Category: Rueger-2016

Natural Marriage as a Definable Social Good

5/8/2019

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/8/19

Rueger, Matthew. Sexual Morality in a Christless World. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2016.
Chapter 6, “Reason in Defense of Opposite-Sex Marriage” pp. 157-173.

Rueger notes that he sees little reason for hope that our society will pursue the sexual values he considers traditional. As a case in point, the redefinition of marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015 has changed the playing field. However, Christians have historically advocated marriage of one man and one woman, a case which Rueger argues can be made “from natural law and reason” (Rueger 2016, 157). This argument is helpful since many reject a religious argument out of hand (Rueger 2016, 158). He observes that the Iowa Supreme Court went so far as to say the only objection anyone could have to same-sex marriage was religious in nature. However, while traditional Christian teaching affirms marriage of one man and one woman, the view is also maintained, as are many other forms of civil order, by natural reason (Rueger 2016, 159). After all, “Sound marriages are good for society. Unhealthy marriages harm society. It is right and valid even in a world that rejects the Christian God, even for those who worship no God, to question whether a certain human activity is good or bad for individuals and for society as a whole” (Rueger 2016, 160). The natural law assumption held by the courts has been that marriage without the restriction of being contracted between one man and one woman is a societal good. Rueger evaluates several factors involved in considering whether same-sex marriage is a societal good.

The state has long recognized the family and stable marriages as a societal good. For this reason, there are numerous financial benefits available to married couples (Rueger 2016, 161). Unstable families tend to result in court cases, declines in worker productivity, and increased medical costs. As marriage declines, costs to the state increase. “A natural law concern for the greater social good must ask if same-sex marriages are as stable and beneficial to families, and therefore to society as traditional marriage” (Rueger 2016, 162). Research has shown that the most stable family is a biological one with low conflict levels and both biological parents present (Rueger 2016, 163). The differences between a father and a mother lead to a more robust ability to raise children. The actual ability for male/female cooperation may be a fundamental social skill. This idea has not been overcome by the various studies, procedurally flawed, which assert children do as well in families with same-sex parents as in biological families (Rueger 2016, 164-168). Rueger reviews several studies in detail, demonstrating that children in biological, traditionally intact families routinely do best in school and with social stability. For this reason, a natural law argument for the superiority of marriage between one man and one woman is very strong.

From a moral law basis, marriage between a man and a woman can also be shown as superior. Because the children (and adults) of other arrangements seem to be hurt by those arrangements, it is not morally appropriate to advocate such harmful relationships (Rueger 2016, 168). Long term monogamy and commitment is good for societal health. Rueger observes that this norm of lifelong monogamous commitment is far less common in same-sex relationships than in male/female marriage, and even substantially less common than in cohabitative male/female relationships (Rueger 2016, 169). Rueger also notes that within the homosexual community, monogamy is typically defined in terms of emotional connections, not in exclusivity of one sexual partner. Such redefinitions eventually leave us without a clear understanding of what monogamy in marriage means (Rueger 2016, 170). In the end, same-sex relationships and “marriages” have a much greater tendency to become unstable. This creates instability in society, which is not a social good. Rueger emphasizes that redefinitions of marriage are demonstrably bad for society (Rueger 2016, 171-172).

Rueger closes with an afterword (pp. 175-178) urging Christians to show redemptive love for all who have been hurt by our society.

0 Comments

Hearing Objections Does Not Mean Accepting Their Premises

5/1/2019

0 Comments

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
5/1/19

Rueger, Matthew. Sexual Morality in a Christless World. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2016.
Chapter 5, “A Mixed Bag of Objections” pp. 119-156.

Rueger acknowledges that there are objections to his position regarding a Christian sexual ethic. While he has made efforts to hear out the case of those who disagree with him, he finds that his opponents, by and large, are unwilling to give his point of view respect or fair treatment. They assume his conclusions are poorly reasoned or his evidence is nonexistent, without making an attempt to investigate (Rueger 2016, 119). As a result, Rueger urges people who take all sorts of positions to approach discussion with openness and to leave hostility behind (Rueger 2016, 120). He discusses a series of objections to his point of view, though making it clear that he is not presenting an exhaustive list.

