Book Brief: Reforming Marriage

Reforming Marriage: Gospel Living for Couples by Douglas Wilson
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Pretty good.


View all my reviews

Answering Vines

Kevin DeYoung wrote “40 Questions for Christians now Waiving Rainbow Flags,” and they are very insightful. In response, Matthew Vines wrote his own set of 40 questions for conservative Christians who are still stubbornly refusing to give in on this issue. I thought it would be useful to answer some of Vines’s questions. I’m not going to answer all of them; just the ones that were of particular interest to me. And sometimes my answers will effectively cover a number of different questions. This will likely be a two-part series. Here goes.

“Do you accept that sexual orientation is not a choice?”

I don’t care for the word orientation. But I accept that same-sex attraction is not always a choice, and I’m willing to assume, in any particular instance, that it’s indeed not a choice.

“Do you accept that sexual orientation is highly resistant to attempts to change it?”

Sure, just as resistant as any sinful inclination of the heart is. I myself have sinful inclinations that are highly resistant to change.

“How many meaningful relationships with lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) people do you have?”

Practically none. But before I say more about that, first I want to know why Vines left polyamorous individuals out of his list. Why doesn’t he care how many “meaningful” relationships I have with people who are involved in loving romantic relationships with multiple individuals? Or people who identify as neither male nor female, but something altogether different? Why is he excluding those people?

Probably the most basic reason for why I have practically no “meaningful” relationships of this sort is simply because homosexuals are rare. They’re hard to find, especially in a largely conservative place like where I live. This isn’t the only reason, or the most important one, but it’s at least one. And the few homosexuals who do live around here probably aren’t interested in having a “meaningful” relationship with me, which brings me to the next point.

I take it that Vines is assuming that if I don’t have “meaningful” relationships with LGBT individuals, then that can only be my fault. But why should that be the case? Why should the blame rest solely on me? Honestly, I don’t think any group or individual in particular is to blame here. “Meaningful” relationships between homosexuals and Bible thumpers are rare not because of the people involved, but because of the nature of the issue. It’s simply volatile. And it involves things that are highly important and cherished on both sides.

But of course, all of this really turns on what Vines intends by the word “meaningful.” I wouldn’t say that I have “meaningful” relationships (whatever that means) with homosexual individuals, but I would say that I’ve had a number of cordial relationships with them. I can think of homosexual individuals with whom I’ve cordially interacted over the years. I’ve had friendly conversations with them, I’ve joked with them, I’ve smiled and said hello to them, etc.

Now, I was never close enough with these people to talk about their sexual lifestyle; and honestly, if we ever had talked about such things, then whatever “friendship” might have been in place would have probably ended, or at least changed drastically. But why should we expect anything else? Standing on what the Bible says will often mean that certain “meaningful” relationships will become practically impossible.

Think about it. As a conservative Christian, my view says that a particular aspect of the homosexual’s life – one that’s extremely important to him, that he embraces, that he fights for in the cultural realm, that he views as essential to who he is as a person – is actually something that God abominates. And I can understand why that would be hard to abide. It’s hard to be friends with somebody who thinks that something important and dear to you is actually wicked. By contrast, it’s easy to have “meaningful” relationships with LGBT people when you don’t believe what the Bible says about homosexuality, or when you’re creatively vague about it. Anybody can do that. That’s nothing impressive.

In all honesty, this kind of question is a cheap ploy. I would never bother asking LGBT people how many “meaningful” relationships they have with Bible-believing conservative Christians who oppose homosexuality. Because in all likelihood, the answer will be, “Practically none.” And in a way, that’s okay. It’s certainly not a shocker. I wouldn’t fault them for that. It’s to be expected. And Vines is simply naive if he thinks otherwise.

On another level, I assume that behind Vines’s question is the idea that we really don’t have any right to say that homosexuality is immoral unless we know homosexuals personally. But that’s obviously absurd. I don’t have to be friends with any racists to know that racism is wrong. I don’t have to be friends with any adulterers or sexually promiscuous people to know that their actions are wrong. And I don’t have to be friends with any homosexuals to know that homosexual practice is wrong.

But that said, I’m always perfectly willing to extend my friendship to homosexuals. I’m just a tad skeptical about how “close” such friendships can realistically be.

“Do you accept that heterosexual marriage is not a realistic option for most gay people?”

