Considering the PCA Report on Human Sexuality: Apologetics

Having dealt with the Twelve Statements, Sin & Temptation, and Language, it is time to turn our attention to the last major task of the Ad Interim Committee on Human Sexuality. This is our apologetic stance.

What follows here is not written directly to a skeptic. It is an essay addressed to believers that lays out the issues we will have to address and the questions to which we will have to provide compelling answers.

In my opinion, this apologetic work needs to also be done with the younger generation of Christians in our churches. We have, in many ways, failed to build the proper foundation for understanding biblical sexuality in many of our churches. We see this, for instance, in the recent post of a young woman in a PCA church who expressed her disagreement with biblical sexuality which stated that our view toward homosexuality was wrong. We need to provide compelling reasons to our people too, rather than simply say “The Bible says…”. We need to explain the biblical context of what it says.

The Contemporary Narrative of Sexuality

The Report begins with the common view of sexuality in our culture. They offer the following highlights:

1. The Oppression of the past, including the view that sex outside of marriage was about controlling the sexual activity of women.
2. The need for authentic expression of our internal desires as a human right necessary to human flourishing
3. The fight to love whom we want to love against the oppressive culture exhibited, in their mind, by the Church.
4. The hard-won rights of today to engage in same-sex relationships, including marriage. This is viewed as progress of which the Church has stood in the way.
5. The continual danger to this “healthy culture of sexual freedom.” There is a fear of “turning back the clock”.

The Report notes that this contemporary narrative rests on a number of erroneous presuppositions. Apologetics should address these presuppositions, and provide a counter-narrative rooted in the history of redemption.

Three Challenges for Christians Today

The Report begins with three challenges we must address to be effective in our counter-narrative.

The first is challenging modern identity narrative, in particularly unseen, deep background beliefs about “identity and freedom/power.” We need to challenge the idea or presupposition that “sexuality is crucial for the expression of identity.” Having been separated from the imago dei, our sexuality becomes not a way to honor God but to pursue “self-realization.” This flows out of the notion of “expressive individualism” so prevalent in our culture today. This is the idea “that deep within are feelings and desires that must be discovered an unlocked and expressed to become a true self.” This means that one should experiment to make sure you don’t have undiscovered desires, among other things. But you clearly can’t be true to yourself unless you satisfy your many desire that flow out of your corruption. The Report doesn’t connect our cultures erroneous belief in the innate goodness of humanity here, but this does flow out of that additional presupposition. No longer is one’s identity rooted in God’s image, our redemption and our various duties and commitments. The culture is more a reflection of Wild at Heart than Richard Phillip’s The Masculine Mandate. This explains why I got so much push back from someone when I had our men’s ministry go through the latter instead of the former. This person thought we discovered who we are in isolation from our communities and commitments instead of in them.

An identity based on feelings is rather fragile since our feelings can change over time. Commitments, particularly the covenant of marriage, are intended to protect us (and those to whom we make these commitments) from our fleeting feelings and desires. The pursuit of “authenticity” at the expense of your spouse and children is profoundly wicked, but our culture calls this evil “good”.

Morality, in this view, becomes internally generated. No one can objectively tell you what is wrong, though this is a self-defeating argument since such people usually condemn the actions and attitude of other with whom they disagree. It is a “soft relativism” but a relativism all the same.

Additionally there is the question of freedom/power. On top of the foundation laid by this “expressive individualism” is the “post-modern view of freedom and power.” This means that power is exercised in a culture by “dominant discourses” produced by those in power- in this case, the Church. Cultural norms are not only culturally relative but culturally constructed by the elites. Oddly, it was the elites who forces many of the cultural changes that are opposed to biblical sexuality upon us. The “oppressed” seek to destabilize the dominant discourses. The example they provide is deconstructing the idea of gender as binary.

This, The Report notes, produces a “self-contradictory ‘hard relativism’.” If morality is a social construct, how can the dominant moral view be wrong? How can it be unjust? As I interacted with one person holding to this “internally generated morality” they noted that differing norms between cultures simply resort in war, the ultimate exercise of power. But how can that ever be just, unless there is a transcendent morality? And how can there be a transcendent morality (say, racism is wrong) if there is no God?

The Report also notes that these are at odds with one another. The concept of identity they hold to is rooted in Freud and is individualist. The view of power is Marxist and Nietzschean, and therefore communal.

“The meaning of life is to determine who you are and to throw off the shackles of an oppressive society that refuses to accept and include you.”