A common objection is that Christians misrepresent the Law of God by holding to biblical sexual morality but not to other issues, such as the dietary laws (Rueger 2016, 121). However, Christians confess that the ceremonial laws of Israel, dealing with worship, foods, and sacrifice, among other things, have passed away. They normally point toward elements of Christ as Messiah until he came. Since he has come and completed his work, those laws have been fulfilled. They no longer need to be observed, though they may. The civil law was likewise bound by time and place. Laws about lending, property damage, harvest, and contracts were obligations placed on the people of Israel to ensure civil order, rather than to describe eternal and international obligations (Rueger 2016, 123). While moral offenses remained moral offenses in the New Testament, they were not attached to the same specific penalties. The moral law in the Bible, dealing with attitudes and behaviors in societies, is understood as applying to all people in all times and all cultures (Rueger 2016, 124). Rueger observes that Jesus applies many moral laws of the Old Testament in the New Testament period. Yet the New Testament pattern is slightly different from that of the Old Testament. Because Jesus has fulfilled the law, even though our crime against the moral law grieves God, it can be foregiven. The Christian is identified by repentance and faith, which normally results in obedience (Rueger 2016, 126).

Another object Rueger hears is that Christians object to homosexuality as “an extension of an older Christian failure to accept racial equality” (Rueger 2016, 127). This argument, first, is based on the idea that sexuality and its expression is immutable. Further, it describes Christianity as uniformly pro-slavery, and never admitting slavery as a sin to be put aside. However, Christians have a long history of rejecting and opposing slavery. It is not a uniform picture at all (Rueger 2016, 129). The Bible does not condemn slavery, but it does condemn inhumane and cruel treatment (Rueger 2016, 132). It advocates an equality in Christ which ultimately breaks down racial discrimination (Rueger 2016, 134).

One objection Rueger deals with is the alleged scientific evidence that homosexuality is genetic in origin (Rueger 2016, 135). In fact, this evidence remains stubbornly elusive. There are examples of abnormalities but those are relatively rare and come from clearly defined physical causes which can be identified (Rueger 2016, 136). But studies which purport to find a physical, genetically based, variant that provokes non-heterosexual attraction have typically been overturned as additional factors are studied. Cadaveric studies have not isolated differences in brain structure which could lead to different attitudes or behaviors (Rueger 2016, 137-138). Studies of identical twins have not found identical orientations (Rueger 2016, 138-139). In fact, the rates of same-sex attraction in twins tend to show a strong influence of socialization rather than biology (Rueger 2016, 140-141). Furthermore, studies of genetic markers have been unable to identify a reliable marker (Rueger 2016, 142).

Rueger further asserts that even if a biological cause for same-sex attraction could be found it would not require people to follow their urges. He lists numerous areas of life in which we routinely decide to live in such a way as to resist certain desires (Rueger 2016, 143). Rueger observes that he has been asked why anyone would “choose to adopt a lifestyle that invites persecution and discrimination” (Rueger 2016, 144). His short answer is that people in our current culture are rewarded and applauded for “coming out.” Furthermore, people often choose to live in a way that may involve some social stigmas, whether consciously or not.The question itself defies a reasoned answer. Yet the very idea that some people’s attraction is the result of a conscious or unconscious decision should lead to hope for those who are not pleased with their tendencies. It means that it may be possible to change unwanted attitudes, given time, effort, and support. Rueger is clear that he is here speaking about giving hope to people who are dissatisfied and wish for change (Rueger 2016, 145). Rueger cites the work of psychoanalysts Edmund Bergler, Charles Socarides, and Joseph Nicolosi, who conclude that some same-sex attraction is rooted in conscious or unconscious reactions to hurtful events in the past. With caring help, many who wish to pursue change are successful (Rueger 2016, 146-147). As a Christian, Rueger adds that the historic view of the Holy Spirit working healing, in part through confession, forgiveness, and the means of grace, suggests that the work of the Church is an element of healing, not harm (Rueger 2016, 148).

