4 minute read
Much of the Christian population interprets the moral and social order of the universe through the lens of what they perceive to be “natural.” It some cases it’s a natural complementarity and in others it’s a natural homogeneity. They believe divine law governs the world through an orderly inclination for opposite-sex people to be together romantically and sexually while like-essence people should be separated nationally and racially. This intuitive schema then get used to justify everything from condemnations of homosexuality to prohibitions on interracial marriage.1
For example, the argument goes that part of why sex-same erotic acts are wrong is because God created the world with anatomical males and females with a natural biological complementarity. The man gives and the woman receives, right? So, I have a couple questions. First, how does that take into account the fact that approximately 5% of animal species can change their sex to maximize reproductive success?2 Second, I don’t see the parts fitting between a human mouth and a vulva or a mouth and a penis, so does it follow that all oral sex is unnatural and evil?3
Doesn’t Paul appeal to what’s natural, though? Yes. Regarding head coverings he writes, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” Likewise, in his argument about humanity’s universal guilt Paul writes, “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.” OK, so I have a whole lot of questions.4
I try to respect the Bible by going through rather than around complex passages, so I’ve earnestly studied those texts.5 Not gonna lie, I’m still no closer to making heads or tails of Paul’s strange appeals to what’s natural. Obviously he’s doing something very culturally Jewish and first century. Maybe I’m dense, but I cannot wrap my mind around it.6 Like, hey man, kudos on writing much of what became the New Testament. I’m not flat-out suggesting you’re wrong nor am I dismissing your perspective as culturally antiquated, but I’ve got a bunch of sincere questions.7
The original beatniks weren’t mindless yes-men nor were they enculturated to piously submit to religious teachings that made no sense to them. Instead they asked questions and gave push-back.8 I work hard to treat Scripture with great respect. At the same time, quite honestly I still don’t know what to do with passages that appeal to what’s natural. I’m confounded. What I do know is this: each and every time Christians appeal to any form of argument about what’s “natural” for the moral and social order, I brace for the half-baked prejudice that inevitably seems to follow.
Author
There’s been a real effort among among conservative Christians to decouple these issues biblically and culturally, but it seems like they’re still linked by an underlying thought process about what’s “natural” and why. Who decides that and on what basis?↩
I’ve got some bad news for conservative Christians who love the animated clownfish Marlin and Nemo…↩
The biblical authors sure don’t seem to think so. Ever read Song of Songs? Anyway, the same sorts of critiques could be offered in the other direction with homogeneity and interracial marriage, but I hope to God that’s unnecessary.↩
Those passages are found in 1 Corinthians 11 and Romans 1. I definitely encourage reading those in their full context.↩
I’ve read numerous exegetical commentaries from past and present scholars whose perspectives are all over the theological multiverse.↩
Nor am I convinced any of those theologians actually can, either. As always seems to be the case with arguments about what’s “natural,” I feel like I’m seeing a bunch of unattested cultural presuppositions, the post hoc, ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, incomplete trains of thought, little to no understandings of biology or cultural anthropology, etc. Not one theologian I’ve found sufficiently deals with ANY of that.↩
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond, Paul. Degrading. That’s a strong word, bro. I’m wondering what you mean by that. In what sense is long hair on a man degrading? Also, a science question: at what point does the biological process of male follicle growth become degrading? I’ve also got a biblically themed question, though. Samson had long hair that gave him Captain America super-strength, right? Was his Nazirite vow degrading to him? Oh, I’ve also got a question from church tradition. For some reason, Western art always portrays Jesus with “long hair” but we get no physical description in the New Testament. So, what was the length of our Lord’s hair? If it was, in fact, “long” was it also degrading to Him? If not, why? Say, were you aware of female alopecia? Does that mean such a woman has lost her glory? Moving on from the hair, I’m curious about the same-sex erotic acts you’re condemning. Is your thinking at all premised upon the vile boy lovin’ of Greek pederasty? Clearly you’re aware of male-male and female-female sex acts, but are you taking into account people with exclusive same-sex attraction? How does all this square with intersexual individuals who have genitals, chromosomes, or organs that don’t neatly fit in the male/female binary? Have you taken into account natural human variation? What about those animals that change sex? Is all of this premised upon those ancient cultural tropes about the “giving” male and the “receiving” female? If so, …↩
Those are qualities worthy of appreciation and admiration.↩
