Thread: The early church was marked by a deep concern for the poor and for racial equality (Gal 2:10; 3:28). At the very same time, it taught that sex was only for within a mutually self-giving life-long covenant of marriage (1 Thess 4:3-8; 1 Cor 6:12-20). 1/7
To our modern ears, this sounds like a contradictory mishmash of liberalism and conservatism. And today the church is being fragmented by progressives and conservatives who want it to only serve one of these commitments and discard the other. 2/7
But to the church, the sex ethic & the justice ethic are a whole cloth. Sexual immorality and injustice go hand in hand because there is a unifying principle that unites them. In Jesus, we see one who had ultimate power and privilege sacrificing it in order to love and save us. 3
This was self-giving rather than self-fulfillment and self-realization. This is the basis for biblical justice. (A) To help the marginalized ALWAYS requires sacrifice. Giving away what we have. (See quarterly.gospelinlife.com/justice-in-the… ) 4/7
(B) If on the other hand, you are one of the marginalized, it also requires self-sacrifice to forgive and reconcile even as you seek justice, speaking the truth in love. Today’s Left doesn’t accept B and today’s Right won’t accept A. At the same time, this is also the basis 5/7
for the Christian sex ethic. The modern world sees sex as a commodity to be consumed, enjoyed in relationships conducted contingently on a profitable cost-benefit relationship. But marriage requires mutual self-sacrifice, the giving up of independence for the deeper joy 6/7
of interdependence. This is why the Bible and the church has always seen sex-only-within marriage and doing justice as a whole cloth united by the principle of self-sacrifice, of “losing one’s self to find one’s self.” Don't let the modern world split you. 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread: One common complaint made about Christians is that they believe in eternal consequences to our actions. Christians believe souls live on, therefore, they believe that moral errors affect us eternally. Secular persons also believe that there are terrible moral errors 1/4
...like exploitation and oppression. But since they don’t believe in an afterlife--they don’t think the consequences of wrongdoing go on into eternity. Does that mean secular people are more open-minded and Christians more narrow and coercive? I don’t think so. 2/4
Imagine arguing over a cookie. Jack thinks the cookie is poison, and Jill thinks it's not. Jack thinks Jill’s mistaken view of the cookie will send her to the hospital or worse. Jill thinks Jack’s mistaken view will merely keep him from having a fine dessert. 3/4
New thread: On Morality, Design, and Humanization.
A summary of Alasdair MacIntyre’s “master argument” in After Virtue:
Imagine trying to hammer a nail with a wristwatch and finding that the watch just breaks apart. Should you call it a ‘bad’ watch? 1/8
No-because its purpose is not to hammer nails but to tell time. Unless we know the “telos” or purpose of something, we have no way of evaluating it as good or bad. So how will we know if a human is bad or good? Such terms are meaningless unless we know what human life is for. 2/8
Why were we made? Why are we here? The Enlightenment Project was to “bracket God out" and seek a morality without reference to a telos for which humans were created. This project has failed—thus the fragmenting of western society over what is a good human life. 3/8
Hey Chrissy. Though we are all doing "binaries"--that doesn't mean all binaries are equally true. The first way to judge between binaries is, "does your binary lead you to love those you disagree with and speak humbly and respectfully, or does it lead you to exclude them?" 1/6
If you can’t speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15) even to the oppressors--even when you are simultaneously demanding justice—your quest for liberation often will replace one set of coercive power-brokers with another. 2/6
Christian churches have famously failed in doing this, but there are resources for this within Christian theology. See scshub.net/wp-content/upl…
This great Bauckham essay says : On the one hand, you can’t have a program of justice unless you have some moral absolute 3/6
I gave the podcast a listen. Ironically the "takedown" was filled with "binaries." Reminded me of this Terry Eagleton quote from 'The Illusions of Postmodernism that shows binaries and moral dichotomies in identity-making are unavoidable. Here it is: 1/7
“For all its talk of difference, plurality, heterogeneity, postmodern theory often operates with quite rigid binary oppositions, with ‘difference’, ‘plurality’ and allied terms bravely up on one side of the theoretical fence as unequivocally positive—and whatever their 2/7
antitheses might be (unity, identity, totality, universality) ranged balefully on the other….For all its vaunted openness to the Other, postmodernism can be quite as exclusive and censorious as the orthodoxies it opposes…[Like any other] form of identity [it] needs 3/7
Ok. Next thread: Purity culture.
Some say that ‘sexual abstinence outside of marriage' is identical to ‘purity culture’. This is simply not the case. The early church’s revolutionary sex ethic was that sex was only for within a mutual, whole-self-giving, super-consensual 1/8
life-long covenant. Sex is not for people who only give only a part of themselves (the physical, or maybe the emotional), but the whole self to the other—legally, economically, socially, emotionally, spiritually. The Greek word porneia (‘sexual immorality’) was infused with 2/8
new meaning by New Testament writers. It meant any sex outside of marriage. It was based on a radical egalitarian principle that the husband’s body belonged to the wife, and the wife’s to the husband (1 Cor 7:4). That meant that anyone who within marriage exploited or abused 3/8
Lots of people are like, "You aren't reading Foucault (or at least you aren't reading him right), I'm reading him right!" I've been reading him for 40 years, which at least means I've been reading him! 1/4
The modern view says this: look at your desires in order to "discover" yourself. This assumes that a) desires are stable and b) they are the source of your identity. Foucault says desires are (a) unstable and (b) to a degree the product of power relations on you. 2/4
Therefore, you must create your identity—not discover it. Even to see ‘sexual desire’ as a category is being formed by power relations. We can’t totally escape power relations this way, but we can resist them and critique them. So create yourself. 3/4