Rueger notes that some object that the removal of homosexuality from the DSM list of mental disorders in 1973 indicates it is perfectly normal. However, the change was made due to lobbying, not due to research (Rueger 2016, 148). The change has subsequently resulted in divisions within the psychoanalytic community, going even so far as to form a separate national association which continues to consider same-sex attraction as a disorder (Rueger 2016, 149). The APA has not entirely removed the situation from its diagnostic manual, as it added “sexual orientation disturbance” at the same time, indicating that there is a valid category for those who are troubled by their sexuality (Rueger 2016, 150). This was changed again in 1980 to “ego-dystonic homosexuality” which allowed for a therapist to help a patient move from attitudes and behaviors which troubled the patient (Rueger 2016, 151). This was removed by the time of the DSM-IV, which avoids reference to homosexuality as a potential problem at all (Rueger 2016, 152). These moves strike Rueger as being politically and socially motivated, rather than having a basis in scientific evidence.

The last of the common objections Rueger hears is made mostly by Christians, based on Matthew 7:1-5, James 4:12, Romans 14:3-4, 10, 13, and 1 Corinthians 4:5, where people are, in one way or another, not to judge (Rueger 2016, 153). However, the context of all these passages indicates that we are to make legitimate evaluations of right and wrong, not based on our selfish biases. If God warns against something, it is necessary to repeat and heed that warning (Rueger 2016, 154). This requires sensitivity and gentleness, as Rueger frequently sees in his role as a pastor. But in the end, when God has warned us, we need to pay attention. A failure to do so caused many problems which are addressed in 1 Corinthians 5:1-7 (Rueger 2016, 155). This holds true for every sin that God speaks of. It is to be brought up so as to lead to repentance and forgiveness. The relationship with God can be restored, but not if the sin is ignored. It is compasisonate to confront what God has condemned (Rueger 2016, 156).

0 Comments

Compassion for Sin Seeks Repentance, Forgiveness, and Restoration

4/24/2019

0 Comments

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/24/19

Rueger, Matthew. Sexual Morality in a Christless World. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2016.
Chapter 4, “Mom, Dad, I’m Gay” pp. 97-117.

In dealing with moral and ethical issues, Rueger observes that Christians consider the Bible to speak both descriptively and prescriptively, serving as an objective source of knowledge about right and wrong. Counter to this, many critics of biblical teachings make their objections and draw conclusions based entirely on subjective criteria (Rueger 2016, 97). Those who make judgments based on the subjective frequently consider objective standards as “cold and indifferent to the needs of individuals” (Rueger 2016, 98). Rueger asserts that applying to an objective and unchanging standard which points to a God of redemptive grace is, in fact, very compassionate. It is reliable and trustworthy even for those who would doubt.

Rueger discusses a case study of a counselee he calls “Bob.” This man was familiar with the biblical passages evaluated by Rueger in chapter three. He agreed that it was a fair assessment of God’s attitude toward his same-sex attraction. He was conflicted about his desires and said that such a conflict was very common. He wanted to change his attraction but was frustrated and unable to do so. Bob had endured abusive relationships in the past from which he did not think he had fully recovered (Rueger 2016, 99). Rueger observes that some credible members of the psychiatric and counseling community consider that at least many cases of same-sex attraction have at least a strong correlation with either abuse or familial dysfunction. His conclusion? “The human psyche can be a very fragile thing. People can be influenced and even damaged at the core of their being at any stage in life” (Rueger 2016, 100). Not all the coping mechanisms we use are the same in their appearance or their effectiveness.

The objective standards of God’s Word do not say there is no compassion. “Those who understand that their homosexual tendencies are at odds with the will of God and who seek God’s forgiveness need to hear that Jesus understands the profound brokenness of their human flesh. He died as an offering for their sins the same as for all the many heterosexual sins of the world. God loves them. God forgives them, and God’s Holy Spirit will continue to work within them to overcome sin” (Rueger 2016, 101). Though the struggle may last all our life, God’s forgiveness is a message of hope. Rueger again emphasizes that God deals with all types of sin in the same way, with repentance and forgiveness. The Church is meant to be a place where sinners gather in repentance to receive words of God’s restorative grace (Rueger 2016, 102).

