Why do conservatives Christians spend so much time concerned about sexual politics? Whether fretting over same-sex marriage or teenage fornication, it seems—to our friends as well as detractors—that we are obsessed with policing eros.
The common assumption is that our motives are similar to those falsely ascribed to the Puritans by H.L. Menken: that we have the “haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” For some Christians this may be true, but for most of us the issue is more complex, even a tad bit pretentious. We actually subscribe to the embarrassing belief that by defending traditional sexual ethics we are preserving Western civilization.
In this, we take our cues from the brilliant non-believer, Philip Rieff. Rod Dreher notes this fact in his superb essay on Rieff, the sexual revolution, and post-Christian civilization:
The late sociologist Philip Rieff was not a religious man, but he was a chronicler of the cultural revolution and a prophet of it. Rieff’s theory of culture, put simply, is that a culture is shaped by what it forbids (in his term, “remits”). In his 1966 classic “The Triumph of the Therapeutic,” Rieff identified Christianity’s teaching about sexuality (that it is only licit when expressed between one man and one woman, in a state of holy matrimony) as a core principle of Christian civilization. “Historically, the rejection of sexual individualism (which divorces pleasure and procreation) was the consensual matrix of Christian culture,” Rieff writes. He goes on to say that what is “revolutionary” in modern culture is the complete abandonment of the idea that renunciation (of whatever kind) is necessary, toward the belief that impulses should be released. Christianity never preached crude renunciation of sexuality, but rather developed a sophisticated way of spiritualizing it — and built an entire civilization around theories of the human person, and human purpose, that all depended on Christian sexual ethics.
That’s over now. It’s done. Rieff, who writes as a sociologist, points out that the West has abandoned the Christian sexual ethic; therefore, what we can rightly call Christian culture and civilization is also on the way out.
Although I’m not as pessimistic as Rieff, I think he is completely correct on this point. Western civilization is, as the conservative thinker Peter Viereck once noted, a Greek-Roman-Jewish-Christian amalgam. The sexual revolution undermines, subverts, and will eventually replace Christian culture, causing a radical—though gradual—transformation of Western civilization. Christianity will continue, of course, as will Christian culture. As long as there are there are Christians, there will be Christian culture and eschatological hope. What will be different is that one of the pillars that uphold the West will be missing.
Acknowledging this reality is not an admission of defeat. The battle to save civilization may be quixotic, but, like many conservative Western Christians, I’m too much of a romantic to give it up. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that we will lose. My generation is the last that will retain a dominant number who are willing to oppose such radical institutions as same-sex marriage. Once we die off there will be few to carry on the fight.
Indeed, I know some young, smart Christians—believers who went to the best evangelical colleges and are thoroughly versed in the Great Works of the faith and Western civilization—who fully understand what is at stake and yet they are willing to give it all up because they fear being called bigots by their peers. The fault for this belongs with the Boomers and us Gen-Xers. We have a raised, as C.S. Lewis might say, a generation of men and women without chests. We should have trained them to have the courage of martyrs. Instead, the tremble at the thought that someone might call them a homophobe.
But what comes next? What comes after the pillar of Christian culture is removed? I believe my friend James Poulos, who is himself a disciple of Rieff, has the answer. His prophetic vision of the future of the West is what he calls the “Pink Police State.”
The Pink Police State is a more extreme version of a regime I use to taunt my libertarian friends in my essay on ‘The Sex Vote’ that’s just been published in Doublethink. I worry, and I think we should all worry, about the way cultural libertarianism is snowballing while the snowball of political libertarianism rolls deeper into hell. I’m aghast at the shrug with which many self-styled libertarians greet massive government, so long as it’s run by people with ‘enlightened’ attitudes about pleasure-seeking. It’s not death to the state these libertarians want, it’s the state as cool parent, with a stripper pole in every pot. . . .
On top of this, we all know how intimately sex — or at least images of sex and talk about sex, alas — has become a part of everyday life. What gives me fear is the idea, which large numbers of people seem to be buying into, that a growing sphere of libertinistic freedoms compensates (or more than compensates!) for our shrinking spheres of political liberty and the practice of citizenship. You can guess what I think about ‘liberaltarianism’.
That’s the background brief on the Pink Police State, a vision which came to me courtesy of one of the most visionary videos of the 1990s. I’m talking about Marilyn Manson’s “The Dope Show,” off 1998′s Mechanical Animals. I know it’s a bit odd for a conservative cultural critic to praise Manson as a brilliant genius, but before the Columbine aftermath unfairly derailed his career and life Manson was firing on all cylinders, and Dope Shows’ incredible ‘live performance’ sequence [2:15-3:00], in which an all-male body of riot police wearing head-to-toe pink uniforms are inspired to make out, was deeply prophetic, in an as-yet symbolic way, about the manner in which our manufactured contradictions and desires are apt to show forth in contemporary life.