For starters, I don’t think that there is any other kind of marriage than the heterosexual kind. But to answer the question: Sure. I can accept that gay people don’t want to get married to someone of the opposite sex. Of course they don’t. They’re homosexual.

“Do you accept that lifelong celibacy is the only valid option for most gay people if all same-sex relationships are sinful?”

Well, it’s not the only option. I believe that God can and does change hearts. He can change a person’s sexual desires. That isn’t to say he always will, but it’s misleading to say that celibacy is the only valid option. That assumes out of the gate that God won’t transform their desires.

“What is your answer for gay Christians who struggled for years to live out a celibacy mandate but were driven to suicidal despair in the process?”

That’s certainly a sad and severe struggle, but it seems to me that in those cases, the problems go much deeper than being sexually unfulfilled. I can’t imagine why refraining from sex would make someone suicidal. I’m not married, but I do desire to be. Yet, if for whatever reason, I had to spend the rest of my life single, I don’t see why that would ever make me want to commit suicide. So basically, my “answer” to such people would probably have little to do with their sexuality, or would at least involve trying to help them see the folly of committing suicide because of unfulfilled sexual desires.

But to turn the tables with a counter question: What is Vines’s answer for “gay Christians” who have not struggled with suicidal despair over celibacy, and have served fruitfully in conservative circles while affirming that homosexual practice is indeed contrary to God’s will?

“Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support same-sex marriage in the church?”

I’m not willing to say definitively that someone is unregenerate because he supports same-sex marriage (there are different reasons one might support it), but they certainly might be unregenerate, and there’s definitely cause to wonder. I don’t believe that God is in any sense pleased with what they’re doing, and I also think I’m justified in choosing not to associate with such people. There are some people who may in fact be “brothers,” and yet we ought not associate with them (2 Thess. 3:14–15).

“Do you believe that it is possible to be a Christian and support slavery?”

And so begins a series of questions that presents slavery as a parallel to traditional views of homosexuality. A general comment that would apply to all of these questions is that, historically speaking, slavery doesn’t mean just one thing. There are different kinds. What went by the name “slavery” in the first century was not the kind of thing that Americans typically think of.

Also, what constitutes “supporting” slavery? If you tolerate something, does that mean you support it? Was Peter supporting slavery when he told servants to obey their masters with all respect? Was Paul “supporting” slavery when he told masters how they ought to treat their servants, and didn’t say anything about emancipation? Was Paul “supporting” slavery when he gently asked Philemon to free Onesimus while giving every indication that he viewed Philemon as a faithful brother?

But let’s assume that we’re talking about 19th-century American race-based slavery. In that case, I think that the answer I gave to the previous question would basically apply here as well: Just change the words “same-sex marriage” to “slavery.”

“Do you think supporting same-sex marriage is a more serious problem than supporting slavery?”

Well, both are serious problems, and the question is actually not an easy one to answer. Because in all honesty, I think that same-sex marriage is just a first step toward the complete abolition of marriage altogether, as it’s very hard to see where the brakes are on this whole “marriage equality” thing. To me, it makes a whole lot more sense (carnal sense, that is) to do away with marriage completely than it does to institute same-sex marriage.

As things stand right this moment, I think that slavery would be a more serious problem. But if a society gets to the point where it no longer honors marriage (which is where I think same-sex marriage has us headed fast), then it’s in big trouble; even more-so than the society that upholds slavery.

“Do you know of any Christian writers before the 20th century who acknowledged that gay people must be celibate for life due to the church’s rejection of same-sex relationships? If not, might it be fair to say that mandating celibacy for gay Christians is not a traditional position?”

These questions seem manifestly absurd to me. Does Vines honestly think that any significant number of Christians throughout history might have believed that it was morally acceptable for gay people to practice their homosexuality? This can’t be taken seriously.

But what’s interesting here is that Vines has now changed his tact. The whole point of his paralleling of homosexuality with slavery was to say, “Rejecting homosexual practice is traditional, but that shouldn’t concern us because slavery was traditional too.” But now he’s arguing that the rejection of homosexual practice is not the traditional Christian view.

Answering a Fool

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes. (Pro. 26:4–5)

These two proverbs are memorable for the fact that, on a cursory reading, they seem flatly contradictory. One verse tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, while the very next verse tells us to do what we were just told not to do. But were I an unbelieving skeptic diligently putting together one of those long lists of alleged Bible contradictions, I imagine I would probably leave these verses alone. They’d seem too easy – uncomfortably so. The apparent discrepancy is surely intentional on the part of the author. He knows what he’s doing.