One reason we struggle to make a plausible case for biblical sexuality, it notes, is that we’ve adapted too much to our culture, particularly with regard to identity and freedom (insert here my comment about Wild at Heart and note how it took the Church by storm). The methods of ministry in many churches has begun to reflect the youth and parachurch models focused on emotions, which makes sense when you see they often hold up Charles Finney and the Second Great Awakening as models. We’ve been focusing on self-esteem rather than biblical theology and doctrine. There is moralistic therapeutic deism in too many churches in our country.

“And so no Christian sexuality apologetic can have any real impact unless it spends time and effort to reveal the deeply problematic nature of these background beliefs.”

The second challenge is ignorance of the history of sexual revolutions. Here the Report is dependent on Kyle Harper’s From Shame to Sin. I would recommend Sexual Morality in a Christless World by Matthew Rueger which is written on a more popular level.

The false narrative is that the Roman empire was filled with sexual diversity but that Christianity imposed a much more restrictive sexual morality on it. This narrative ignores the roles of power and status undergirding the Roman (and Greek) sexual “freedom”.

“In the Greco-Roman world it was understood that while the respectable women had to be virgins at marriage and could have sex with no one but their spouses- husbands- all males- were expected to have sex with servants and slaves, prostitutes, poor women, and boys. Men could essentially force themselves on anyone below them in the social order; they could have sex with anyone bu the wife of another man of status.”

It was, in fact, an oppressive sexual ethic where social dominance was exhibited through sexuality. For men, it was generally a permissive sexual ethic as long as you didn’t pursue sex with someone above you socially, unless you took the passive or feminine position.

One reason the Church grew was that it actually protected people from sexual predators and oppression. Therefore the sexual ethic of the Church was more humane and positive. It reintroduced consent and faithfulness to one’s spouse.

“The rightness or wrongness of sexual acts depended on whether or not they kept persons in a right relationship with the polis, the social order and hierarchy.”

We see reflections of this in politics today. Powerful men can have whomever they want, and exert authority in the process either explicitly or implicitly. This is part of what the MeToo movement exposed. We can also see it in the way slave owners treated slaves prior to emancipation. For those who claimed to be Christians it was a corruption, a deviation, from the biblical sexual ethic rather than an expression of it.

“Christianity changed the “foundational logic” of sex.” Sex was once again rooted in “God’s created and redemptive order.” We discover that “Christians insisted that the rightness or wrongness of sexual acts be determined not by social status and power but by covenantal love and gender difference.” Such an ethic guards the vulnerable from sexual exploitation. Men had to rightly give up their independence and commit their whole lives to their spouse. Instead of being slaves to appetites, we were freed to enjoy sex in a way that reflects the created order (Gen. 2) mirrors Christ’s exclusive self-giving to the Church in redemption.

The sexual revolution that we are currently experiencing affirms sex as good, and generally affirms consent. These are idea borrowed from Christianity. But in other ways, this sexual revolution is also turning back the clock with a return to Rome’s logic. Sex is detached from commitment, life-long commitment, as well as gender differentiation. It has become about self-fulfillment (with greater opportunities that Rome) instead of self-giving. Instead of only one person being used, but use each other in the quest for self-fulfillment or self-actualization. It is “depersonalizing and objectifying.”

The third challenge is to root our teaching in all our theology rather than simply declaring the boundaries. While it can be, an should be, expressed simply, we have work to do in explaining why it is so. We need to speak of creation and redemption. It is to this that the Report then moves.

Grounding the Purposes of Sex in Biblical Theology

The purposes of sex in biblical theology they express center around the idea of union with Christ. I’m not sure why they didn’t return to the pattern of redemptive history here, emphasizing the Creation Mandates (image as equality, fruitfulness to fill the earth requiring different genders, common mission to subdue and rule to unite them in a purpose greater than their own relationship), as well as redemptive realities. They make mention of creation mandates under the rubric of redemptive realities rather than a creation, curse, cross, consummation pattern, if that makes sense.

