both natural nature and unnatural nature? That seems to be the question!
In agreement with you, Joel, and the apostle Paul, I would also argue that heterosexual sex is indeed natural (though interestingly Augustine thought that it was actually the specific form of natural sexual relations that Paul was referring to, not primarily the gender of the people involved, though natural sexual relations would require a man and woman), and that alternatives are antagonistic to nature, or "contrary to nature".
Yet, we have to give space for atypical occurrences in nature (which may appear to us as "unnatural") to actually be a part of a healthy diversity that yields to flourishing in accordance with nature. For example, could we consider the possibility of a version of the fraternal birth order effect on sexual orientation that didn't yield to sinful temptations, but rather to unique celibate vocations in the community? And even aside from this, it is God's business to take on our unnatural/fallen/sinful/miserable experiences and creatively redeem them. I am especially eager to do more thought on how disability fits into these conversations.
In the first sections, it gets a little confusing as you move between sexual desire/attraction (concupiscence) and sexual orientation/capacity. I'm content with the reformed technical distinction of concupiscence as sin, and so I lean on the differences between attraction and concupiscence. And still, I think you make a fair argument that colloquially, desire/attraction as sin may not be an accurate statement in modern English, and that we have a responsibility to state things clearly and truthfully in our context.
Good point! I originally - in “SSA and the Most of Our Condition” - tried only to defend sexual orientation as non-sinful. Then, I decided that certain basic desires/attractions that arise from that orientation and provide the opportunity for temptation must also be non-sinful.
I don’t find “concupiscence” helpful. Aquinas used it to refer to the faculty of desire, which is part of human nature, Adam had before the fall, and of course, Christ possessed. In the later usage, and the protestant Catholic debates, it becomes much more ambiguous. I prefer to use language now in circulation.
"certain basic desires"... hmmm... I wonder how you distinguish which desires are basic or otherwise?
I actually find "disordered" desire very helpful, as it is more specific and doesn't have the guilt connotation that "sinful" does (guilt as it pertains to original sin is of course a pertinent point here, though I find it strange that many who may argue for original sin and guilt, particularly under the framework of covenantal/federal headship, take strong opposition for bearing any responsibility towards system, cultural, or national sins).
Good point of clarification, David - I fear that the position will be that every bit of sexual inclination prior to the moment of marriage is actual sin, following under Christ's prohibition of lust in Matthew 5. But that is an unreasonable standard that sounds far too much like Augustine and the ancient church's discomfort with sex altogether.
So, if we're not going to say that, we need to draw a distinction somewhere. I don't think wanting to have sex with someone someday is sinful, for instance. It's created, in-built, God's design. By the same token, the sex drive itself has its place in God's good creation, with God's design being that it be ordered toward the good of marriage, whether that's getting married, or respecting others' and our own potential for marriage by being chaste.
The fundamental expression of the sex drive is in desires that seek an object in a person of one's "preferred sex." In that, we feel a drive toward companionship, beauty, marriage itself, etc. That can be stewarded will or it can descend into lust.
Now, I can't parse specific episodes of sexual desire - this one's not sinful; this one's lust, etc. But my point is that these distinctions can be and need to be made. The most fundamental aspect and dimension of sexual desire is *not* disordered but ordered by God, a good aspect of our created nature (and I think that can all be said for either heterosexual or homosexual desire).
I think your thoughts are intriguing Joel, and pieces of this are compelling. But I think your charge of pelagianism isn’t correct re: the PCA position paper, and here’s why. Keller and DeYoung don’t deny that Jesus could have had sexual desires. But presumably, those would have occurred within the context of an engagement or marriage. Meaning: sexual desires ought to be aroused as the fruit of a meaningful relationship. Otherwise, we’re to think of the opposite sex (or same sex) as sisters (or brothers) in Christ.
It seems to me that experiencing sexual attraction outside this context is inherently objectifying. If I’m experiencing sexual attraction to someone outside the context of the pursuit of marriage, don’t you think there’s at least a chance that this comes from swimming in a culture where everyone is encouraged to sinfully objectify others, always?