But just how do we explain the proverbs? What are they getting at? One explanation that I’ve heard goes like this:

“The apparent contradiction in the two proverbs indicates that proverbs must be appropriately applied. One situation demands that we avoid playing the fool’s game by giving an answer, while another demands that we expose the folly so that the fool is not considered wise.”

That quote comes from the notes in the Reformation Study Bible (2005). Basically, the idea here is that different situations call for different things. In some circumstances, we should answer a fool according to his folly, but in other circumstances, we should not. And that’s a relativistic explanation (though I’m not using the term relativistic in any pejorative way; it just seems like the best designation).

But I’d like to propose a different take here. At first, it might sound like basically the same explanation, but I think it’s subtly different in an important way.

In my view, the two proverbs are not contradictory because the act of “answering a fool according to his folly” means something different in each one. The quote above says that “one situation demands that we avoid playing the fool’s game.” But what I’m saying is that every situation demands that we avoid this. There’s never a situation in which we should act contrary to verse 4, and there’s never a situation in which it’s wrong to act according to verse 5.

So in other words, I’m saying that we can always act according to both verses simultaneously. To say otherwise is actually to concede that the statements are in fact contradictory. In the Reformation Study Bible’s explanation, we apply each proverb differently based on the circumstances in which we find ourselves. But in my explanation, we apply each proverb differently based on what the words actually mean.

When verse 4 tells us not to answer a fool according to his folly, I think it’s referring to what we might call “stooping down” to the fool’s level. If Tommy is making fun of Billy’s big ears, Billy shouldn’t respond by making fun of Tommy’s crooked teeth. He shouldn’t stoop to Tommy’s level. Otherwise, he would be “answering a fool according to his folly” in the way that makes him just as foolish. And verse 4’s prohibition of this kind of thing isn’t relativistic. There aren’t any circumstances when you should stoop to a fool’s level in this manner. You should always not do it.

Now what of verse 5? How do we answer a fool according to his folly in a right way? Various examples could be given, but here’s one that typically comes to my mind: Suppose an atheist says to you, “How can you believe in a God who would authorize the destruction of entire people groups in the Old Testament? How ghastly!” It would be appropriate to respond to this charge with something to this effect: “Why do you even give a rip what happened to those people groups, when your evolutionary worldview doesn’t assign any more value to human beings than it does to mosquitoes? Who cares what happens to mosquitoes? And who cares what happens to human beings?”

In that response, the atheist is being answered according to his folly; that is, according to his own beliefs, his own principles, his own worldview. You’re temporarily stepping into his way of thinking in order to show him the foolishness of it all, “lest he be wise in his own eyes.” And that’s an example of the kind of thing verse 5 says we should do, and there aren’t any circumstances in which this kind of thing is wrong or unwise. It’s always good and right, provided that it’s done with proper grace.

So in sum, these proverbs aren’t situational. It isn’t that some circumstances require us to heed verse 4 while other circumstances require us to shelf verse 4 and heed verse 5 instead. Rather, we should always heed both. They can both be applied simultaneously with no conflict.

Book Brief: Peter Pan

Peter Pan by J.M. Barrie
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Magical for the most part. Started out brilliantly, then dropped off some, then ended brilliantly again. Great storytelling.


View all my reviews

Selections from Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (100–165 AD) was a philosophically astute church father and apologist who was well-versed in the writings of Plato and others. These are some significant passages I highlighted while reading through his writings. I’m noting these passages simply for their significance; not because I agree with everything in them.

On the Lord’s supper:

“And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined.” – First Apology, ch. 66 

“And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.” – First Apology, ch. 65

Nowadays it isn’t uncommon to see the supper marginalized to the point of being treated as an optional add-on in the worship service, for those who are into that sort of thing. Contrast this with Justin’s day, when deacons would labor to ensure that even those who were absent had an opportunity to partake.

On baptism:

“And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing [of baptism] published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with libations and burnt-offerings, also to sprinkle themselves.” – First Apology, ch. 62

“God bids you be washed in this laver, and be circumcised with the true circumcision.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 18 

“What need, then, have I of circumcision, who have been witnessed to by God? What need have I of that other baptism, who have been baptized with the Holy Ghost?” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 29

A few things to note here: (1) Justin speaks of the sprinklings performed in pagan temples as imitations of Christian baptism, which is telling as to how he understood the mode of baptism. (2) Justin conceptually relates baptism to circumcision. This theological connection is not a later invention of paedobaptists. It’s a very early idea, presumably based on Colossians 2:11–12.