1. “As union with Christ is a relationship of exclusive, covenantal, self-giving love, so sexual intimacy is only to be experienced within the covenant of marriage.” We have no fellowship with God apart from entering the covenant of grace by faith. He only has such a relationship with the Church. This covenant is exclusive and permanent (apostasy is a most grievous sin). Sexual intimacy is meant to be a picture of this fellowship between Christ and the Church: exclusive, covenantal, self-giving. This is quite different from our culture’s consumerist view of relationships, including sexual relationships. The focus in those relationship is our needs, what we get out of it. As we consider the covenant of grace we discover such relationships are about mutual self-giving so we seek to put the other person’s needs at least on par with our own. It is giving of the whole self, not part of the self, as in our culture. This is what marriage entails, the giving of the whole person to their spouse. Sex is not separate from the giving and receiving the rest of the person. Sex is no longer a play thing, simply a good way to spend some time, but a way to create and continue the deepest human relationship we are intended to enjoy.
2. “As union with Christ is a relationship between deeply different beings (God and humanity), so sexual intimacy is only to be experienced in a union across the deep difference of gender.” The Report does bring us to Genesis 2:24 and Ephesians 5:31-32 as its interpretation. Marriage is a sign pointing to the union of Christ and the Church. In marriage two equal but different genders are united in “a loving union.” We see a great gulf of sin emerging in Genesis 3, but this alienation is bridged by Christ’s giving Himself for the Church, and on the basis of forgiveness spouses can live in harmony. “Homosexuality does not honor the need for this rich diversity of perspective and gendered humanity in sexual relationships.” Even more, “(i)n one of the great ironies of late modern times, in which we celebrate diversity in so many cultural sectors, we have devalued the ultimate unity-in-diversity- inter-gendered marriage.” Since marriage is a microcosm of society, the gender differences should necessarily be present. And, Moses’ parenthetical comment concerning Adam and Eve’s union is prescriptive, not simply descriptive (especially since neither had parents to leave).
3. “As union with Christ brings new life into the world, so God has bestowed only on male-female marriage both the ability to create new human life and the best resources to nourish life.” The Report does refer us to Genesis 1 and the mandate to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. It takes a man and a woman to do this. This is about God’s purpose and plan, not His providence by which some (due to Adam’s sin and our bodily corruption) married couples are unable to have children. Two people of the same sex are necessarily unable to produce children. Any children they may raise come for a different set of parents. Children are intended to be raised by parents of both genders engaged in this life-long exclusive relationship. They are to see and experience the strengths and weaknesses of both genders, and how sin is addressed through forgiveness.

“Summary. To recap: sex is (A) for self-giving, which is only complete if there is a life-long covenant, (B) for the bridging of difference across the barrier between male and female, and, (C) for the creation and nurture of life. These theological purposes explain the ethic- why sexual intimacy is only to be experienced within marriage between a man and a woman.”

Toward A Christian Sexual Apologetic

Having developed the purposes of sex using Biblical theology, the Report connects them with the “cultural narratives, so as to both critique them and yet build on them.” The Report develops this apologetic as follows:

1. Super-Consensual. Sex is not about temporary consent (an evening, or until we both move on) but intended for a “permanent, whole-life consent to each other through marriage.” Each belongs to the other, and there should be self giving in marriage. This should NOT be taken to mean that a spouse can never say “not tonight, please” or that one spouse can force themselves upon the other. There is a general consent with permission to say “not now” based on circumstances. This reflects our permanent, exclusive covenant with God.
2. Gender diverse. God distributes “unique abilities, perspectives, and other gifts across the two genders.” This is not to say Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus but that the ranges for various attributes differs between the genders. (Sadly, instead of allowing girls to be “tom boys” like we used to, our culture now pushes them to actually be boys. And more sensitive boys are now pushed to be girls. So much for diversity within the genders.) “We believe a marriage between persons of the same gender fails to practice the gender diversity that we wish to see in other areas of life.” Meaning, society wants gender diversity in the workplace, in leadership and more, but for some reason wants to see less gender diversity in marriage through the promotion of same-sex marriage. Society seeks diversity in the types of “marriages” not the actual marriages.
3. Capable of life. God’s will is that sexual union in marriage will produce life. I do wish some comments would be made about providence and wisdom (some people may have genetic disorders they don’t wish to pass on to children) reflecting the pastoral wisdom found in other portions of this Report. But the general principle remains: marriage couples should not permanently prevent themselves from having children without just cause. “No only is this relationship the one that produces new life, it also then exposes growing children to the full range of our gendered humanity through the presence of both a mother and a father.”