Rueger observes that one challenge in dealing with issues of same-sex attraction is a philosophical shift which has taken place in our culture, putting people under more pressure than they faced in prior generations. This shift has taught people to define themselves primarily as sexual beings rather than in other ways (Rueger 2016, 104). Prior generations, which defined themselves fundamentally as religious or metaphysical beings, were confronted with different struggles, which we have largely come to deal with well. Rueger thinks the redefinition of people as primarily sexual beings, as well as being insufficient and inaccurate, is very troublesome to many young people. The pressures of this secularist and homosexuality-affirming culture rise to the level of a religious dogma in a school culture, one to which all “normal” students must conform (Rueger 2016, 106).

in contrast to the expectations of the sexualized culture, Rueger observes that the Bible allows for people to have greater or lesser levels of sexual desire without any condemnation. Passages such as Matthew 10:12 and 1 Corinthians 7:7-9 speak to the idea of celibacy as a positive option for those who would find it appropriate (Rueger 2016, 107). The Bible does not require people to define themselves primarily as sexual beings. It does endorse opposite-sex relations within the bonds of marriage.

Rueger further observes that there is a difference in the Bible between being tempted by and yielding to sin. The temptations to sin which we face cannot be entirely avoided. Yet they are also not what we use for our self-identification (Rueger 2016, 109). While temptation itself is not sin, a “desire for what is forbidden” is sin (Rueger 2016, 111). Rueger, citing Matthew 5:28, points out that the existence of the tendency to sin is not sin, but the desire of it is. Again, like all other sins, when we desire things which are called sexual sins in the Bible, we know there is room for repentance and forgiveness. The situation is not hopeless. The Christian’s identity is not to be as homosexual or heterosexual, or any sexual identity, but as a sinful person who receives forgiveness and grace (Rueger 2016, 112). For this reason, Rueger also suggests we avoid language of “sexual orientation” because it treats sexuality as the central and immutable characteristic which defines one’s life (Rueger 2016, 113). In their 2009 ruling legalizing same-sex marriage in Iowa, where Rueger lives, the Iowa Supreme Court redefined “immutability” to be something which, if changed, alters one’s self-identity. This is not a historic understanding of the term. The fact is, many people show changes in their attitudes and sexual identification over time. It is not the unchanging central issue in identity (Rueger 2016, 114). in fact, studies show that a heterosexual identity is almost uniformly the lasting and stable identity of adults, given time and maturity (Rueger 2016, 115-116). Both behavior and attitudes are mutable and tend to regularize. Rueger asserts that, in Christianity, it should not be seen as a matter of damage or harm, but of gradual healing when regularization occurs (Rueger 2016, 117).

0 Comments

A New Testament View of Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness, Regardless of the Sin

4/17/2019

0 Comments

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/17/19

Rueger, Matthew. Sexual Morality in a Christless World. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2016.
Chapter 3, “Verses Examined” pp. 59-96.

Rueger observes that it is vital to examine the context of a piece of literature in order to understand its meaning rightly. Statements in the New Testament are not without context. So an examination of a Christian ethic does require a careful look at the context of relevant passages (Rueger 2016, 59). Rueger’s intent is to be fair with the context, a practice he finds violated frequently. He illustrates his practice using the biblical command against adultery (Rueger 2016, 60). The term itself, lacking context, could indicate only a physical sexual relationship with a married person and another person outside of that marriage. However, examining the use of the words in their context elsewhere allows us to recognize a prohibition of engaging in mental or physical sexual relationships outside of marriage, a broader prohibition than it first appears (Rueger 2016, 61). The context of a statement is critical toward understanding intent. Rueger reminds his readers that the overall context of the New Testament allows us to form a consistent, whole picture.

Rueger first considers 1 Corinthians 7:2-5. Here, the text urges monogamy so as to prevent a temptation to immorality such as prostitution, yet likely any sort of sexual activity outside of marriage would be included in the call for monogamy (Rueger 2016, 65). Here the marriage is pictured as a monogamous relationship of one man and one woman, in a harmonious union. Though same-sex relationships were broadly accepted in the culture, they are specifically not pictured here. Rueger observes this is consistent with the teaching of Jesus, who, in Matthew 19:3-5, directed Pharisees to consider marriage in terms of the creation and a male-female relationship (Rueger 2016, 66). Again, Rueger stresses that this set the Christian ethic in contrast to the prevailing Roman ethic. Furthermore, the equality in the relationship of the partners in marriage was striking. There was no idea of one person expressing power. The authority in the sexual relationship was equal (Rueger 2016, 67). Additionally, the relationship was to be one of love rather than power. It was focused on the other, rather than the self. Finally, Rueger points out that, counter to many modern stereotypes of Christians who would try to live an essentially celibate life, the couples are encouraged to engage in sexual relations frequently (Rueger 2016, 68).