“Cops and queers,” Manson sings on that track, “make good-looking models.” We should all ruminate on that lyric to better understand the uncannily dovetailing fantasy of administrative omni-competence in official life and sexual omni-competence in unofficial life.
Why do conservative Christians spend so much time focusing on sexual issues? That’s why. We are attempting, however futily, to prevent Christian civilization from being replaced by the totalitarianism of the Pink Police State. We are trying, however ineffectually, to stop our civilization from replacing the Cross with a stripper pole.
August 10th, 2010 | 9:26 am
I have always felt that Book VIII of Plato’s “Republic” holds the key to our current situation. There, Plato argues that “the most extreme freedom necessarily turns into the most extreme slavery,” if we understand by “freedom” the complete liberation of our appetites and lusts from any restriction. Without, however, the self-control that virtue brings about, we become slaves to our appetites and, from there, it is only a short step to becoming political slaves: after all, as long as we get to pursue unchecked our own private gratifications, who cares who rules? Just like the dope addict preferring to be homeless than give up his habit, we would would be more than willing to endure the most oppressive regime as long as we got to fornicate with impunity and without guilt! And who cares about anyone else, as long as I get my fix! As Plato long foresaw, it always thus: the road to slavery and a tyrannical hell is always disguised as the road to earthly freedom and bliss.
August 10th, 2010 | 9:33 am
I think this unfairly singles out conservative Christians in terms of focusing on sexual issues. Everybody thinks about it, I assume it’s just some kind of rhetorical strategy to make it seem as if conservatives unduly focus on it, in order to make them look uptight by comparison with everyone else. The Marilyn Manson thing’s a good example – he’s all about sex, and he ain’t no conservative.
When I think about all the liberal defenses for sex ed, teen sex, abortion, normalizing gay sex, porn, sex on tv, and taking a generally blase attitude towards random sexual encounters, etc. it’s pretty obvious to me that these people are obsessed with making sure everyone has as much sex as humanly possible, and the strange thing is they seem particularly concerned that teenagers should do it.
They’ve just managed to rhetorically cast their position as the healthy one and conservatives’ as the weirdly obsessive one.
August 10th, 2010 | 9:50 am
The conclusion of this article is that we have a stark choice between society condemning pre- and extra-marital sex, pornography, homosexuality and masturbation and a totalitarian police state.
That’s the conclusion. Where is the argument? From what I gather, the “argument” consists of a reference to a Marilyn Manson stage act. Was this an intentional parody?
August 10th, 2010 | 10:00 am
Sean — that’s a really excellent point. Everyone is talking about sex, all the time — and arguably, the Christians are the ones who didn’t talk about it very much until it got the point where the progressives wouldn’t shut up about it. Yes, Christians have always had standards of morality that we’ve enforced within our ranks, but usually it was done in more private ways, not as a public issue, and only as necessary. It was only when (seemingly) everything in the whole world became about sex, all the time, and therefore inevitably a political issue, that it became necessarily for Christians to politicize our own position. The call for Christians to “stop obsessing about it” is really just a call for us to concede the whole shebang.
August 10th, 2010 | 10:11 am
I also think it’s important for conservative Christians to keep explaining WHY we continue to be so concerned about sexual politics, otherwise we risk being defined, as Margaret Hoover put it in an opinion piece over at foxnews.com today (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/09/margaret-hoover-prop-gay-rights-marriage-conservatives-civil-rights/) as “on the wrong side of the civil rights history.”
Of course, I guess I can see how that might seem to be the case if one’s foremost desire is political traction; however, if one’s foremost desire is to witness to the truth of Christ, then it shouldn’t matter how often we’re insulted, even by those on our political side.
Here will be the raising up of your martyrs, Joe, God-willing. And perhaps from some surprising places. While the majority of those under 30 support gay marriage rights, let us remember that they are . . . under 30. I am not so far removed from that age that I don’t remember how the desire to achieve fairness seemed far more important than obedience. But then I got married, had kids, and felt a link to the love of God to which nothing can compare and to which, in the end, I felt the only appropriate response was submission. Let us pray that the Holy Spirit continues to work steadily.
Lastly, while I am personally as pessimistic as Rieff in the loss of a majority Christian culture, I am seeking the silver gleam of the idea that this is another way the Lord separates the wheat from the chaff. Like abortion before it, there is little middle ground to stand on these days with regard to homosexual activity. One must decide, and as Christians we remember that we will be held accountable for that decision in our last things.
