Critiquing: #013 Christian Sexual Ethics, Homosexuality, and Transgender

May 10, 2019 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Key Terms: Christian Sexual Ethics — Public Discourse — Transgender Issues — Homosexuality — Gnosticism

---

Episode Assessment:

		Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B	The episode provides generally accurate interpretations of Christian teachings, though some views are based on traditional interpretations that might not be universally accepted.
Degree of Coherence	B+	The arguments presented are logically coherent, well-structured, and follow a clear progression of thought.
Absence of Fallacies	B	There are minor instances where arguments could be interpreted as fallacious, particularly in generalizations about societal views on gender and sexuality.
Degree of Evidence	C+	The discussion often references religious texts and personal interpretations but lacks substantial empirical evidence to support claims about modern societal impacts of sexuality and gender issues.
Degree of Testability	C	Many claims made are theological and philosophical in nature, making them difficult to test empirically.
Rational Confidence	B-	The confidence in the arguments is strong but primarily based on religious and traditional grounds rather than widely accepted scientific evidence.

---

Potential/Apparent Weaknesses:

1. Degree of Evidence:

The episode discusses various aspects of sexuality and gender from a Christian perspective but lacks empirical evidence to substantiate some of the claims made about societal impacts. For instance, the argument linking modern gender confusion to ancient Gnosticism is more speculative than evidence-based.

“The confusion about gender identity is a modern and now internet-fueled form of the ancient philosophy of Gnosticism…”

2. Degree of Testability:

Many of the arguments presented are based on theological interpretations, which are inherently difficult to test empirically. For example, the discussion on the inherent goodness of the created order and its redemption is a matter of faith rather than a testable hypothesis.

“The created order is good and to be redeemed, not to be rejected. Gnosticism is ultimately dualistic.”

---

Arguments and Counter-Arguments

Argument 1: Traditional View on Sexuality

Premises:

1. Christian sexual ethics traditionally uphold heterosexual marriage as the norm.
2. The New Testament’s understanding of homosexuality aligns with this traditional view.
3. Deviating from this view is seen as contrary to biblical teachings.

Conclusion:

Christians should uphold traditional sexual ethics, viewing heterosexual marriage as the only acceptable form of sexual relationship.

Counter-Argument:

The traditional view on sexuality, particularly its stance against homosexuality, is increasingly challenged by modern understandings of human sexuality and gender. Empirical research has shown that sexual orientation and gender identity are complex and not solely determined by traditional or religious norms. The argument that the New Testament’s understanding of homosexuality is the same as today’s understanding is contentious. Historical contexts differ significantly, and many scholars argue that the biblical texts do not address committed same-sex relationships as understood in contemporary society.

Argument 2: Gnosticism and Gender Confusion

Premises:

1. Gnosticism involves denying the goodness of the natural world and seeking an inner identity.
2. Modern gender confusion parallels this ancient philosophy.
3. This confusion leads to societal harm, particularly for vulnerable youth.

Conclusion:

Modern gender confusion, influenced by Gnosticism, is harmful and should be addressed by affirming the goodness of the created order.

Counter-Argument:

Equating modern gender identity issues with ancient Gnosticism oversimplifies the complexities of gender dysphoria and transgender experiences. Modern psychology and medical research recognize that gender identity is a deeply ingrained aspect of human development. Denying the legitimacy of transgender identities can lead to significant mental health issues and societal harm. Rather than attributing these experiences to philosophical errors, it is essential to understand and support individuals in their gender journeys through evidence-based approaches.

Argument 3: The Role of Pastoral Sensitivity

Premises:

1. Pastoral care involves guiding individuals according to Christian teachings.
2. Individuals in cohabiting relationships need pastoral guidance to align with traditional sexual ethics.
3. Gradual changes in behavior and priorities should be encouraged.

Conclusion:

Pastoral sensitivity should guide individuals in cohabiting relationships towards traditional sexual ethics through gradual and supportive means.

Counter-Argument:

While pastoral care is crucial, it must adapt to the diverse realities of individuals’ lives. Immediate changes in behavior, such as abstaining from sexual relations or living apart, may not be feasible or beneficial for all. A more nuanced approach that respects individual circumstances and the complexity of human relationships is necessary. Encouraging open dialogue and mutual understanding can lead to healthier outcomes than rigid adherence to traditional norms.