On the Trinity in Genesis 1-3:

“These are the words: ‘And God said, Behold, Adam has become as one of us, to know good and evil.’ In saying, therefore, ‘as one of us,’ [Moses] has declared that [there is a certain] number of persons associated with one another, and that they are at least two.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 62

This trinitarian interpretation of the first-person plural language used of God in Genesis 1-3 is sometimes viewed as passé today. But it’s significant to note that it’s a very early Christian interpretation.

On the Old Testament as Christian Scripture:

“For these words have neither been prepared by me, nor embellished by the art of man; but David sung them, Isaiah preached them, Zechariah proclaimed them, and Moses wrote them. Are you acquainted with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, or rather not yours, but ours. For we believe them; but you, though you read them, do not catch the spirit that is in them.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 29

A wonderful jab at Jewish pride. The Old Testament doesn’t belong to Jews; it belongs to Christians. Jews don’t even understand the Scriptures they profess to revere.

On pagan philosophy:

“And so, too, Plato, when he says, ‘The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless,’ took this from the prophet Moses and uttered it. For Moses is more ancient than all the Greek writers. And whatever both philosophers and poets have said concerning the immortality of the soul, or punishments after death, or contemplation of things heavenly, or doctrines of the like kind, they have received such suggestions from the prophets as have enabled them to understand and interpret these things.” – First Apology, ch. 44 

“For no one trusted in Socrates so as to die for this doctrine, but in Christ, who was partially known even by Socrates (for He was and is the Word who is in every man, and who foretold the things that were to come to pass both through the prophets and in His own person when He was made of like passions, and taught these things), not only philosophers and scholars believed, but also artisans and people entirely uneducated, despising both glory, and fear, and death.” – Second Apology, ch. 10 

“Whatever things were rightly said among all men, are the property of us Christians.” – Second Apology, ch. 13

“To God, nothing is secular, not even the world itself, for it is His workmanship.” – Fragments on the Resurrection, ch. 5 

I do love those last two lines. In all reality, it’s the secular worldview that’s mythical. Secularists believe in fairy tales.

On Christ’s second coming:

“There would be two advents of His,—one in which He was pierced by you; a second, when you shall know Him whom you have pierced.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 32

This struck me as a chilling statement.

On the new covenant:

“Moreover, by the works and by the attendant miracles, it is possible for all to understand that He is the new law, and the new covenant, and the expectation of those who out of every people wait for the good things of God. For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 11 

“Even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 85

 On the Lord’s day:

“And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits.” – First Apology, ch. 67

“But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead.” – First Apology, ch. 67

On faith and reason:

“By means of the rational faculties He has Himself endowed us with, He both persuades us and leads us to faith.” – First Apology, ch. 10 

On marriage and gender:

“But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children.” – First Apology, ch. 29

“What seemliness is there in a woman’s girding herself with armour, or in a man’s decorating himself with cymbals, and garlands, and female attire, and accompanied by a herd of bacchanalian women?” – Discourse to the Greeks, ch. 2

On guardian angels:

“God, when He had made the whole world, and subjected things earthly to man, and arranged the heavenly elements for the increase of fruits and rotation of the seasons, and appointed this divine law—for these things also He evidently made for man—committed the care of men and of all things under heaven to angels whom He appointed over them.” – Second Apology, ch. 5

On Christian martyrdom:

“For it is plain that, though beheaded, and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession; but the more such things happen, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus.” – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 110

Both a Husband and a Father

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? (1 Tim. 3:2–5)

Conservative Christians typically argue that these requirements assume the overseer will be a man, and so only men are qualified. I’ve used that argument before, and it seems valid enough to me; but at the same time, there are other assumptions embedded in Paul’s qualifications. And what are they?

Well, for one, Paul assumes that the elder will be a husband (“the husband of one wife”), which would rule out single men. If an overseer must be a one-woman man, then where does that put the no-woman man? Furthermore, Paul assumes that the overseer will be a father, as we’re told that “he must manage his own household well . . . keeping his children submissive.”

