Thursday, December 26, 2013

Phil Robertson, Elitism, and the Yuck Factor

I've written a post over at Ref21 concerning the Phil Robertson flap. Specifically I seek to distinguish between our reactions to same sex attraction and homosexual acts. I also seek to defend the "yuck factor" as a legitimate response to homosexual acts.
As I have read the many commentaries offered by various evangelicals on the Phil Robertson flap I cannot help but wonder if some of the discussion confuses categories. Some, while in sympathy with Robertson's view that homosexuality is sin, are scandalized by his, shall we say, "earthy language." Same sex attraction requires more sensitivity and nuance, we are told. It is a complicated matter. And indeed it is. But same sex attraction is not what Mr. Robertson was addressing. He was addressing the specific sin of homosexual acts which is a related but different category from same sex attraction. We have brothers and sisters in Christ who, while struggling with same sex attraction, persevere faithfully in God-honoring chastity recognizing that homosexuality is a sin. The church ought to be a place where these saints can be honest about their particular area of temptation so that they can be spurred on toward love and good deeds. You know, just like those saints who struggle with lustful thoughts, dishonesty, pride, disobedience to parents, greed, anger, gluttony, etc.

Homosexual acts, however, do not merit such sensitivity and nuance (nor does lying, coveting, murder, etc). The Scripture's condemnation of such acts is clear. But God's book of nature is just as clear. Paul appeals to natural revelation in Romans one where homosexual acts are described as self-evidently unnatural. We live among people who reject outright the Biblical prohibition against such acts. That much is clear. But, as Paul points out, these same folks have exchanged in favor of a lie God's truth revealed in the natural world as well. It is a knowledge that is clear enough to render them without excuse. Is this not what Phil Robertson was pointing out? Could it be that his words were just too clear for the more sophisticated among us?

There is an inescapable "yuck factor" to homosexual acts that ought not be diminished by Christians. I'm not talking about juvenile snickering. I'm talking about a mature disgust generated by acts that have gone desperately awry of what is natural. Any medical doctor worth his salt will tell you the sorts of destruction done to the bodies of homosexuals. I would suggest that the greater ignorance is to be silent to such physical realities rather than pointing them out.

It seems to me that some of the condemnation of Phil Robertson coming from evangelicals has the aroma of cultural elitism. That is, a faith that is expressed in very ordinary and "un-nuanced" ways tends be sneered at by those Christians who prefer their cappuccinos be crafted by free range baristas (Okay, that was just a little cheap shot but I've got to keep your interest). My point is that those of us who have attended seminary and enjoy coffee from independent coffee shops need to remember that the Faith we embrace goes to the unschooled and uncouth. It is a faith for duck hunters, children, stock brokers, middle school dropouts, physicists and those who love the pancakes at Cracker Barrel. If that is embarrassing to some of my fellow evangelicals then perhaps Christian Science may provide a bit more insulation from the ruffians of Munroe, Louisiana.

12 comments:

richard said...

Todd, What is the difference between same sex attraction and homosexual attraction?

Richard

Todd Pruitt said...

That sounds to me like a matter of semantics. What I am calling attention to is the difference between same sex attraction and homosexual acts. Same sex attraction is something that needs a great deal of sensitivity and clarity in our discussions. Same sex attraction ought to be recognized as a genuine struggle among some of our brothers and sisters in Christ. The church ought to be a place where those struggling with SSA are nurtured in their walk with Christ and helped to live a chaste life (just like all of us sinners).

Homosexual acts are clearly condemned in Scripture and ought to be clearly identified as abominable. Homosexual acts are violations against nature and nature's God. It is destructive to both body and soul. And the church which does not 1) understand this distinction and 2) clearly warn those who are practicing homosexuality is neither gracious nor truthful.

richard said...

Same sex attraction is the inner desire and lust to be involved in homosexual acts. To call the desire to commit sodomy by a less offensive name does not help those involved. It was and is a vile affection whether acted upon or not. Why does homosexual affection need more sensitivity and clarity than any other sin that Christians struggle with? The label "same sex attraction" needs to be dispensed with and be replaced with homosexual desires, lusts or attraction. Just like murder is still murder, stealing is still stealing, rape is still rape, pedophilia is still pedophilia, bestiality is still bestiality, etc. This great deal of sensitivity is harmful to these Christian folk.

Richard

Todd Pruitt said...

Wow. I love finally being accused of being the one who is too sensitive. This may be a first. Richard, you need to comment here more often. You'll help my reputation.

Anyway, you are insisting that a struggle with attraction is the same as harboring lust. I do not.

richard said...

Todd, Your are correct. I am saying that struggling with same sex attraction is harboring lust. Men attracted to other men and women attracted to other women if it has no sexual component in the attraction is not in and of itself sinful. I may be attracted to a man who has six-pack abs but if there is no sexual component then it might be a problem of envy but not what in todays parlance is called same sex attraction. Same sex attraction = homosexual attraction in todays language. To say one can have a same sex attraction that does not lead to harboring lust is to parse the sin of the human heart in a very dangerous way and though I am sure not purposely done nevertheless encourages some level of comfort within the hearts of these brothers and sister to not be sufficiently at war with this sinful attraction.