---

These formulations and counter-arguments provide a rigorous framework to critically evaluate the episode’s discussions on Christian sexual ethics, homosexuality, and transgender issues.

◉ Addressing Argument #1:

The Biblical Silence on Polygamy and Incest in the Context of Christian Sexual Ethics

Introduction

Argument #1 posits that Christian sexual ethics traditionally uphold heterosexual marriage as the norm. However, a thorough examination of biblical texts reveals that many “men of God” engaged in polygamous relationships, often without explicit condemnation or prohibition by God. This essay will explore several biblical passages to demonstrate that the God of the Bible does not consistently enforce a one-man-one-woman constraint.

Biblical Examples of Polygamy and Incest

1. Abraham and Sarah

Abraham, considered the patriarch of the Israelite nation, had a complex marital situation. Besides his wife Sarah, Abraham took Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant, as a concubine to bear a child (Genesis 16:1-4). God did not condemn Abraham for this arrangement; instead, Hagar’s son, Ishmael, received God’s blessings.

2. Jacob and His Wives

Jacob, another key patriarch, had two wives, Leah and Rachel, as well as their maidservants, Bilhah and Zilpah, with whom he also had children (Genesis 29:21-30:24). These relationships were not only accepted but were part of the lineage that led to the twelve tribes of Israel.

3. David and His Wives

David, the second king of Israel, had multiple wives and concubines. In 2 Samuel 12:8, God, through the prophet Nathan, says to David, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah.” This indicates divine approval or at least tolerance of David’s polygamy.

4. Solomon’s Concubines

Solomon, known for his wisdom, had 700 wives and 300 concubines (1 Kings 11:3). Although Solomon’s foreign wives later led him astray, the sheer number of his marriages and the lack of immediate divine rebuke for the act of polygamy itself indicate a biblical acceptance of polygamous practices.

5. Gideon’s Concubine

Gideon, one of the judges of Israel, had many wives and a concubine who bore him a son named Abimelech (Judges 8:30-31). Gideon’s leadership and victories are celebrated without condemnation of his polygamous relationships.

6. Elkanah’s Wives

Elkanah, the father of the prophet Samuel, had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah (1 Samuel 1:1-2). The narrative focuses on Hannah’s struggle with barrenness and her eventual blessing with Samuel, without critique of Elkanah’s polygamy.

7. God’s Command to Hosea

God instructed the prophet Hosea to marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her (Hosea 1:2). This relationship, though not polygamous, highlights the complex marital situations that God sometimes commanded or allowed without adhering strictly to monogamous norms.

8. The Levirate Marriage Law

In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the law of levirate marriage requires a man to marry his deceased brother’s widow to provide an heir for his brother. This practice, while not strictly polygamous or incestuous, mandates marriage beyond the initial one-man-one-woman framework.

9. Judah and Tamar

Judah’s relationship with Tamar, his daughter-in-law, is another example. Tamar, disguised as a prostitute, bore Judah’s children (Genesis 38:6-26). While Judah initially condemned her, he later acknowledged her righteousness in securing offspring.

10. Saul’s Daughters and David

David’s marriage to multiple women, including Michal, Saul’s daughter, and other women after Saul’s death, demonstrates the fluid marital arrangements in biblical times (1 Samuel 18:27, 2 Samuel 3:2-5).

11. King Abijah’s Wives

King Abijah of Judah had fourteen wives (2 Chronicles 13:21). His reign and military successes are documented without negative commentary on his marital practices.

12. Onan’s Duty

In Genesis 38:8-10, Onan is condemned for refusing to impregnate his deceased brother’s wife, Tamar. His punishment is for not fulfilling his duty, not for the potential polygamous implication.

Conclusion

The examination of these passages reveals a biblical context in which polygamous and complex marital relationships were not only present but often accepted or commanded by God. The lack of a clear, consistent one-man-one-woman constraint in these narratives challenges the assertion that Christian sexual ethics, as derived from the Bible, have always upheld this model. This complexity invites a more nuanced understanding of biblical marital norms and their implications for contemporary Christian ethics.