Rueger next considers Ephesians 5:22-33. This passage describes a husband’s headship and a wife’s submission, which was not a new idea at all. However, Rueger finds in this passage a striking difference. “Both Roman and Jewish gender roles were defined by law. Here in Ephesians, Paul’s view of submission and headship flows primarily from the Gospel, not the law. St. Paul models the relationship of husband and wife after the relationship of Christ to His Church” (Rueger 2016, 69). The point is, again, a preference of the other to the self, especially the husband preferring the wife. Here Paul quotes the passage in Genesis which we saw Jesus quoting before, with an emphasis on the unity of the married couple (Rueger 2016, 70). Rueger goes on to describe the importance of this physical and spiritual unity. It is essential to marriage as designed by God. It reflects Christ’s redemptive love which purifies and nurtures the Church (Rueger 2016, 71). This is described in terms of a relationship which can be fully experienced only by Christians, though some elements can be applied to others. But the idea of Christ’s saving love is only to be found in Christian marriages (Rueger 2016, 72). Rueger concludes his comments on this passage by observing that the violation of the pattern by couples living together outside of marriage is harmful to the loving commitment implied by the comparison to Christ and His Church.

Rueger next comments on Colossians 3:18-21. This passage, taken out of context, seems to be a number of laws about relationships. “But when the larger context of Colossians is considered, these snippets take on a different character. They become the natural outward expressions of the love of Christ” (Rueger 2016, 73). Colossians pictures Jesus as the mighty God who fills all of creation. Therefore, he is actively involved in all the facets of our lives. In the case of marriage and family relations, “Christ defined the heart and mind of each toward the other” (Rueger 2016, 74). Therefore, the marriage, as well as other family relationships, is redemptive in nature. This morality flies in the face of the world around the Colossians, yet it is done without apology (Rueger 2016, 75). Christianity is a radical departure from conventional morality.

Rueger next examines 1 Peter 3:1 and 7. He observes that Peter’s audience is very broad, yet the teachings are remarkably similar to those of Paul speaking to more specific audiences (Rueger 2016, 75). The subjection of the wife to her husband is not viewed as demeaning. Rather, she has a unique place of influence (Rueger 2016, 76). The husband and wife are both to be recipients of God’s redemption. They have different roles but equal value.

At this point, Rueger shifts his focus from passages speaking to marriage, and considers some which speak particularly to sexual morality and chastity (Rueger 2016, 77). “It should be noticed that Paul does not treat homosexual sins differently than heterosexual sins when it comes to the application of Law and Gospel. Both are addressed side by side as equally contrary to God’s Law and both are spoken of as equally forgivable” (Rueger 2016, 77-78). All sexual sins are sins. They require repentance and can be forgiven equally.

Rueger first considers 1 Corinthians 6:9-11. In this passage, sins define people before God. The passage lists ten sins, which could not be overlooked (Rueger 2016, 78). However, Paul emphasizes that the Corinthians were formerly identified by their sins, but they were changed in their identification through forgiveness. The change is not from the power of the sinner’s repentance or a change in their lives, but from Christ’s forgiveness, redefining them as his people (Rueger 2016, 79). Rueger emphasizes that the sins listed are of a nature to condemn a person. He walks through the list of sexual sins, noting that the first are considered “heterosexual” sins and are placed alongside idolatry (Rueger 2016, 80). The homosexual activity is also condemned, though it seems a conscious decision of Paul to speak more strongly of the hterosexual sin. All are treated together, they are grouped with sins such as theft, elevating the perception of gravity for those, taking away motives, but placing the only acceptable sexual activity in the context of a marriage, and emphasizing the fact that all sins are forgivable (Rueger 2016, 81). Those previously identified by their sin are now identified as in Christ.