August 10th, 2010 | 10:40 am
Yes, Christians have always had standards of morality that we’ve enforced within our ranks, but usually it was done in more private ways, not as a public issue, and only as necessary.
I see this argument deployed sometimes in culture war issues and I don’t see how anything could be further from the truth.
The statute books at the state and local level historically had many laws against not just various sexual practices but even alluding to these practices in literature, public performance or speech.
One of the favorite villains around here — birth control advocate Margaret Sanger — once faced criminal prosecution in federal court for mailing a newsletter about birth control using the U.S. Postal Service. She was arrested many times for making speeches and distributing leaflets that were determined to be “obscene” although I don’t think anyone today would consider them offensive at all (some of these arrests were at the behest of complaints from local priests to the police). Doctors could be arrested for privately discussing birth control with their patients.
Alan Turing, Oscar Wilde, and Martin Luther King Jr. side-kick Bayard Rustin all faced prosecution for violating laws against homosexuality and Wilde and Rustin both did actual jail time.
And the list goes on.
In short, you are pushing a history of religious morality that is extraordinarily revisionist. Morality has never been a private, within-the-ranks affair for religious conservatives.
August 10th, 2010 | 10:51 am
GK Chesterton suggested that “the modern critics of religious authority are like men who should attack the police without ever having heard of burglars” (p.20). I think this comparison is similarly apt when it comes to the critics of religious doctrines on sex. The strictures of, say, the Catholic Church, are often discussed as if they have been plucked out of thin air in a fit of spiteful Puritanism, a massive over-reaction to a relatively unimportant facet of human existence. It as if the church had developed a vast edifice of dogma on how believers ought to tie their shoelaces, or whether they ought to prefer tennis to football.
But here’s the thing: sex is not remotely analogous to shoe-tying or sporting preferences. It is patently very important indeed to a great number of human beings. How could any religion worth its salt not be interested in sex? To quote Chesterton again:
“All healthy men, ancient and modern, Western and Eastern, hold that there is in sex a fury that we cannot afford to inflame; and that a certain mystery must attach to the instinct if it is to continue delicate and sane”.
Sex is awesome. Sex hurts. Sex unites and divides. Sex creates human beings. Few things are more deeply wounding than sexual infidelity. What is one of the worst kinds of child abuse? Sex abuse. What causes more sadness, insecurity, confusion and loneliness? What causes more joy and wonder and happiness and contentment? To say that sex is an important facet of human existence is a mere platitude. It is barely more controversial to say that any ethical system that fails to provide some meaningful account of sexual desire and sexual acts is gravely deficient.
August 10th, 2010 | 10:52 am
“I worry, and I think we should all worry, about the way cultural libertarianism is snowballing while the snowball of political libertarianism rolls deeper into hell. I’m aghast at the shrug with which many self-styled libertarians greet massive government, so long as it’s run by people with ‘enlightened’ attitudes about pleasure-seeking. It’s not death to the state these libertarians want, it’s the state as cool parent, with a stripper pole in every pot. . . .”
As a conservative Christian who is also a political libertarian, I have also noticed this trend and I find it disturbing. Liberty and morality are NOT mutually exclusive. Indeed I believe that they are complimentary.
Liberty gives us the freedom to BE moral and morality gives us the backbone to continue in our liberty. Debauched people do NOT have what it takes to preserve liberty. They are too caught up in the pursuit of pleasure to notice until it is too late.
The militant enforcement of “tolerance” and permissiveness stifle the liberty of those who believe or practice anything not on the approved list of behaviors. A libertine tyranny is just as tyrannical as a puritan tyranny.
I have more thoughts on this, but I’m trying to organize them into a coherent form.
August 10th, 2010 | 10:53 am
Many Americans, libertarians especially, seem to have only learned about the kind of totalitarianism of Orwell and 1984, but not the kind of society you see in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
There’s no Big Brother berating us over loudspeakers and encouraging us to spy on our neighbors. Instead the state maintains control by addicting the population to recreational sex, constant consumption, and drugs, and so conditions them to regard the family, natural procreation, asceticism, and intellectualism as unnatural.
Without a belief in the inherent dignity of the human being that places him or her above the level of industrially manufactured product, that is what happens.