Todd Pruitt said...

Richard we will simply have to disagree about this. You have a far too simplistic view of human sexuality and the nature of temptation. I know you believe what you are writing is biblical. But I do not agree. An area of temptation which the enemy is able to exploit is not at all the same thing as harboring lust.

Grant Van Leuven said...

A pastor friend pointed out this Post to me, which I so appreciate! I noted a similar concern about Christians seemingly conceding a supposed crassness while allowing for some kind of special sensitivity for this specific sin in an article here: http://puritanchurch.com/what-is-sin-a-confessional-answer-that-might-have-helped-duck-dynasty/
I also think the distinction between desires and deeds is a false dichotomy. Jesus says lusting after a woman is adultery, so naturally it would equally be the case for sexual sins God that God calls unnatural in Romans chapter 1. More importantly, notice that God calls out the actual desires (not only the deeds) as sin in Romans 1:24, 26, 27, highlighting both the life choice and the lifestyle as a particular judgment upon particularly rebellious people; see the desires are first highlighted: "the lust of their own hearts", "vile affections", and "burned in their lusts". All these things are noted as especially unnatural and especially heinous sins, and again they are the desires (the deeds named afterward as their effects). To dissect desires from deeds that follow out of them is to witness to another Gospel and an unscriptural anthropology. As well, it, gets away from recognizing what the Confessions teach us: sin is any thought, word, or behavior that is in want of conformity unto or a transgression of the Law of God. Kudos, Pastor Pruitt! This needed to be said!

Todd Pruitt said...

I do agree that there is a direct connection between lustful desires and immoral actions. That much is clear from Jesus' teaching and the epistle of James.

I also suggest in the post that there is a difference between an acknowledged struggle with SSA against which a believer battles and actively indulging that desire in lustful preoccupation.

Todd Pruitt said...

So, the question I have for Richard is, "Is there a difference between being tempted and lusting?"

richard said...

Good question. James 1:14 says that every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lusts and enticed, KJV (NASB reads similarly). So I would say that no man is tempted apart from his own lusts. While not exactly the same thing, no man can say that the temptation he has to sin does not arise from his own lusts. Now a man may embrace that temptation, that arises from his heart, to a greater or lessor degree, but temptation and lust are inseparable.
Todd, do you agree that same sex attraction is homosexual attraction? It seems to me that calling it same sex attraction as opposed to homosexual attraction is an attempt to take the sting and vileness (Holy Spirit word) out of this sin, in order to not offend those with homosexual desires. If I am a Christian and secretly desire to steal your TV while you are at church Sunday morning then I'm a thief in my heart. Don't water down the term thief so I won't feel bad. Call me what I am. That is the truly the most sensitive thing you can do.

Todd Pruitt said...

Richard - Are you truly equating being tempted with lust? Certainly you would not say that Jesus lusted as he was tempted in the wilderness. Biblically there certainly is a category for being tempted without sinning.

The reason I use the term same-sex attraction is because it applies to both male and females. Also, I am convinced that there is a distinction between struggling with a desire and indulging that desire.

I would love to know if you believe that being tempted to commit gluttony is the same as committing gluttony. Is being tempted to disobey your parents the same as disobeying your parents.

Sin is the fruit of temptation. But is all temptation sin? I do not believe you can make that case biblically. It seems to me that you are equating being tempted with harboring lust. Again, I don't know how you can make that case given the example of Jesus.

richard said...

Let me attempt to answer your question carefully. I am in a certain way equating temptation with lust. Why? Because of what James says that the nature of temptation is in fallen man. Again Js. 1:14 says that a man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust. This lust that is intimately involved in temptation ( not in the Son of God) must arise from the sinful nature of man. Temptation in a man involves culpability for the lusts that emanate from the sinful nature. We are responsible for not only what we do or not do but who we are by nature. When Jesus was tempted it did not involve the association mentioned in Js.1. His temptation was not the result of him being drawn away by the lusts of his sin nature because he did not have one.
I know there is a progression in all this. I also know that this progression can happen within milliseconds.
Is being tempted to disobey parents the same as disobeying parents? No. However this temptation to disobey parents happens because of the lusts to disobey in the childs heart. The ensuing struggle between flesh and Spirit or flesh and conscience rarely lacks sin of some sort.
So the struggle with the temptation that has arisen from their own hearts to commit homosexual acts rarely lacks sin at some level even if the actual act is never engaged in.
When I am tempted toward any sin I find that I all to often sin at some level even if its just mentally. Temptation to sin and embracing that temptation happens almost seamlessly, very quickly. We should be concerned not just with resisting temptation be its very presence since its coming from within and can so often overwhelm us.
So much more could be said by you and me but for now I will end our short give and take. I will contemplate your points and I will at some point read Temptation and Sin by Owen for needed instruction.

May God bless you and all yours,
Sincerely, Richard