Rueger next reviews Romans 1:20-28, a passage that holds his attention for ten pages. In this passage, both male and female homosexual sin is discussed. It is tied to the idea of idolatry, as a sort of worship of the creation as opposed to the Creator (Rueger 2016, 82). Rueger observes that the Roman deities were known for sexual activity which we would consider abusive and deviant (Rueger 2016, 83). Their stories were central to Roman civil life. As a result, Christians normally chose not to participate fully in the broader culture. This, in turn, led to criticisms of Christians (Rueger 2016, 84). In Romans chapter one, then, the apostle Paul builds a case that the true immorality derives from an idolatry which serves the creation rather than the creator. This immorality includes sexual activity but it is not limited to it (Rueger 2016, 85). The focus is not limited to formal temple prostitution. It extends to all the justification of immorality found in all of society (Rueger 2016, 86). Here we also see that, as a result of the people’s idolatrous desires, God gave them over to their own pursuits (Rueger 2016, 87). He did not stop then, because they were not repentant. Rueger is clear that those who repent of sin, any sin, are forgiven. However, it is often very, very hard to turn away from sins, especially sexual sins. Yet they can be forgiven, like any other sin. Rueger notes that Paul’s argument in Romans 1 also states that same-sex relations are “against nature” (Rueger 2016, 89). He readily admits the studies which purport to find homosexuality in animals, but counters that these acts are almost always intended at showing dominance and almost never are exclusive. The animals still copulate to reproduce (Rueger 2016, 90). In this, Rueger also observes that humans, and particularly Christians, approach sex with a different motivation. This is the point of the passage in Romans 1. The natural order points to reproduction. The Christian points also to a relationship bringing honor to God, not merely to reproduction (Rueger 2016, 90-91).

Rueger next examines 1 Timothy 1:8-11. Here, the concept is that God’s law is intended to point out sin to all sorts of people who enter into sin. The practice of any of the sins mentioned is spoken against because they are contrary to God’s will. The sexual ethic expressed in the Bible, then, of one husband with one wife, is described as being for good. People are warned against violating good teaching (Rueger 2016, 92).

Rueger moves on to deal with a number of passages in less detail, showing that the testimony of the New Testament is that sin, including sexual relationships outside the bounds of marriage, is classified together as disobedience to God which calls for repentance and forgiveness to avoid condemnation (Rueger 2016, 93). “The principles of fidelity, monogamy, and chastity and laws for exclusively heterosexual relations are all rules meant to benefit humanity. Individuals and societies suffer when God-given sexual morality is ignored” (Rueger 2016, 95). An examination of the Bible shows that moral stands are taken out of redemptive loving concern for eternal and temporal peace and well being. Careful examination of the biblical texts will find this context.

0 Comments

A Christian Departure from Jewish Morality

4/10/2019

0 Comments

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/10/19

Rueger, Matthew. Sexual Morality in a Christless World. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2016.
Chapter 2, “The Jewish Context” pp. 43-57.

In chapter one Rueger demonstrated that the apostle Paul was not holding to a traditional morality of Rome which, in Rueger’s words, “would have favored bisexual activity, rape of non-Roman citizens, and repression of women” (Rueger 2016, 43). Paul also departed from traditional Jewish ethics. Rueger finds this ethic transmitted primarily in oral traditions which were written down in the 2nd century in a text called the Mishnah (Rueger 2016, 43. This represents several hundred years of oral tradition.

The Christian teaching moved sharply away from the practices of polygamy and use of concubines, which, though not spoken of as generally a good idea, were accepted in society (Rueger 2016, 44). The apostle Paul speaks of the necessity of monogamy. Rueger does emphasize that the Jewish view, though accepting of polygamy, treated wives as respected and trusted people. Though some commentaries on the Mishnah take a negative view of women, this was not at all uniform (Rueger 2016, 45). The later Talmuds, published after 400 as collected commentary on the Mishnah, do not have the positive view of women expressed in the New Testament (Rueger 2016, 47).