August 10th, 2010 | 10:54 am
The difficulty in making the Christian argument for sex is that it is a wholistic argument regarding creation, the role and place of men and women, and the function of sexuality in that greater whole. All of these pillars are essential to understanding the Christian arguments about sex: if you do not believe creation is purposeful, the argument fails; if you do not believe men and women have a certain end, are intended to be “one flesh” from “the beginning,” the argument founders; if you do not believe that sexuality is a calling together of a man and a woman as co-creators with God, the argument simply bores people. Powerful forces have dismissed each of these pillars upholding Christian views of sexuality and it will take generations to reconstruct them.
I agree that Christianity is/was “a Greek-Roman-Jewish-Christian amalgam,” but on sexuality Christianity was almost wholly dependent upon Judaism and its sexual ethics. I (almost, but not really) hate to do this, but I encourage people to read my book (with Cornelia Horn) “Let the Little Children Come to Me” (http://www.amazon.com/Let-Little-Children-Come-Christianity/dp/0813216745/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281451327&sr=1-1). The Christian argument against sex with children was a revolutionary step against the sexual ethic of the Greco-Roman world in general, in which sex in marriage was for procreation and passing on family wealth and property, but sex outside of marriage itself (for men at any rate) was for pleasure, whether with boys, prostitutes or slaves. Christian views of sexuality, as Peter Brown has argued, were the boundary marker for Christians in Greco-Roman society. That boundary marker took centuries to define and to delineate and to build. In sexuality, without question, we are returning to neo-paganism. Ultimately, this newly discovered “freedom” will ravage the lives of women and children.
August 10th, 2010 | 11:05 am
Mark That’s the conclusion. Where is the argument? From what I gather, the “argument” consists of a reference to a Marilyn Manson stage act. Was this an intentional parody?
I don’t want to pick on you personally, Mark, but since you’ve hit on a pet peeve of mine this rant will have to be aimed at your comment. ; )
To fully make my argument would require between 2000 and 5000 more words. Yet if you write a blog post that is over 500 words, the chances that people will read it in its entirety drop by 90%. (This post is over 1000 words long so I’m surprised anyone bothered to read it.)
Blog posts are not the place to make extended, complex arguments. At best, all a blogger can do it hint at an argument, start a conversation, and continue with it later. I certainly intend to write more about this. And over on out other blog, Postmodern Conservative, James Poulos has written much more on this topic.
August 10th, 2010 | 11:26 am
“Indeed, I know some young, smart Christians—believers who went to the best evangelical colleges and are thoroughly versed in the Great Works of the faith and Western civilization—who fully understand what is at stake and yet they are willing to give it all up because they fear being called bigots by their peers.”
Joe-
This is where you continue, time and again, to err. If you (and your generation) are going to speak into the lives of these “young, smart Christians” you have to take us seriously. We’ve seen you use this argument against Patrol on a number of occasions – that we just want to be considered “cool,” or in this case, that we are afraid of being called bigots.
Consider the alternative: if we are as smart as you say, if we have read and studied the great works at the best evangelical colleges, could it not be possible that we have simply reached different conclusions than those you have arrived at?
This disrespectful dismissal has to stop. We may not agree, but we require that you treat us as your intellectual peers, even when we are not your experiential peers. One thing about this generation that you describe, my generation, which I think is laudable is that we are deferential to our elders; we see the value of your wisdom. Please return this respect.
August 10th, 2010 | 11:40 am
Mark:
You wrote:
The conclusion of this article is that we have a stark choice between society condemning pre- and extra-marital sex, pornography, homosexuality and masturbation and a totalitarian police state.
That’s the conclusion. Where is the argument? From what I gather, the “argument” consists of a reference to a Marilyn Manson stage act. Was this an intentional parody?
The point of Mr. Carter’s article was to pose the question “What comes after the pillar [in this case, the traditional sexual ethics] of Christian culture is removed?” He then states that he believes his friend James Poulos has the answer, and provides a link to Part III of an interview with him as well as an excerpt from that interview.
From here, if you were really interested in Poulos’ (via Carter) view and in engaging his argument, you would have read the entire interview. Since the interview attempts to touch on a number of subjects in a relatively short space, you wouldn’t find the “argument” there; however, you would have noticed that Poulos refers to (and the interview provides a link to) the essay he wrote, ‘The Sex Vote’, that fleshes out where he thinks the abandonment of traditional sexual ethics will lead Western society, and his reasons for doing so, (i.e. the “argument”). To fully understand his argument before attempting to engage it, it would have also been a good idea to peruse the pieces Poulos references and links to in ‘The Sex Vote’.
Again, IF you were really interested in Poulos’ view and in engaging his argument, you would already know this. But why bother with all that, right? I mean, there are a lot of debatable statements in Mr. Poulos’ article, but why burden yourself with actually debating them when you can blithely dismiss a strawman version of the argument’s conclusion and be done with it?