So if it’s reasonable to argue, on the basis of Paul’s assumptions, that an overseer must be a man, then it’s also reasonable to argue, by the same token, that an overseer must be both a husband and a father. Conversely, if it is not reasonable to argue, based on this passage, that an overseer must be a husband and a father, then neither is it reasonable to argue, based on this passage, that an overseer must be a man.

Choose ye this day.

“In Truth, God Knows”

There’s a well-known statement that Origen made concerning the authorship of Hebrews. It’s quoted in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History (6.25.14). Origen said, “But who wrote the epistle, in truth, God knows.” Lots of scholars point to this statement as early evidence that Christians have always been uncertain about who wrote Hebrews.

But David Alan Black and some others argue that Origen is here only referring to the amanuensis (secretary); that is, the person who penned the epistle, rather than the actual author who dictated it (see Rom. 16:22).

In response to this argument, David Allen has this to say:

“Writers such as J. Hug, S. Davidson, and D. Black—who argued that Origen’s statement ‘as to who wrote the epistle’ referred to the one who wrote it down for Paul, that is, who functioned as his amanuensis or translator—find themselves swimming upstream against the context and usage of the Greek ho grapsas” (Hebrews, NAC, p. 32).

As for swimming upstream against the context, here’s the fuller context of Origen’s statement:

“If I gave my opinion, I should say that the thoughts are those of the apostle, but the diction and phraseology are those of some one who remembered the apostolic teachings, and wrote down at his leisure what had been said by his teacher. Therefore if any church holds that this epistle is by Paul, let it be commended for this. For not without reason have the ancients handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote [ho grapsas] the epistle, in truth, God knows.”

It seems to me that, in Origen’s view, Hebrews is just as much the words of Paul as the Sermon on the Mount is the words of Jesus. It’s true that Jesus was not the one who wrote down the Sermon on the Mount – Matthew did. But if I want to quote a statement from the Sermon on the Mount, I’m typically going to preface it with “Jesus said” rather than “Matthew said,” even though I recognize that Matthew was the one who actually wrote the words down.

I’ve transcribed sermons and lectures before. And one of the things you learn as you transcribe is that when spoken words are being turned into written words, there will inevitably be times when you have to smooth out the language. And many times the decisions I make as a transcriber will reflect my own writing style. But when I’m all done transcribing, I won’t have something that I can call my own work. Because it’s not my own work; it’s the work of the preacher or teacher.

Which is why Origen says that anyone who holds Hebrews to be from Paul should be commended — because he viewed the epistle/sermon as ultimately Paul’s work. Though in this case, maybe it’s better to say that Hebrews was not so much the work of an amanuensis, but rather a transcriber. Perhaps the person took notes as he heard Paul’s sermon preached and then later filled out the notes into a complete written sermon.

Now, understand that we’re still only talking about Origen’s view. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with his assessment; I’m just trying to understand his view as he actually expresses it. And in my judgment, Origen held that Hebrews was far more Pauline than most scholars would have us think. Origen would have been entirely comfortable prefacing a quotation from Hebrews with “Paul said,” and in fact, he does this himself on multiple occasions. See the long list of examples in Black’s short book, The Authorship of Hebrews.

As for swimming upstream against ho grapsas (the words “who wrote”), consider that Tertius described his own work as an amanuensis using the exact same words: “I Tertius, who wrote [ho grapsas] this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Rom. 16:22).

Allen writes:

“Mitchell noted the many places in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History where the Greek verb graphō (‘to write’) ‘refers both to authorship and to actual penning’ and thus concluded ‘Black’s distinction between author and amanuensis cannot be maintained in light of this evidence’” (Hebrews, NAC, p. 32).

But there are a number of problems with that. First off, Eusebius is quoting a statement made by Origen. So what matters is how Origen uses graphō; not how Eusebius uses it.

Second, for what it’s worth, there is a place where Eusebius talks about the amanuenses of Origen, and he describes them as being skilled in kalligraphein (“elegant writing”), a word clearly related to graphō.

But aside from that single instance, I’m not aware of any other place where Eusebius even mentions the task of an amanuensis. In which case, Mitchell’s argument turns out to be based on a remarkably unfair standard. If you never talk about what an amanuensis does, then of course you’re not going to use graphō to describe the task of an amanuensis.

But what term would Eusebius have been expected to use in describing what an amanuensis does? It seems reasonable enough to assume that he would have been perfectly comfortable using the same word that Tertius used in Romans 16:22, namely graphō. Why not?