If that seems like it’s denying our humanity, or the goodness of sexuality, I think that’s not quite right. For instance, family members feel repulsion at the idea of sexuality with immediately family members...is that a denial of our humanity? Or is it our deep understanding of what relationships are for that is actually informing what feels like a “natural” repulsion? And if we rightly conceived of one another as siblings in Christ, shouldn’t our sexual affections be likewise ordered?
In short, I think you’re underestimating the corrosive nature of sin in our hearts and our culture.
Two other smaller things.
I think we need to keep the word “natural” to refer to God’s intended telos for creation. Trying to use it to refer to what feels natural after the fall is muddying the waters, I think, because now you’re using it in a way Paul wouldn’t have (and in fact an opposite way).
I like your point about using common words to express meaning. I just think you’re now asking “natural” to do too much work. And no, consupience is not a oretty word or an ideal word. But I think the way the report uses it, it’s doing more work than the way you’re using the word “natural.”
Finally - I’m a little disappointed at your framing this as a more compassionate take. I’d think your philosophical mind would snuff that out as a subtle ad hominem. More pragmatically, I don’t think you’ll win much if a hearing when you introduce things from the moral high ground.
This took me a while to chew on and clarify my own thought, which at the end of the day I think is what you’re wanting us all to do. So I appreciate your work on it. Thanks.
Nicholas
Nicholas, thank you for taking the time to think about this and sharing your thoughts! I do think a project to work on is determining the right distinctions between orientation, attraction, desire, internal temptation, external temptation/trial, levels of desire Jesus might have felt, levels we might non-sinfully feel, lust, objectifying desire, etc. I'm going to try to connect this to what I think is the greatest modern philosophical work on the subject, Roger Scruton's "Sexual Desire."
The main thesis I want to stand by is the legitimacy and non-culpability of having a sexual orientation, whether heterosexual or homosexual. But I do think there has to be a level of the experience of this orientation in the form of standard-issue, low-grade sexual attraction that we do not call actual sin or lust. Even Jesus hit puberty, and given that he never pursued human marriage, he must have experienced sexual attraction of some kind - or I think we would have to deny that he was "tempted in every way just as we are." Calling this purely a external temptation, i.e., the Greek word that also means "trial" or circumstance, seems hard for me to distinguish from saying that a completely asexual man is "tempted" when you put a naked lady in front of him. If it's only external temptation, it's not temptation.
I would say that, for us, sexual self-control comes with how we respond to and steward these attractions, which are the result of our sexual orientation. Do we let them fester into lust, or even positively indulge them in fantasy or action, or do we constrain them by recognizing the humanity of the individuals around us and the regulative ideal of monogamous marriage?
In part, I'm trying to have a wide enough range of what is non-culpable so that celibate, gay Christians aren't just stuck, but that also means reckoning with the significant role that unbidden desire plays in all of our lives, heterosexual as well. Before I dive into any of the other topics you raised, how does that strike you?
Well it’s hard for me to say. I think my concerns still stand, so I think until I heard your answers to those I wouldn’t know whether your project seems workable or not.
I do think Jesus, like all of us, experienced attraction. But attraction is not always sexual. I’m attracted to a beautiful sunset, or a job offer, or a style of film. That I would say is our natural attraction to beauty. I’m also attracted to certain people because of their personality or beauty, both male and female. And I think Jesus experienced all of these But I wouldn’t say all attraction I feel toward someone else is sexual. I don’t really see much scientific literature telling us orientation is an objective category. These days I hear a lot of folks talk about percentages of orientation, like it’s a spectrum.
On the temptation thing...I think you’re begging the question, there. Jesus being internally tempted in every way is only a necessity if you define it the way you’re defining it. Which is what I’m arguing against, and I think the Greek doesn’t support.
I think I gave some clear ways we could think of Jesus having a sexual nature without the kind of sexual attractions you’re describing, so I’d like to hear you wrestle with that.
But, I’m certainly interested in hearing more.
I'm thinking these issues merit a post exploring it all, so I'll be working on that and posting this week!
One more quick thing: I think you should explore the Greek semantic range of “temptation”. You’re wanting to restrict it to internal temptation, but I’d argue that’s more of an English evolution than a good sense of the Greek, which actually leans much more heavily on external factors, so that even circumstances (and in fact more often circumstances) are considered “temptation.”