You can do better.
GR
August 10th, 2010 | 12:14 pm
GeronimoRumplestiltskin, because I actually read both the above blog post and the two articles you mention, I noticed that neither of those two articles actually makes the argument that the above post does.
Joe Carter — who would very much like to make a longer and more detailed argument — is not saying exactly the same thing as Poulos is.
Poulos, like some of the readers above, is making a wider point about how the pursuit of private pleasure crowds out public participation. Indeed, while his “The Sex Vote” article is unquestionably sex-obsessed, the argument has very little to do with actual sex. He is criticizing libertarians for their tendency to give up on the political process and look instead for technological ways to expand the scope of liberty.
Indeed, Poulos’ verbal barbs apply to conservatives and libertarians equally to the extent that they both celebrate the liberating potential of free markets and modern capitalism.
While that is an interesting point, it doesn’t have much to do with “the totalitarianism of the Pink Police State” nor does it address why sex — rather than, say, consumer culture — will be what drives this slide toward totalitarianism.
August 10th, 2010 | 12:16 pm
Jonathan,
At the risk of further sealing my reputation as a Grumpy Old Man, let me clarify where we disagree.
You say, “If you (and your generation) are going to speak into the lives of these “young, smart Christians” you have to take us seriously.” Well, yes and no. When these young, smart Christians deserve to be taken seriously, I take them seriously, when they don’t deserve to be taken seriously, I don’t. I know some people think that respect, like self-esteem, is a birthright. But it isn’t.
To be perfectly Frank, although you are one of the young, smart Christians I had in mind, you’ve never struck me as someone that I need to take seriously. I don’t mean that as an insult or say it to be dismissive of your opinion. I say that based on having read a lot of your writing on Patrol that reveals you to be a deeply unserious person. That goes for much of what is written on Patrol. There seems to be a disconnect between what you think you are doing and what the impression that you are giving people.
For example, let’s revisit Patrol’s editorial on swearing (which you subsequently defended):
The claim that we’ve missed the “cultural train” and the young Christians should be able to say F*** and the old geezers should get over it, is childish and unserious. I say that not to be dismissive, but because I think it is a fitting description—the arguments made by you on Patrol are the types that tend to be made by children. The language used may be more advanced, but the attempt to justify behavior that your peers approve of—and their parents disapprove of—is the kind of thing you find teenagers doing all the time.
And the swearing is a relatively minor point. Patrol has also defended pre-marital sex, homosexual behavior, and other things that Christians have always stood against.
We’ve seen you use this argument against Patrol on a number of occasions – that we just want to be considered “cool,” or in this case, that we are afraid of being called bigots.
You know what I haven’t seen? Any solid arguments defending your positions. If you think that homosexuality, fornication, swearing and the rest is all perfectly acceptable for Christians then you should make an argument that defends those positions.
Consider the alternative: if we are as smart as you say, if we have read and studied the great works at the best evangelical colleges, could it not be possible that we have simply reached different conclusions than those you have arrived at?
In a word, “no.” I don’t think that you’ve suddenly discovered something that we other Christians have missed for the past 2,000 years. But I also don’t think you’re rationalizations are all that different than what other young Christians have been making throughout history. When I was younger I too tried to justify sleeping with my girlfriend, using profanity, and having a “live and let live attitude.” But what sets us apart is that I didn’t presume that I was right and every other Christian in history was wrong. Deep down I knew that I was merely trying to justify my own sin.
This disrespectful dismissal has to stop. We may not agree, but we require that you treat us as your intellectual peers, even when we are not your experiential peers.
I’ll make a deal with you. If you present one rational, theologically-sound, Biblically-based argument for any of the things we’ve disagreed on (swearing, pre-marital sex, homosexuality) then I’ll address it respectfully.
If you want to be treated with intellectual respect then you should step up and earn it. That’s what grown-ups do. You’re not in school anymore where people have to show deference to you because you paid your tuition. In the real world, you have to make respectable arguments to get people to respect your opinion.
August 10th, 2010 | 12:25 pm
What is left out is what marriage *is* – a mysterion (sacramentum when translated into Latin) of the relationship between Christ and the Church, and also a blood covenant which like all other blood covenants can only be dissolved by the death of at least one of the parties.
This is why homosexuality is an abomination and blasphemy. This is why adultery bears the death penalty.
That is something that I find very few Christians – whether Roman Catholic, Evangelical Catholic or Evangelical – know.
And that in turn contributes to the way that evangelical youth and young adults in particular, who ought to know better, not only go along with culture in their sexual practices, but openly advocate for the rebel society’s sexual practices – they don’t know any better.
