Reply to Tyler

Tyler, I'm going to address your comment point by point, then give you some general feedback/opinion about what you said. Feel free to wait until after finals to read through and respond to this comment. I don’t want (a) to interfere with your studying or (b) you to read this too quickly without thinking carefully about what I’m saying.

Point by point:

The phrase "not acceptable for the Christian," may sound like legalism, but it's not intended to be. It's intended to be elevated language that is synonymous with "bad behavior for Christians to engage in" or more simply: wrong.

What makes something wrong for Christians but not non-Christians? What’s the difference? Well, if you’re thinking in a dichotomy of right vs wrong, nothing. Something that’s wrong, is wrong for both Christians and non Christians. The difference however is between wrong and expected, and wrong and unexpected.

The fact that the Christian has received the grace and forgiveness for sins should compel them to a higher standard. Both their love for the one who forgives and the fact that they have been freed from the bondage of sin is the reason that Christians have less slack in the sinning department. Non-Christians don't know any better. Of course they're going to act like sinners. But Christians have been declared righteous and should respond to the gift given to them by performing the good works that have been prepared for them beforehand (Eph 2:10).

It's not legalism or wrong to hold Christians to a higher moral standard than non Christians. The Apostle Paul clearly does just that in 1 Cor 5 when he tells the church not even to eat with a brother (one who calls himself a Christian) if he is living in a habitually, unrepentant, sinful lifestyle. (5:11-3) Verses 12 and 13 are the kicker. He says, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the Church? But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from among yourselves." In this passage, he is chastising the Corinthian church for accepting and applauding a man who is sleeping with his stepmother. He's telling them that Christians are SUPPOSED to judge other Christians, and hold them to a higher moral standard, because they know the love of God, and should no better than to continue sinning that grace may abound. Non Christians just need to hear that God loves them, Christians need to act on the love they’ve already heard about. That’s the difference.

You say you're not a huge fan of Christian morality because it reduces life to good and bad behavior and being a better Christian doesn't interest you because it stifles your ability to give and receive love. I'd say that either you're being a better Christian wrong, or you're loving wrong. The two complement each other. What is your definition of love? I consider love to be “a commitment of the will to the true good of another, a commitment that results in actions.” (J. Budziszewski came up with the first part of that.) But the actions are just as important. God isn't just interested in right intent, but in right conduct as well. Both are important and reflect each other and both can disproportionately cause problems for the Christian. Too much focus on right conduct and you get legalism... too much focus on right intent and you get licentiousness. The Christian must walk the line between the two. As I stated in the preface to this paper (in a comment on Facebook), this paper is to outline the bible's view of sex as clearly as possible. It's not taking the practicalities of how to live out that view into account at all. I think that's why it sounded like legalism to you, but the purpose of this paper was to outline what the Bible actually teaches about proper sex and it's possible perversions.

            I think it might have sounded like legalism to you because it may have sounded “loveless.” I use the term loveless in a loose sense to mean, “insensitive to the struggles that Christians face with sexual sin.” Maybe it sounded like I was saying that God doesn’t love you if you don’t follow these rules, or you’re not really a Christian if you’re single and can’t control your sex drive. That was not my point at all. My point was simply to make clear what the standard is. I consider it very loving to tell my fellow Christians what God’s word actually says instead of giving them easy platitudes. I’m not doing them any favors if I teach that God doesn’t care about sin. That’s simply not true. He cares so much that he died over it.

You say that the more you focus on treating your brother right, the more you focus on yourself, and instead, you should focus on loving your brother then you have a better chance of treating him right. I agree entirely with your second statement. Loving your brother helps you to produce right action toward your brother. I disagree with your first statement, because (as you almost stated) treating your brother rightly IS loving your brother. How else do you show love to him than to treat him right? One is a description of the other. They are codependent entities, not independent ideas. (p.s. I like the clever way you put your final point in that paragraph about the question, “How are you,”… but I disagree with your argument. Being interested in being a morally good Christian does not necessarily make you care more about asking the question than their answer… at least, not if you’re being a morally good Christian correctly.   <- read that again. It’s a confusing sentence, but I can’t make it any clearer.)

Now for the general feedback…

I think the misconception you have in reading this paper (and a lot of my most recent posts) is that you assume the source, or starting point, of all of these doctrines, rules, and moral laws is the rules and laws themselves. It’s not. The starting point for all of these rules, and moral behavior itself, is God. Many of the most recent posts have been written toward Christians in an attempt to counteract the universalistic, “Love Wins,” licentious mentality that seems to dominate the current Christian culture. I take what Paul said to the Corinthian church (and many of the other churches) seriously. Something you’ve heard me say before, and I’m sure I’ll say again, is that “Christianity doesn’t stop at conversion… it starts there.” The love that Christ showed us is the starting point of all behavior for a Christian. We are supposed to be his light to the world, his hands and feet. He is the head; we are the body.

Based on what you’re saying, it sounds like you’re one step away from saying that God doesn’t care what we do as Christians because He loves us. I don’t think you’re quite there yet, but that’s where your theology is headed. It’s totally the opposite of that. God DOES care what we do BECAUSE He loves us. We should honor that love by aligning our will with his and acting rightly… not because his love is contingent on those actions, but because his love drives those actions.

I think you also are getting a bit narrow minded when you talk about, “being a better Christian doesn’t interest you,” and, “not [being] a huge fan of Christian morality.” I think you’re thinking about your own personal sins that you’ve struggled with and lost battles with and not looking at the bigger picture of “Christian Morality.”

All Christians need to be proponents of Christian morality (and are whether they realize it or not.) The problem is actually one of worldliness. Most Christians are too worldly in their thinking on Christian morality. Where Christian morality lines up with the world, most free-thinking Christians have no problem agreeing with Christian morality. Everyone agrees that raping a little boy to death is morally reprehensible. But where Christian morality differs from the world’s morality, (say with remarrying after divorce, homosexuality, or looking at pornography) suddenly Christians are considered legalistic by saying that Christians should follow the Christian moral law and not the world’s.

I am just as passionate about the sinfulness of raping a child to death as the sinfulness of homosexuality, and gluttony and lust, but according to some Christians I’m being legalistic by affirming the latters, but not the former. I would just say I’m affirming “Christian Morality.”

Christian Morality, where it is clearly taught in the bible, needs to be held in high regard by all Christians, because without a code, or a law, or a standard, then there is no difference between the Christian morality and the worldly morality.

I don’t think that’s what you had in mind when you wrote those comments, but I also don’t think you quite understand the seriousness of what you said. If Christians were to do what you seem to suggest and disregard “being a better Christian,” then Christianity would not exist. It is only by representing God’s moral character through our own actions that we are any different from the world. Remember, being a better Christian isn’t the starting point. The love of God is the starting point of morality, but both “Christian love” and “Christian morality” are descriptions of the character of God. You can’t truly have either one by itself. If you think you have love and Christian morality isn’t there, you don’t really have love. If you think you have Christian morality and love isn’t there, you don’t really have Christian morality.

I’m rambling now. I love you too Tyler. I think you may be right on with Tolkien and Lewis… but…. and I’m going to sound condescending even though I don’t mean to… I don’t think you’re as sure of your worldview as you think you are. That’s college. You’re going to change your view on everything you believe about 600,000 times while you figure stuff out. That’s just part of being in college, and of life. I’m still looking at things I wrote a year later going, “really? I said that? How could I have been so careless?”  

Anyway. I hope you think through what I’m saying carefully. I wouldn’t take the time to write a three page response to just anyone… I love you tons man. See you soon! And I can’t wait to hear what you’ve been thinking about and learning at Baylor when we can do it in person. J