As an example of the relatively low status of women in Judaism, Rueger observes that divorce laws gave many protections to men and virtually none to women (Rueger 2016, 47). In contrast, the New Testament rejects almost all divorce (Rueger 2016, 48). Similarly, Rueger sees that legal protections of women in Judaism were largely lacking, though the examples of godly people showed a relatively high level of respect and regard. Women would be expected to bear children, and, if that failed, husbands were encouraged to take additional wives. But history is full of husbands being patient and faithful, even when dealing with infertility. In sharp contrast, in 1 Corinthians 7, the husband and wife specifically have the same rights, though they may have different roles and responsibilities (Rueger 2016, 49).

Within Israel, so as to assure a family had a male heir, the custom of levirite marriage was enforced (Deuteronomy 25:5-10). Rueger finds this affirmed in the Mishnah (Rueger 2016, 50). However, the Christians viewed the people of God differently, not in relation to tribal descent. The need to assure tribal inheritance was not considered important (Rueger 2016, 51).

Jewish law further guarded the requirement of virginity of women before marriage (Rueger 2016, 51). Rueger notes that the same standard was not enforced for men. However, in the New Testament the issue of purity is more closely related to the forgiving work of Christ (Rueger 2016, 52). There is a standard of sexual morality, but it applies to both sexes and is related to faithfulness and monogamy in the marital relationship, in light of God’s faithfulness to his people. Rueger finds John 8:3-11 as a strong example of this principle. When Jesus is confronted with the woman taken in adultery, he acknowledges her sin, directs her to his forgiveness, and instructs her not to enter into sin further. Jesus assumes her condemnation on the cross, and delivers his purity to her (Rueger 2016, 53).

Rueger briefly examines pederasty in the Mishnah, noting that it is spoken against but only bears fines, and penalties which are not as severe as those for the rape of an adult (Rueger 2016, 54). In contrast, the New Testament gives no age of consent, but assumes sexual relations to belong within marriage, in which two people are sufficiently mature to commit to each other for life.

The Old Testament prohibits homosexuality and cult prostitution, which frequently involved people of the same sex (Rueger 2016, 55). The New Testament does not specifically mention civil punishments for homosexual activity, and it groups those relationships with other types of sins. “What this ultimately means is that they are as forgivable as those other sins, and as damning if there is no repentance” (Rueger 2016, 55). Rueger takes this to mean that sexual sins are a matter of moral law which may be punished or not by civil authorities and for which God is the final judge (Rueger 2016, 56). In Christianity, obedience to a moral law is based on the free expression of a life which has been forgiven by God. This is a critical difference in the motivation for a life of holiness, which Rueger will explore in the next chapter.

0 Comments

Christianity as a Radical Moral Culture

4/3/2019

0 Comments

Wednesdays are for Bits and Pieces
4/3/19

Rueger, Matthew. Sexual Morality in a Christless World. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2016.
Chapter 1, “The Roman Context” pp. 11-41.

Rueger sets out in this chapter to develop a context for a Christian view of sexuality. Because Christianity came into being in the first century in a culture dominated by the Romans (especially the Epistles, written mostly to Gentile communities), Rueger thinks it necessary to build an understanding of sexuality as conceived of in first century Rome (Rueger 2016, 11). “This context is essential to grasp because in many regards, Rome’s sexual climate is a model of the utopia for which today’s sexual ‘progressives’ are striving” (Rueger 2016, 12). The context of a conflict between Rome and Christianity is therefore relevant.

While Rueger finds that first century Romans did not think of sexuality in terms of orientation, they did seem to tie it to dominance and power (Rueger 2016, 13). The strong male would be recognized and admired for taking what he wanted, including in physical relations with females or males. Again, this was a matter of honor and domination, not necessarily an affective orientation (Rueger 2016, 14). The custom of pederasty was also accepted by Romans, but in a different pattern than that of the Greeks. Romans practiced it in general with non-citizens and as a means of showing mastery, rather than a way of teaching youth to accept leadership (Rueger 2016, 15). The Roman youth was expected to resist so as to avoid being thought weak. But the resistance was to be merely a show (Rueger 2016, 16).

Rueger’s conclusion is that Christianity was found to be significantly different from the culture at large. It would have seemed unnatural to a Roman, just as a Christian view of sexuality seems unnatural in our time (Rueger 2016, 17).

The Roman gymnasium may have been important in the practice of pederasty. While Romans generally considered the pampering of the bodies to lead to the “softness” which brought the defeat of Greece, they retained the practices and the custom of putting boys on display (Rueger 2016, 19). Slaves were generally not allowed entry to the gymnasium, a practice which Rueger interprets as a means of preventing Roman boys from being humiliated by non-citizens. Again, Rueger says the relationship of pederasty was central to the Roman ethic as a sign of manly virtue. The Christian ethic was treated with hostility by the Romans (Rueger 2016, 20).

Rueger goes on to speak of a Roman view of womanhood. While Roman women had a higher status in society than Greek women, “the overall opinion of Roman men toward women was abysmal by modern standards” (Rueger 2016, 21). Women were married young to maximize their childbearing years and overcome the very high child mortality rate. Carrying on the family line was important, but at the same time, families would want to avoid inheritances being split up. If the woman did not produce the right number and sex of children, divorce was common (Rueger 2016, 22). Additionally, Rueger observes, women were seen as the descendants of Pandora, who brought all evil into the world. While there is a passing similarity between Pandora and the biblical narrative of Eve, the biblical account predates the Greek myth and portrays the woman as a helper, not a hindrance. The view of woman is substantially different in the two cultures (Rueger 2016, 23). In Roman culture, futhermore, women were penalized for marital infidelity but men were not. The culture didn’t value an exclusive relationship, as the biblical model does (Rueger 2016, 24).

Rueger finds that the Roman culture of promiscuity is paralleled in the United States today, where it is considered rare and odd for people to refrain from sexual activity until married (Rueger 2016, 25). Monogamy is also less common than a biblical model would require. Rueger does suggest that in Rome the promiscuity was more open than in American culture (Rueger 2016, 26).

The Roman culture of promiscuity created a cycle in which leaders and followers increased in their promiscuity as they emulated one another (Rueger 2016, 26). Rueger relates some of the habits of the Caesars as reported by Suetonius. All would be considered predatory and deviant by our society. In those years that Christianity was first growing, the contrast was enormous. This became increasingly apparent through the time of Nero, when official conflicts between Rome and the Jews or Christians were first recorded (Rueger 2016, 32).

Rueger observes that the early Christians considered matters of sexuality important enough to face rejection and even death. He sees this boldness as important in assertions that Christianity is right and that confrontation may be necessary (Rueger 2016, 33). Our culture and government may often react with hostility, but the Christian is called to loving care and restoration of a world which is broken (Rueger 2016, 35).

Roman prostitution was common and tied to worship of various deities. Rueger sees this as one way that sex is separated from love (Rueger 2016, 36). Marriage was also sometimes separated from procreation with same-sex marriage, which was practiced by Nero, along with some other Roman leaders (Rueger 2016, 37). While that was not the norm, it was not received with the hostility faced by Christianity. Rome took pride in its morality, but the moral pattern was much different from a biblical morality (Rueger 2016, 38). The Vestal Virgins serve as an illustration. Their chastity was seen as exemplary, but they were essentially substitutes for the chastity which was missing in society (Rueger 2016, 39).

Rueger concludes that Christian views of sexuality, monogamy, and fidelity are the actual progressive departure from the norms of society, and that they are uniquely geared toward restoration and healing of relationships. Our modern society is regressing toward the Roman culture of the past. Christians today do well to learn from those in the first century who stood boldly against their culture (Rueger 2016, 41).

0 Comments

Natural Marriage as a Definable Social Good

Hearing Objections Does Not Mean Accepting Their Premises

Compassion for Sin Seeks Repentance, Forgiveness, and Restoration

A New Testament View of Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness, Regardless of the Sin

A Christian Departure from Jewish Morality

Christianity as a Radical Moral Culture

Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

About Throwing Inkwells

Blog Feeds

Categories

Natural Marriage as a Definable Social Good

Hearing Objections Does Not Mean Accepting Their Premises

Compassion for Sin Seeks Repentance, Forgiveness, and Restoration

A New Testament View of Sin, Repentance, and Forgiveness, Regardless of the Sin

A Christian Departure from Jewish Morality

Christianity as a Radical Moral Culture

​Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!

About Throwing Inkwells

Blog Feeds

Categories

Help Fuel This Ministry by Clicking Here!