August 10th, 2010 | 12:33 pm
Many Americans, libertarians especially, seem to have only learned about the kind of totalitarianism of Orwell and 1984, but not the kind of society you see in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.
There is definitely truth to this. On the other hand, Orwell based his novels on his own very shrewd insights into the realities of Leninism and Stalinism. Indeed, modern North Korea may well be pretty close to a replica of the society envisioned in 1984.
Huxley’s vision is interesting but it is not clear what it has to do political realities in the U.S. Poulos is right that it may be more applicable to repressive countries like China and the UAE.
By studying the real world, we can conclude, for instance, that it is not only possible but relatively easy to build a totalitarian society based on “family, natural procreation, asceticism, and intellectualism.” The Taliban didn’t have much use for intellectualism but they very much advocated a pure society freed from crass commercial culture and sexual immorality. On the other hand, theocratic Iran is run by people who can probably hold an intelligent conversation on Plato and Aristotle (you get only one guess as to where Iran got the idea to name its governing body the “Council of Guardians.”)
It seems to me that anyone who wants to take an honest look at the role government plays in influencing or promoting sexual morality ought to acknowledge up front the danger of the pendulum swinging too much in the other direction.
Traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality is very far from being sufficient to establish a free society. I don’t see the argument for where it is a necessary condition either.
August 10th, 2010 | 1:01 pm
Mark, wait… so the Taliban and Iran are your examples to demonstrate that “Judeo-Christian sexual morality is very far from being sufficient to establish a free society.” Taliban and Iran. Judeo-Christian. Seriously?
August 10th, 2010 | 1:05 pm
To expand just a bit more on the themes Poulos raises, I recall that the Islamist thinker Sayyid Qutb had similar criticisms of American society.
To Qutb, Americans are not only sexually loose and libidinous but also too individualistic and too much given to materialism and idle, pointless pleasures like maintaining the lawn and garden and engaging in pointless and superficial small talk.
It seems to me that Poulos would accept most of Qutb’s reactionary critique of America as a spiritually impoverished society.
Certainly, they each advocate different alternatives to the status quo but this ought to immediately suggest the dangers of taking these critiques too seriously.
August 10th, 2010 | 1:11 pm
Mark . . . nor does it address why sex — rather than, say, consumer culture — will be what drives this slide toward totalitarianism.
I think the sexual ethics and consumerism are part of the same set. They both are about unfettered desire and unrestricted choices. Consumerism itself would probably lead to totalitarianism too, though it wouldn’t get us there as fast. My choice between a Prius and a SUV will have long term consequences but sexual choices are often more immediate (disease, abortion, divorce, etc.) that have an immediate impact and require the nanny state to step in and clean up my messes.
Traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality is very far from being sufficient to establish a free society.
I agree. That’s why I pointed out that is was but one pillar (actually, sexual morality is merely part of that pillar) that props up civilization.
Traditional Judeo-Christian sexual morality is not a sufficient condition for Western civilization but it is, I think, a necessary condition.
August 10th, 2010 | 1:16 pm
There’s a lot there, Joe, but let me just say this: I think you completely misunderstand where we disagree. Okay, when it comes to swearing it may be clear-cut, I think the fact that we waste so much time policing people’s language is bull – er – crap. But on premarital sex and homosexuality, it seems you may be confusing the opinions expressed in the magazine I edit (which, it seems you only half read as you completely missed the point, particularly, of the sex article), with my own thoughts. Incidentally, do you agree with everything that gets published in FT?
For the record, I don’t think there is such a thing as premarital sex. I’ll let you unpack that one. And, if you can find a place where I’ve made a clear stand on homosexuality, I’d be very surprised…as far as I can remember I’ve never felt that “issue” was black and white, or felt much of an impetus to take a stand.
And therein lies our true point of disagreement; it is much deeper than this or that issue or buzzword. I think I see the world as much more complex than you do. I try to reserve passing judgment on things, not only because I think I have a Biblical mandate to do so, but because I’m always learning, always absorbing new information that further shapes how I see things. You know, I actually think there is a chance that I, or someone else in my generation, may discover something that 2,000 years of Christianity hasn’t turned up. I live for that possibility.
I’m not going to go on with this argument, though. Rather, I’m going to keep learning and keep writing. The only comfort that emerges from this barrage is that as I continue to write and be read, the narrow worldview you espouse will become more and more disparate from the reality that is taking shape.
August 10th, 2010 | 1:33 pm
My choice between a Prius and a SUV will have long term consequences but sexual choices are often more immediate (disease, abortion, divorce, etc.) that have an immediate impact and require the nanny state to step in and clean up my messes.