The Christian Counter-Narrative of Sexuality

1. “The brutality of sex in the old world.” There were no glory days of sexuality during the Roman empire, unless you were among the highest in the social strata. It placed the will and pleasure of men over women, owners over slaves, rich over poor. Wives did not experiences this sexual freedom, but men could have sex with many partners. There was brutal sexual exploitation of women and children.
2. “A new personal identity.” Christianity proclaimed the grace of God and restoration of fellowship with God through the work of Jesus Christ for sinners. It was a message of salvation by grace, not good works. This gospel “had a social-levelling effect.” All who believed were equal at the foot of the cross. Your social status did not determine your standing with God.
3. “A new social ethic.” Performance was not the basis for self-regard. All Christians had equal status as sons of God, and equal access to the Father by the Spirit who baptized them all into Christ. We were “equally sinners in need of grace, and equally loved, justified, and adopted as God’s beloved children.” The effects of this was “the first multi-ethnic religious community, which brought wealthy and poor together in unprecedented ways.” Class and status gave way to love.
4. “A new vision for sexuality.” The key ethical change was with regard to sex. Instead of an exercise of power, it became an exercise in love. Sex was shaped by self-giving and gender diversity reflective of our covenantal union with Christ.
5. “The failures of western society.” In western society, laws reflecting biblical sexual standards were divorced from the gospel and creation. Negative views of sex did grow, and sex was seen as shameful in many communities. “When Christian sexual mores are held by a largely nominal Christian populace- without a keen sense of being sinners saved by sheer grace- these mores were more often than not enforced harshly, so that pregnant teenage girls or homosexual youths were treated with cruelty.” We’ve seen a profound lack of mercy shown to sexual sinners because we’ve forgotten we are all sinners. Too many speak as though sexual sinners can’t really be Christians. We have also seen a Roman use of power by cultural elites to coerce sex from women, and children.
6. “The modern sexual revolution.” In many ways the current sexual revolution is a produce of the failures of western society. This is seen in the MeToo movement, the push for consent, critiques of the “purity culture” which shamed sex and villainized women as the “foul temptress” while failing to teach young men self-control. While focusing on consent, this consent have been disconnected from commitment, life-long covenantal commitment. “Sex becomes transactional, a consumer good in which two parties exchange favors only as long as they are getting their needs met.” This means that both parties often feel used. People like musician John Mayer admit that pornography is easier than dealing with a messing relationship in which you feel used. Others abandon marriage, and the prospect of children. Others seek polyamorous relationships to somehow get all their needs met since one person can’t do that. “These trends are especially devastating to the poorest communities and so, arguably, the modern sex ethic is hardest on those with the least power and societal protections.” Sound familiar? It should, because this is the awful carnage of Rome’s sexual ethic. Put another way, the modern sexual revolution is contrary to human flourishing. Instead it spreads misery and we are reaping a bitter harvest of societal dysfunction, distress and disunity.
7. “The Christian sexual counter-culture.” We believe that discussions of sex should be taking place in the context of God’s Story, not simply our stories. Our greater long-term satisfaction and joy is found living in sync with God’s created order. It is found in becoming fully human, as revealed in being like Christ. It is not found in the sad counterfeit of self-actualization and its evil twin authenticity. But we do have contrary impulses due to the original corruption that remains. We still want the wrong things sexually: whether heterosexual, homosexual or omnisexual. As I noted in the margins of one of my books on post-modernism years ago: we all have a sexual agenda. As a result, we need healthy boundaries. “Christianity says: don’t let tribe or culture control you and vie you your valuation. Let God’s Word give you the moral grid to understand your heart.” That’s because your heart is not “all good”, but subject to corruption.

Don’t let any minor criticisms I’ve offered deceive you. I believe this is a very helpful portion of the report. In other portions you can’t tell which committee members were influential, but this section has Tim Keller’s handwriting all over it. That is not a bad thing when you are talking about communicating biblical truth to a skeptical culture in a winsome way instead of trying to defend the Reformed fortress.

Too often we are quite off-putting in how we defend biblical sexuality. Defend it we should. But our goal should be communicating a grander more alluring picture of sexuality reflective of God great Story. Our goal should reflect that Story in the redemption, not the condemnation, of sexual sinners. They know we see their sexual license as sin, but the don’t know we (should) understand them as forgivable. They sense a scarlet letter that can never be removed and which forces them to the outskirts of society like Hester Prynne.

The Church, including the PCA, has a long way to go in being able to consistently communicate the biblical sexual ethic in an honest, grace-filled, inviting and God-honoring way. This, I think, is a good step in the right direction.

“We believe that this link between God’s love and sexuality, that is lived out through the Biblical model of marriage, is the best way for human beings to live and thrive.”