Defeater Ethics: Sexuality (Part 3)

Three critiques on our culture's current (yet antiquated) sexual ethic.

After a few weeks off, it is time to conclude a three-part subseries within our larger series on ethical objections to the Christian faith. The ethical concern we are currently discussing is arguably the fiercest: Christian views on human sexuality. Part one set the tone of the discussion with Jesus as our guide. Part two discussed the notion of identity, which I argued is the issue behind the issue that renders the issue so controversial. With those two foundations laid, we are ready to engage the dilemma of Christian sexual ethics amid a culture with radically different views on sexuality.

While I have extensively offered a proactive apologetic for the goodness and beauty of God's design for gender and sexuality, it is similarly important to offer a charitable critique of our society's views and practices. This I will do by examining our current sexual milieu from a religious, historic, and diverse perspective.

Religious Perspective

It should first be noted that the religious among us are not the only ones who believe sexual freedom must be limited. Granted, the limits are fewer within our increasingly secular society, but desires and practices such as zoophilia, pedophilia, and incest are still viewed as deviant, harmful to our social order, and prohibited by societal norms and legislation. This is important to consider if only to demonstrate that restricting sexual expressions cannot be labeled hateful and harmful in itself. Admittedly, some Christians have expressed their ethic bigotedly, but it is not implicit bigotry to make moral judgments concerning others' sexuality, for even our affirming society does the same.

That said, even if we reached the point where all sexual expressions are socially affirmed (contrary to fear punditry, I do not foresee this outcome), even still, there is a religious critique to be made. We are not ridding ourselves of oppressive religious ethics; we are only forming a new religion that is equally oppressive in its sexual demands.

Try as we may to rid ourselves of religion, it is a vain project because people remain undeniably religious. Therefore, what is taking place in Western society is historical religious traditions are merely being replaced by modern movements enacted in religious ways. And one of the most devout religions of our time has been constructed around human sexuality. Candidly, the pride flag is now a religious banner. And ironically, it is proving just as puritanical as past religious oppression.

The self-censorship we all feel in this area shows how religious this has become. There is a strict orthodoxy all must adhere to. If violated, there is discipline, perhaps even social excommunication. We are even reinstituting blasphemy laws in the form of hate-speech legislation, which legislatively protects our society's religious commitments to sexual and gender orthodoxy.

Therefore, my first critique is an age-old criticism of religious fundamentalism. The sexual revolution dogma is harming us with all the markings of fundamentalism. It has created a moral hostility between acceptable insiders and unacceptable outsiders. Friends and families become newfound enemies because sexual and gender orthodoxy is more important than even friendship and family. Please consider whether the bigotry of traditional religion under the guise of moral superiority is being replaced by the bigotry of secular religion and its own form of moral superiority.

Historic Perspective

Concerning human sexuality, it is wrong to assume that we find ourselves in the final frontier of progress. Granted, much of what is unfolding is unprecedented, but in other ways, it is antiquated. Literally antiquated, as it is moral regression to the sexual disarray of antiquity.

Consider, for example, the ancient Roman world from which Christianity emerged. It was an exceedingly promiscuous context of unrestrained sexual appetites, wherein nearly all forms of sexual activity were accepted and celebrated, including expressions even beyond the pale for our society, such as cultic orgies and pederasty. Yet out of Greco-Roman civilization emerges another sexual revolution borne out of the countercultural Christian morality of sexual celibacy outside marriage monogamy. This revolution, as British historian Tom Holland has demonstrated, remade the world and laid the stable foundation for flourishing societies.

And now, this long-held Christian moral assumption is being challenged by the modern sexual revolution. But G.K. Chesterton warns us not to be cavalier about historical precedent. Regarding cultural reform, Chesterton famously says that if you come across a fence you see no use for, there are two ways to approach it. One might be to simply tear it down. After all, why keep a fence with seemingly no purpose? The wiser approach, however, would be to inquire and consider the possible meaning, purpose, benefit, and perhaps even protection of the fence before tearing it down. You may discover there truly is no need for it any longer, and it can be removed, or you may find the fence is there for an important reason, and removing it opens us up to unforeseen consequences.

Consider this principle in view of the historic sexual boundaries that we have constructed. I cannot overemphasize how quickly we are tearing down these fences. The official position of President Obama's first campaign was that marriage was reserved for one man and one woman. Thus, in the span of decades, we are removing fences that have been in place for centuries. But this supposed progress is actually a form of regress to antiquity. Are we sure this is what is best for society? We certainly don't want to return to Greco-Roman medicine, slavery, class systems, and so forth. But in the arena of human sexuality, we are rapidly tearing down fences of long-held moral consensus. If those fences were indeed protective, we will soon reap the social consequences of their removal.

Diverse Perspective

An interesting development transpiring within Western society is the desire to lament and repent of our imperialistic past while at the same time forcing our sexual ethic upon the rest of the world. We may not be conquering worlds any longer, but we are certainly out to conquer worldviews.

Consider, for example, the U.S. State Department's Twitter account during Pride Month. It was a litany of tweets celebrating and promoting America's deeply held commitment to LGBTQ+ dogma. That may seem benign, but the subtle message is that the United States, with its enlightened opinion, is here to lecture the world on sexuality. In fact, Pride Month also compelled several embassies around the world to fly the pride flag. It all reeks of American moral elitism and arrogance.

Here is the hard truth no one wants to admit. The sexual revolution is not diverse in the least. It is, by and large, a white, elite, academic, Western revolution. The vast majority of our world—Africa, Asia, Middle East, Central and South America—subscribe to a different gender and sexual ethic than ours. But the harsh reality is that Westerners don't care. We're right, everyone else is wrong, and we are here to colonize the rest of the world with our worldview.

Even at home, there is an elite arrogance to gender and sexual ideology, as it is being forced upon rural and middle America by wealthy and educated elites and the institutions they control. Even as they champion the cause of racial justice, they ignore the fact that, statistically speaking, nobody holds more conservative views on gender and sexuality than African Americans. This is true nationally but becomes dramatically truer for the southern black population, historically the most oppressed and mistreated among us. Do not declare black lives matter if you do not believe black opinions matter.

Do we celebrate diversity or not? If so, then we must embrace all that it demands. The most uncomfortable demand is differing views on human sexuality, and there, it seems, diversity demands too much. LGBTQ+ ideology has become so sacred that conformity is more important than diversity.

These are my critiques from a religious, historic, and diverse perspective. Would you consider them? You may still disagree with the Christian sexual ethic, but, at a minimum, I hope this discussion dismantles the simplistic and uncharitable trope that our ethic defines us as bigots who need to be dismissed or even defeated. And most importantly, I hope sexuality is no longer an insurmountable barrier standing in the way of considering Jesus and his claims.

---