We are having this conversation just about two years after the global financial system came very close to a complete collapse due to speculation in the housing market (directly as well as indirectly through derivatives) and excessive debt and leverage. The aftermath of this required trillions of dollars of spending by the “nanny state” to clean up the mess this caused. What is the sexual equivalent to this and how does it compare in magnitude?
I certainly see your point about Judeo-Christian sexual morality being a necessary condition of “Western civilization.” That seems to be the kind of statement that could be true by definition. But the claim that it is necessary for a free and non-totalitarian society is the far more contentious one.
August 10th, 2010 | 1:47 pm
Mark It seems to me that Poulos would accept most of Qutb’s reactionary critique of America as a spiritually impoverished society. Certainly, they each advocate different alternatives to the status quo but this ought to immediately suggest the dangers of taking these critiques too seriously.
Surely you recognize the informal fallacy you commit here (specifically, Guilt By Association). You’re presented the form:
1. Qutb considers America to be a spiritually impoverished society.
2. Poulos considers America to be a spiritually impoverished society.
3. We are justified in rejecting Qutb’s solution.
4. Ergo, we are justified in not taking Poulos’ critique too seriously.
We could substitute “Poulos” for any number of people, such as Pope Benedict, and it would be equally fitting. The fact that they both consider the U.S. to be “spiritually impoverished” does not mean that their arguments are similar, much less equally worthy of being dismissed.
Jonathan Incidentally, do you agree with everything that gets published in FT?
No, I don’t. But I also don’t keep quiet when someone on FT publishes something that I consider to be morally evil (thats a hypothetical, since no one on FT has ever done that).
For the record, I don’t think there is such a thing as premarital sex. I’ll let you unpack that one.
Okay. Do you think there is such a thing as “fornication?” Are sexual relations outside of the marriage covenant immoral?
And, if you can find a place where I’ve made a clear stand on homosexuality, I’d be very surprised…as far as I can remember I’ve never felt that “issue” was black and white, or felt much of an impetus to take a stand.
What’s not black and white about it? Either homosexual sex is illicit in all situations or it is not. Which position do you take?
I think I see the world as much more complex than you do.
No, actually, you don’t. I see the world as complex when it is complex and simple when it it simple. Our difference is that you want to make simple moral issues that you disagree with “complex” in order to rationalize and apologize for immorality.
This whole “The world’s complicated” is a silly, relativistic cop-out. If I ask you if genocide is morally wrong will you say, “well, the world is more complex than you think. . .”
I try to reserve passing judgment on things, not only because I think I have a Biblical mandate to do so, . . .
Nonsense. You think genocide is wrong? If so, how do you square that with your Biblical mandate not the “pass judgment?”
. . . but because I’m always learning, always absorbing new information that further shapes how I see things.
What you mean, is that you keep an open mind on issues that you are already open to seeing as justifiable (e.g., sexual issues) in order to further convince yourself that you are able to rationalize it. Are you always absorbing new information about genocide in order to make sure that you aren’t judging the issue too quickly?
You know, I actually think there is a chance that I, or someone else in my generation, may discover something that 2,000 years of Christianity hasn’t turned up. I live for that possibility.
I’m sure that you or someone in your generation is going to come up with something completely “undiscovered” that will cause us to realize that what God really wants is for us to embrace sodomy, abortion, etc. I’m sure it will happen because in every generation people create new heresies.
August 10th, 2010 | 2:28 pm
Mark, restricting public obscenity and restricting private morality are two different things. Public obscenity laws do, and are intended to do, very little to restrict people’s personal sexual behavior. What they restrict is people’s public behavior. So conflating obscenity laws and the maintaining of standards of private behavior doesn’t work.
You’re closer to the mark to sodomy laws, but I believe it was the exception, rather than the rule, when violators of this kind were ever actively sought out and suppressed. Again, it was generally on the basis of public behavior that such things were enforced.
It was only when progressive moralists began to attempt to recast the public morality in such a way as to hamper the private enforcement of Christian sexual standards that things got hot, though.
August 10th, 2010 | 2:42 pm
The idea that in defending traditional Christian sexual morality you’re defending Western Civilization itself is more than a tad pretentious, but let’s put that aside.
One thing worth responding to in this discussion is the typical disproportionate and paranoid focus on homosexuality. The increases we’ve seen in cohabitation, birth out of wedlock, divorce, and the consumption of pornography are not going to be reversed by stopping gay marriage. Why are gays always the ultimate target here?
On a related note, I think that the real cause of the apostasy of younger Christians when it comes to homosexuality is simply this: they have a hard time seeing what is supposedly wrong with the gay people they know, and they have an easy time understanding what is wrong with discrimination.
One last point. The idea that the state uses pornography to pacify a population whose freedoms it is otherwise busy squelching ignores a simple reality. Pornography proliferates because it sells, people being people–its proliferation flows directly from increased economic freedom. No one who calls themselves a libertarian should complain about increased economic freedom. But if increased economic freedom leads to a populace that fails to respect the assumptions about reason and autonomy that libertarianism begins with, then there’s something wrong with libertarianism.
August 10th, 2010 | 4:06 pm
“Indeed, I know some young, smart Christians—believers who went to the best evangelical colleges and are thoroughly versed in the Great Works of the faith and Western civilization—who fully understand what is at stake and yet they are willing to give it all up because they fear being called bigots by their peers… they tremble at the thought that someone might call them a homophobe.”
Guilty as charged. I can’t really speak for my peers at Patrol (some of whom were my school-fellows), but I KNOW the cultural silence on my part stems partly from a spiritual cowardice that I’ve battled my whole life and from which I pray regularly for Christ to deliver me, and partly from a very real “blank” in my mind as to what “speaking up” on the issue would look like for me.
I regularly work with homosexuals. For some of my best friends, premarital sex is a foregone conclusion. And I _try_ and serve them and love them as Christ would. How should my belief in a traditional Christian sexual ethic _actually_ be lived out with these friends? “Oh, hey there, Greg, great audition last night! Oh, and did you know that I think you and your partner are contributing to the downfall of Western Civilisation?”
Christ forgive me, but this filth is everywhere around me, and I’m not sure what I’m supposed to do about it.
August 10th, 2010 | 5:03 pm
Mark: Huxley’s vision is interesting but it is not clear what it has to do political realities in the U.S. Poulos is right that it may be more applicable to repressive countries like China and the UAE.
Brave New World‘s society doesn’t really look much like China and certainly not in the least like any Islamic country. Huxley consciously modeled it after the United States. it’s a vision of the future in which the concept of individual pleasure and economic success as the highest goods is taken to its logical extreme. Far from being repressive in the usual sense, the state in BNW smothers dissent by gorging the public on pleasure and distraction.
I came across this amusing cartoon comparing the two works (I just hope that reducing the novel to cartoon form isn’t part and parcel of the “happiness is better than truth” philosophy represented by the World State).
August 10th, 2010 | 5:43 pm
Maggie,
I appreciate your honesty on this one. It is tough to know how to balance the desire to maintain a loving and winsome witness to people who are behaving in ways that we disagree with or who have a belief system that is in opposition to the Christian faith and the responsibility to speak up for what is right (as well as the wisdom to know how and when to do that).
The struggle to find this balance and courage is not limited to younger people. As a bit older (early 40s) man I still find myself struggling with this in a variety of settings.
I pray that you will find this balance and courage and would appreciate your prayers for me to do the same.
August 10th, 2010 | 11:34 pm
Mark- saying that “Qutb supports X, and Qutb is bad, therefore X is bad” is not an argument. Sam Harris, the well-known atheist, has said that Qutb “has a point” about the vapidness of celebrity culture, so it is not as if only Christians can find some agreement with parts of his critique. Cultural critiques often follow similar lines, and there are very few people so content with the culture as to not level such a critique of some sort.
Of course Iran is less free than America, or, say, Sweden. But Sweden is less free than America too. The concern we have is that the is state enabling an “emancipation from virtue”- saying that you can do whatever you’d like and the state will clean up the mess afterward. Unfortunately, this comes at a grave price: you have to give up your freedom first, in order to be emancipated from virtue. This is the problem. Libertarians may like a sexually permissive culture, such as that of Sweden, but we find in the same country 60% tax rates and laws mandating that corporate boards be made up by equal numbers of men and women. This is one of the places where libertarians and conservatives do not agree: conservatives are far more likely to emphasize the importance of virtue for freedom, whereas libertarians are primarily concerned about the power of the state.
August 11th, 2010 | 9:27 am
Great post… I linked it to my own with a few comments… Truly the choice is not between happiness or no happiness, but one that is the fruit of such radical values as sacrifice, service, love (for others), and self-denial and one that glories in self (self-indulgence, self-centeredness, and self-identity)… Without the helpful voice of Christians speaking the value of the cross, we are left with nothing to sort out the basest of our desires from those which reflect nobility and virtue…
August 15th, 2010 | 4:46 pm
[...] ~ ITEM: Christians, Sex, and the Pink Police State [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact