Or… are earthly fathers “kings” of their home/family.
The Bible teaches patriarchy 1Gen 2:18, 1 Tim 2:8-15, Col 3:18, Eph 5:22-33, 1 Cor 11:2-15. And because I believe that the bible is God’s infallible word, I count my self as a biblical patriarchist.
However, husbands/fathers, while uniquely called to play a leadership role in our homes, are not “intermediaries” between our wives/children for THE Prophet/Priest/King Jesus. All Christians ought to imitate Christ and therefore we all have duties under His offices, but we do not “stand in” or “stand between” anyone and Jesus according to these offices (contrary to the popular early 90s song by CCM artist, Bruce Carroll: “Who Will Be Jesus?“). All Christians have access to God through Christ alone with no other mediator between them.
Fathers should rule their households well, not as vice-regents, but as vice-gerents. It is not our own prerogative that we have been given authority to enforce when it comes to matters of the faith, but rather it is Christ’s commands as revealed in scripture alone. Beyond that, fathers abuse their authority if they demand “my will be done” rather than “Thy will be done”. This is an important distinction lest we claim authority which belongs to Christ alone.
“Notice how the catechism speaks. It does not distinguish between males and females in the exercise of the threefold office (munus triplex). All believers are, in Christ, by grace alone, through faith alone, prophets, priests, and kings. Christ is our intercessor. Husbands/Fathers have an important function to serve his family by leading them, by setting an example, by speaking God’s Word to his family, by praying for his family, and by serving as the administrative head of the house, but he is not the Messiah. He is not the priest. He is not a mediator. Indeed, it would not be proper to think of any mere mortal as a mediator between God and man: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5).”1
Are Husbands/Fathers “kings”?
Let’s take a look at the Kingly office and why it belongs to Christ and not to our earthly Husbands or Fathers.
The Federal office of King is used throughout scripture primarily as the federal (representative) head of the people of God (all other functions of this office are downstream from this primary essence). You may have heard this common phrase often used to briefly describe this “federal” function: “As the King goes, so go his subjects…”. When applying this biblically, this is the relationship to God’s (the King) covenant with Israel (the subjects). The King acts as federal head of the people. When the King keeps the covenant, God has promised within the terms of His covenant to lavish the BLESSINGS of the covenant, not only upon the King, but upon all of the people that the King federally represents.
One argument that might be made in rebuttal to my proposal is that fathers are also a sort of “federal” head for their families. And I would agree! However, they are NOT a federal head in the same sense that the earthly kings of God’s covenant people in the OT, and they are certainly not a federal head in regard to the NEW covenant in which Christ is the last and *only* federal head. So Christ, our federal head, has kept the law perfectly for all Christians who therefore receive the blessings of that covenantal obedience! Hallelujah!
While our earthly fathers might in a sense bring earthly blessings upon their families by faithful obedience to God and His instructions on how husbands/fathers ought to lead, our earthly fathers cannot garner for us the covenantal blessing that only Christ, our King, earned for us. Husbands and Fathers cannot save their children or bring them into the covenant community of God. Our earthly fathers cannot (as one pastor suggests) “control whether or not their children grow up to walk with God.” Our earthly fathers can’t do anything that would prevent their children from Christ claiming them under his federal headship and thus brining those children into covenant communion.
Another more practical reason why it’s unhelpful to refer to fathers/husbands as “kings” is because unlike King Jesus who rules by fiat, earthly husbands/fathers would be sinful to do so. Kings have sovereign power over their subjects. And this is a good thing if your King is Jesus because His will is perfect. He is both absolutely sovereign AND infinitely wise2. Our earthly fathers have not been given such authority. Yes, we are to submit to our earthly fathers “in the Lord”3. Meaning, we submit to their rule because they are supposed to be ruling as God has commanded them to. (As an aside, we don’t get to stop obeying them just because they once sinned against us by abusing this authority… God knew that earthly fathers wouldn’t rule perfectly and yet he still charged them to do so and commanded their families to obey and show them honor).
When an earthly father abuses this responsibility/authority by demanding sovereign control over his family, he is in sin. He is only to use his authority to lead his family in the way that God has commanded him. Our earthly fathers have imperfect prerogatives… not so with our King Jesus. Jesus’ prerogative is perfect, and therefore everything He wants of/from us or commands of us is good FOR us (and glorifying to Him).
For these reasons and more I don’t find it helpful to say that husbands/fathers are “kings” (not even with a lower case “k”). Jesus is our King. Under his federal headship, we are secure and do not require our earthly fathers to earn covenantal blessings for us. We have all we need in Christ.
So, husbands and fathers, rule your families well as a vice-gerent (not a vice-regent). Take your families to church. Submit to your church through membership. Teach and lead your families towards submission to the Church (one another) and King Jesus. And let your ruling be one of “imitate me as I imitate Christ”…
Aimee Byrd was a guest speaker at a mini-conference we held at our church several years ago. At the time of our conference back in the fall of 2018, she had written Housewife Theologian (2013), Theological Fitness (2015), No Little Women (2016), and Why Can’t We Be Friends (2018), all of which, I had no problem recommending to my church (where I’ve been an Elder/Pastor for the last 6 years). Later she wrote Recovering from Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (2020) followed by The Sexual Reformation: Restoring the Dignity and Personhood of Man and Woman (2022), both of which I do not recommend as helpful, because I have theological and practical concerns with these two of her works. Those concerns are beyond the scope of this post, but are related to the content of this post.
Because I have promoted Aimee as a guest lecturer to our church and because I have defended her works/ideas/comments publicly, I am writing this response to her review of Greg Johnson’s latest work, Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality (2021). I haven’t written a review of Johnson’s book yet (as I’m still working through it), so his book won’t be my primary source for response, though other statements that Johnson has made publicly will be in view in my response below.1 For those unfamiliar with Greg Johnson and the Revoice Conference, you can read a helpful article about it here by Kevin DeYoung. My primary source for response is the review by Aimee and her assertions/comments therein.
I’m choosing to post Aimee’s complete review in full here with my comments along side so as to give full context to the original review on which I am commenting.
If you’d like to see the original book review by Aimee, you can find it here.
Below is a copy of Aimee’s review with my notes and the sections to which they pertain. Just click on the numbers2 Yes, like that… also, you may have missed it, there is a note in a paragraph above explaining what the deal is about Greg Johnson and the Revoice Conference next to the highlighted sections. I hope this format is helpful to the reader.
AN INVITATION TO CARE
AIMEE BYRD
FEBRUARY 3, 2022
“When we read authors who use language different from what we’re used to, we have an opportunity to try to hear what they are intending to say, an opportunity for empathy and what theologians once called the judgement of charity.”
This is what I needed to do. I thought I already was, but reading Greg Johnson’s book, Still Time to Care, has revealed just how much more I need to learn, to listen. I love the handle of this book. It is an invitation to care. Johnson writes as a pastor and as a survivor who is still in the trenches of being vilified. He writes asking for us to hear the experiences of homosexuals, gays, lesbians, queers, same-sex attracted—whatever terminology is meaningful to describe themselves—in the church.
He begins the book with a “Note on Terminology” that I needed to read.3Terms are clearly important. I don’t think it wrong for Johnson to begin here… it’s helpful. But Johnson’s arguments are not unknown, and I have no trepidation in saying that the arguments against Johnson’s position (eg: Revoice) are not primarily about terminology. I used to be more persuaded that “same-sex attracted” was a more faithful way to describe homosexuality. I thought that “gay” was too identity-driven. I thought that Christians who know that their identity is in Christ should not want to label themselves with a term that connects to a sexual orientation, especially when the temptations that flow from this orientation are not morally neutral. To go a little off script here to something Johnson probably wouldn’t say, I recently was encouraged by an acquaintance when I was saying I should be better at something. She said, “Should is an asshole.”4I suspect that Aimee is just being a bit silly here… but “oughtness” isn’t an asshole. Rather sin that makes it hard to do what we know we ought to do is the asshole.
And so Johnson gave me an opportunity to see a more opened up picture of what is behind all this language. As it turns out, there is a lot of historical baggage around the different terminology on sexual orientation. And different age groups hear them differently due to their experiences. I had a lot to learn. But for starters, Johnson doesn’t insist on a specific terminology. He doesn’t want that to get in the way of the opportunity to try to hear. And so he swaps terminology throughout the book, asking for charity as he is trying to speak for and reach a diversity of people. I want to get passed the terminology wars to the heart of the matter. Anyway, who the heck am I from my position of safety with my sexual orientation to tell those who are not how to describe themselves?5This is an incorrect way to approach morality. One does not have to be equally disadvantaged in order to make a moral judgement upon the actions of another (however, in this particular case, I don’t think there is actually a disadvantage). It is not a biblically informed idea that, commands from scripture, are somehow subordinate to those who are most directly affected by a specific command, rather that’s an idea from elsewhere (I won’t speculate where… but the possible origins are significant).
Johnson makes the case that the church has shifted from care for homosexually-oriented people of the faith to a posture of trying to cure them. And their cure correlates to their sanctification, or even the validity of their Christian conversion. The book is an invitation to retrieve this posture of care after seeing the utter failure of the ex-gay movement to actually help change sexual orientation and to imagine ways we can practice care in our current cultural context.6I’m in the middle of this section now in Johnson’s book. This is probably the most interesting part of his argument (though I’ve yet to find it persuasive). Admittedly, there is probably more ink spilled these days concerning LGBTQ issues within the church than in days past, but I think that’s largely due to its increased prevalence… and not a fundamental shift away from the church’s historic position concern what is to be done about “homosexually-oriented people of the faith”. The book is also a call to holiness, one that convicts even pious heterosexuals, as Johnson challenges our disdain for celibacy and suspicion towards sacred siblingship. 7Who are these Christians who have disdain for celibacy?… all Christians ought to desire celibacy for unmarried individuals. It’s incorrect to say that the issue is “disdain for celibacy”. The issue is that celibacy is not the only issue at hand. And here is where the argument lies. Johnson argues that there is no sin involved when a same-sex-attracted (SSA) individual remains celibate. This is incorrect. And though there is similarity between an unmarried opposite-sex-attracted (OSA) Christian lusting after the opposite sex, and a SSA individual lusting after the same sex, there is a critical difference.
It is not sinful for an unmarried OSA Christian to want marriage and all of the intimacy (sexual and otherwise) that comes with it. However, it is sinful for an SSA individual to desire (in any fashion, sexual or otherwise) the intimacy that they hope would come from marriage with the same sex. That is the issue. That is why so-called gay Christianity ought not be celebrated as Johnson and Revoice prescribe.
We say that we love the person and hate the sin. But Johnson reveals our idols in this mindset. We tend to privilege our own sexual temptations and sins while demanding the othered persons look like us. We prop ourselves up as more loveable because we don’t see our own sexual orientations as fallen.8This may be, but it is indeed beside the point of whether or not Johnson is biblically correct about his argument regarding celibate SSA Christians.
Before Conversion Therapy
Johnson starts off with the “big four” leading evangelicals of the second half of the 20th century who began to speak into a “positive and orthodox Christian vision for gay people who follow the call of Jesus Christ”: C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, Billy Graham, and John Stott. These were enlightening chapters that made me realize how steeped we are in the ex-gay movement now. We didn’t always use the language that we do or have the same pre-conceived, and over-simplified notions. For example, Lewis “understood that the homosexual Christian’s biggest struggle might be not with sexual sin but with despair or pride.” And his own celibacy for most of his life and deep friendships with men, including one close friend who was gay, counters today’s idolizing of the nuclear family, homophobia, and value of friendship in the church.9Lewis is a favorite of those in the Revoice movement to quote on the topic. However, Lewis wrote very little on the issue of homosexuality (most quote from a single letter he wrote to a friend and a couple of examples Lewis gave in Surprised by Joy in which he is describing how it can be tempting to diminish ones own sin by exaggerating the evils of other sins that we don’t struggle with. Lewis in no way establishes that homosexuality is somehow not sinful in and of itself if coupled with celibacy. You can read the quote in context here.
Shaeffer spoke out about how the church too often failed to distinguish between homosexual orientation and practice, pointing out the cruelty of pushing them out of church life because of an orientation that they did not want10Distinguishing is good. Ignoring the fact that SSA by itself is sinful (even if not acted upon) is not. Billy Graham supported ordaining gay men based on individual merit and qualifications, while upholding that homosexual sin should be repented of. He spoke strongly for a gospel focus, led with empathy and compassion, encouraging Christians to be advocates rebuking others when they treat homosexual sins worse than their own, and to “always trust God with the results.”
John Stott led a gathering for Anglican evangelicals to discuss a pastoral approach to homosexuality. “Remarkably, they led with public repentance for their own sins against gay people.” He too warns that the sins of pride and hypocrisy are “surely worse” than sexual sins and that we are all “sexually fallen beings with disordered sexual desires.”11Regardless of which is worse… all sin is to be taken seriously. If this means removing prideful pastors along with SSA pastors from ministry, then so be it. We don’t forgo biblical commands because there is inconsistency. We work to eliminate the inconsistency. There is chatter about whether Stott was gay. But there is no proof of that. And Johnson says something noteworthy about this: “It would be a lot easier on gay people who become Christians to embrace celibacy if they could look around and see straight believers also following Christ in celibacy in response to Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:12 and the apostle Paul’s in 1 Corinthians 7.”
A Failed Exodus
I was then educated on the history of the ex-gay movement—when the church shifted from care to cure. It was eye-opening to learn the roots of Exodus International12Yes, I’ve read about the history of Exodus International. I think that there were many misguided decisions and methods employed by Christians like EI in a desire to minister to those struggling with SSA. Thankfully, we’ve come a long way since then and these approaches to dealing with the sin of SSA in many circles has grown in prudence and biblical structure. and its many ministry partners. Beginning in the early 70’s, it was led by a brand-new convert who was convicted of his own sinful, homosexual lifestyle and who offered a prosperity gospel for getting “out of homosexuality.” With no experience in the Christian life, no theological or clinical training, and very good story telling skills, he became the global expert for the ex-gay movement.
When we started Exodus the premise was that God could change you from gay to straight.”
–Frank Worthen
And riding this story-driven train, the testimonies came pouring in as the movement exponentially grew. Johnson charts this radical growth and the factors that fueled it, such as the AIDS epidemic, the hostile culture and violence toward gays, unsafe churches, and the need for homosexuals to experience a Christian community where they could be honest about themselves and be embraced. Here is where Johnson is good with nuance as well. He documents how there was a lot of good offered in these spaces, as sexual minorities built great friendships and community in these ministries. Grace was offered.
Except, it turns out that they really couldn’t be honest about themselves. They were following a script. And it all unraveled:
In January 2012…Alan Chambers, the last president of Exodus International, came clean about the numbers. “The majority of people that I have met—and I would say the majority meaning 99.9 percent of them—have not experienced a change in their orientation.” This organization represented more than 270 ex-gay ministries.
The Need to Be Seen
But the damage was done. This is the air our generation in the church has been breathing. And the message is loud and clear—you cannot be homosexually oriented and be a Christian.13 This is flatly incorrect and a straw man if presented as the only or even the majority sentiment. Instead, what is widely held by the historic church is that one cannot be homosexually oriented, and act as though that orientation is God glorifying, if accompanied by celibacy. No, homosexual orientation is a sin to be put to death. As with all sins, it will not be ultimately put to death until Christ returns, but to act as though it is simply a natural orientation that could be used for good or ill is completely unbiblical. Johnson accesses all the damage that has come out of this—the false hope, the conversion therapy, failure of leadership, and the message of despair in failure to change one’s sexual orientation. It is truly devastating. I am disgusted that anyone can read through it and then give such awful reviews of this book, clearly misrepresenting Johnson’s position, and barely giving a nod to what gay Christians have suffered by the hands of evangelicalism and the church, much less show real empathy to their sincere desperation in longing for the holy love of Christ and his people. They continue to place the shame on those who offer care in honesty. We need to look at this history of neglect, abuse, hatred, and self-righteousness and lament. We need to see those suffering. We need repentance. We need to learn and offer care.14 We need to learn to be realistic about the fact that God grants sanctification (Hebrews 6:1-3) and man pursues God for that sanctification (Philippians 3:14).
When we look, we see that this was not the gospel. The promise and the aim was straightness, not faithfulness to Jesus.
A Bad Theology of Sin
Johnson nails it when he pinpoints our bad theology of sin as part of the postmortem inventory. We all have fallen sexual orientations. “Heterosexuality as experienced this side of the fall is drenched in sin..” A man’s sexual longing for his neighbor’s wife is a sinful temptation to be resisted, not a natural desire put there by God.15This flattening is unhelpful at best and sinful at worst. As I pointed out above, a celibate, SSA Christian is not devoid of sin in the same way that a celibate OSA Christian might be. The orientation itself is an aberration of God’s natural law. It is a sin to be put to death… ultimately when Jesus returns.
Quoting Johnson more, “all the straight people I know are bent.” He should know; he is a pastor. “Only Jesus had a nonsinful, nonshameful sexual orientation.” He notes that we are aiming way too low to offer sinful heterosexual temptation in place of sinful homosexual orientation as progress in sanctification. “However our sexual attractions happen to be bent, God calls us to holiness, not heterosexuality.”
We also don’t have all the answers when it comes to the cause of homosexuality.16True, and this should give us pause on the ways we approach how to counsel SSA Christians. For instance, I have no problem saying that it is possible that “you were born with it” to a SSA Christian. We are born into sin and even possibly born with proclivities towards one certain sin over another. Johnson interacts with fascinating medical and sociological research regarding how much of a factor genetics are, what genetic loci are associated with it, hormonal, immunological, developmental factors, and more.
This section ends with the challenge “to believe the gospel enough to become willing to sacrifice daily in order to obey him.” That is a call for every one of us.
Were There Even Homosexuals in Scripture?
Johnson then tackles the more progressive argument that we got the whole sexual ethic wrong. This line of argument says that the ancients did not have a concept of homosexual orientation and monogamous, loving same-sex relationships. They claim that the verses that appear to condemn homosexuality are speaking against abuse of slaves and pagan practices, not the same-sex unions that we know of today. Johnson asserts that this is not very progressive at all, as these arguments are erasing the experience of mutual same-sex unions from history in the same way as the ex-gay movement erased the sexual orientation of its members. He gives us a history lesson and a look into the Scriptures that reveals once again, this too is an attempt to offer a sexual ethic that they think better than the New Testaments.
Throughout this book, Johnson does not shy away from the tough arguments on both sides. This review is way too long now and will not be able to show how well he handles them all. But I wanted to mention that he devotes a whole chapter to whether the biblical ethic is internally violent to gay people.
A Path Forward
This is yet another section that I learned a lot from. I don’t have space to break it all down, but Johnson covers topics such as:
Terminology as an area for Christian freedom, not building an identity for oneself.
The difference between sexual attraction, sexual orientation, and sexual identity.
The impoverished Western concept of sex
The history of the concept of identity in Christ vs. older, biblical concepts
The Nashville Statement
Spiritual and emotional abuse
Love as a posture
Advocacy
Side B and Revoice
The distinction between forgiveness and righteousness
Help with sexual addictions
One reviewer accuses Johnson of offering nothing more than palliative care for the dying. I don’t know what book he was reading! This reviewer proved the case that Johnson builds: homosexuals have to not only be born again, but also be converted from their sexual orientation to be considered Christian. This reviewer does the very thing Johnson points out, using “biblical language” to weaponize. And he completely misrepresents Johnson’s work in the process. But hey, he added page numbers so it must be there how he says it. Worse, the review shows absolutely no care for actual people.
Greg Johnson literally ends his book with hope. While some with same-sex attractions can also be heterosexually attracted and some with a homosexual orientation do find they are able to be attracted to one person of the opposite sex out of love for that person and desire to build a family life with them, many just don’t have any sexual orientation toward the opposite sex. Johnson offers the difficult path of celibacy while showing the beauty in it. This is not offering palliative care to dying people or showing no care towards repentance and holiness. As Johnson says, “There is nothing that calls out the idols of Western culture more powerfully than a person who swears off sex and romance because they love Jesus.” There are more important things than sex. And as Johnson opened his book with, “Jesus captured my heart. And he is worth everything.” And after showcasing the need for a spiritual family and siblingship, he ends,
My fallen sexuality is the thing more than any other that God has used to keep me broken and humble and dependent on him. If that’s the price of knowing his love, I wouldn’t trade it. Jesus is everything.
Spoken by a 49-year-old virgin. Praise God!
A Note on Rejoice17There are indeed many things to be concerned about coming out of Revoice. Some of them I have pointed out here. On the whole, it is a very flawed response to SSA. We need to do better.
You may be concerned about some of the things that you have heard are coming out of Revoice. So am I. But there is also a lot I just don’t understand. Non-straight people who want to be faithful to God’s design for marriage and sex between a husband and a wife need support that offers real hope that is focused on discipleship, not just transferring sexual temptation to heterosexuality. They need care. Revoice is a gospel-saturated culture that addresses issues like the shame that they feel in their sexual orientation, healing from abuse, celibacy, whether to pursue marriage with the opposite sex, appropriate boundaries, healthy friendships, and evangelizing in the secular LGBT community. Those involved see that they are loved and not alone. Johnson himself shared that he has some differences than others who are trying to face loneliness while living a faithful Christian life, in that he shies away from the paradigm of celibate partnership, preferring focusing on Christian family and siblingship. There is going to be some disagreement. And failure. And yet, this is a group where it is safe to bring it all to the table and discuss with gospel encouragement and biblical guidance. Revoice is offering the care that people need because the church isn’t. Maybe we should listen more and see the fruit that is coming from that before we throw all our stones. Maybe that fruit doesn’t look like heterosexuality for everyone. Maybe it looks like gay people who are chasing God’s love. Maybe there is something we can learn from that, rejoice in, and join in love and care. We do know that if it is of God the fruit will be growth in holiness. Let’s not act like we are further ahead of everyone else in that.
In a recent social media exchange between two pastor friends and me, the issue of Russell Fuller’s departure from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary was discussed. I think this is a great example of the sort of conclusion jumping and assuming that plagues social media and the interwebs. Without evidence, and furthermore, without even an accusation of sin, we are quick to insinuate malfeasance in a manner that is self-contradictory to our own actions in similar but less conspiratorial/inflammatory/sensationalized circumstances (eg: contracts, NDAs, etc…) by using words like Unseemly to imply something bad, but without the weight of evidence to support a true claim of malfeasance. This isn’t helpful.
I have included the original post and all comments in their original form. Only the names of the commenters (except Tom Ascol who is involved in the public debate of the video) have been obfuscated.
Original Post:
CV: It is sad to see Russell Fuller not getting a severance because he wouldn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement. The guy is a stellar Hebrew professor.
Comments:
TP: There is something unseemly about a Christian institution like a seminary having NDA’s. Though I would have understood if he had signed it, good on him for refusing.
CV: I don’t know how accurate the rest of the claims are that are made here by Fuller. I just think the NDA thing is wrong.
Locke: Why is an agreement not to publicize the amount of severance pay you receive, wrong?
CV: Is that all that is in the NDA? Have you seen a copy of the NDA?
Locke: CV ~ That’s all they talked about in the video… watch at the end when Tom comes on to talk about it. And, in my experience, that’s precisely what NDAs for severance packages entail. It’s a way to not disclose that some receive more money than others so that it won’t be used as a tactic to negotiate more.
TP: My knowledge of NDA’s is that they are comprehensive about revealing anything about the organization that would cast it in a negative light.
CV: Tom Ascol ~ Is that all that was in the NDA?
Locke: TP ~ they CAN be used for this. But that’s definitely not a given. And nothing in the video indicates that is what this was about.
TP: The few people I have talked to with experience with NDA’s have said that their severance is always tied to their silence about other matters with lasting legal implications if they break that silence. Admittedly, that’s anecdotal.
TP: But I cannot understand why anyone would forfeit a severance whose only condition was not revealing the amount of the severance.
Locke: Quoting Tom Ascol: “but i was even more concerned when i learned that the administration was requiring those who were dismissed to sign a non-disclosure agreement if they were going to receive severance pay. This separation agreement includes the sections in it that would prohibit anyone who signs it from discussing its contents or even acknowledging its existence to his wife to his pastor or to anyone other than his lawyer or his accountant.”
I don’t see anything wrong with that.
CV: TP ~ That’s exactly what I was thinking.
TP: Locke ~ How do you keep your severance pay a secret from your wife?
Locke: You don’t. That statement is likely hyperbolic. You simply can’t publicize the information.
This stuff really shouldn’t be inflammatory. It sounds like it is being sensationalized, but that’s just my sense of the way it’s being talked about.
Regardless, nothing said or done here is wrong on its face… If there IS something wrong… That should be made plain.
Tom Ascol: The antecedent to “its” is the NDA itself. Those who sign it can not even acknowledge the NDA’s existence.
Locke: Tom Ascol ~ Is there anything wrong with that on its face? I think it would entirely depend upon the nature of the content of the NDA. By itself, I don’t see anything wrong with such an agreement.
CV: Well, that’s more than, “don’t disclose how much money we are giving you.”
TP: Yep. That confirms what I have known about other NDA’s.
Locke: Again, what’s wrong with this? SBTS: “We’re sorry that we have to terminate your employment. However, if you’ll agree not to speak ill of us, we are willing to give you a severance package that we aren’t contractually obligated to give you. If not, no worries.”
BTW, this is boilerplate language for NDAs. “make any public or private statements (whether oral or in writing) that are derogatory or damaging to Southern Seminary, or any of its administration, faculty or staff, except as required in response to a subpoena, court order, or other legal compulsion…”
TP: Maybe I’ve misread you but hasn’t this been the whole point of the thread? You suggested that the NDA was simply for the signers to not disclose their severance package. Others have suggested that NDA’s tend to prohibit employees from criticizing the institution. Didn’t you agree earlier that such an agreement is problematic? Have I totally misread you?
TP: I thought the whole point was that we did agree that a Christian institution legally binding its employees to “never criticize and we’ll give you money if you don’t,” is unseemly.
Locke: No, you haven’t misread me. I did point out that the only thing in the video critiquing the NDA was that it was its connection to severance. I quoted from the video.
Then Tom linked to some elaboration concerning additional stipulations about derogatory statements.
My question remains: what exactly is wrong with this?
“Unseemly” is your accusation? What about this is “improper”? Moreover, are you equating this unseemliness with sin? Because, if not, I this whole thing has been sensationalized.
TP: I do not like Christian institutions requiring secrecy. Confidentiality and wisdom is one thing. But “don’t criticize us or we’ll sue” is unseemly. That’s my opinion.
Locke: I think that’s a rather ungenerous interpretation. Perhaps they would sue. Perhaps they would simply hope that the signer would keep their word. Either way… I don’t see any sin committed here.
TP: The whole point of legally binding NDA’s is the threat of legal action should the stipulations be violated.
Locke: Are you saying that’s sinful?
TP: One. More. Time – I’ve said that I don’t like it. I’ve said that, to me, it’s unseemly.
Locke: Then this is a rather large nothing burger.
TP: Because unless we can definitively identify something as sin, opinions on the propriety or wisdom of a thing are a nothing burger.
Locke: Yes. The NDA is a nothing burger. Legal documents and contracts aren’t in anyway sensational. They are amoral and boring. There is truly “nothing to see”.
The only reason it’s coming up at all is to attach it to the insinuation that there is something to hide concerning SBTS’s (And by strong implication, Dr Mohler) GOING LIBERAL! Of all the absurd things.
Locke: Quite the conspiracy…
https://youtu.be/yx10NOTO8uw
CV: Just FYI… TP and I never assumed the claims about this particular prof were true. Both of us loathe NDAs used by churches and seminaries. We do so because we have watched it used to buy silence about serious error / sin in these institutions.
TP: Exactly. I was entirely unaware of Fuller’s claims until yesterday. Totally separate issue from my opinion of NDA’s.
Locke: Agreed. However, the matter of the NDA was completely attached to the claim of malfeasance by Dr. Fuller. Now it appears that on the primary charge someone is either lying, or very confused.
I’ll also restate for the record… Legal contracts such as NDAs aren’t a moral issue by themselves… The content, circumstances and actions surrounding them can make them a moral issue.
CV: Locke ~ You said, “Now it appears that on the primary charge someone is either lying, or very confused.” I am not sure that is established by those two videos. Much more research would have to be done. But, frankly, I don’t have the time to do it. So, I would rather not comment as to the veracity of the charges either way.
Locke: The two videos (The two sides of this argument) are in direct contradiction of each other… That was indeed their purpose. What other option could there be besides deception or confusion?
Locke: Fuller’s account of various other faculty telling him that he misunderstood Hernandez seems obvious. I think Fuller took some things in Hernandez’s papers and ran with them even after receiving wise counsel to the contrary. I think his accusations of theological liberalism based upon the works of Dr. Hernandez (at least here) are grossly unfounded. He would have been wise to listen to his colleagues.
I make no apologies for the fact that I exploit the fervor in such a time to introduce my friends to political theology that I’ve found helpful.
As such… I’ll be hosting a very efficient book study that will meet only twice over the next month+. We’ll meet once next week (prior to reading anything) as sort of an introduction to discuss some of the ideas that will be covered in the book. Then we’ll take a month off to finish up the 200 page book (that’s about 6 and half pages a day to keep up). Then we’ll come together again in October to discuss what we’ve read and the thoughts/ideas provoked. I’m also considering a FB group for discussing during the month of reading.
The exact times and dates for the 2 meetings are TBD (though I’m thinking Wednesday evenings).
The first meeting will be 7:15pm on Sunday, September 13th (location TBD in Denton)
I’ll have a signup form soon (probably tomorrow), so look for that if you’re interested.
The death penalty has been a rightly contentious political and moral issue in our country for at least the last 50 years. Christians rightly struggle with the question of taking the life a fellow image bearer even when that person has done something as heinous as murder. Questions of justice come into play when the system charged to carry out such weighty decisions is accused of systemic bigotry , racism, socio-economic imbalances and corruption that threatens to discredit the most serious of responsibilities for governing authorities.
The Christian ought to navigate all of life through the lense of scripture. Our worldview must be shaped by the bible in such a way that every decision from the most practical, to the most spiritual is informed and guided by the Word of God. To that end, how is the Christian to think about capital punishment?
The New Testament consistently establishes the authority of government as originating from God’s ultimate authority. And that because of this divinely granted authority, the Christian is to submit to the government (1 Peter 2:13-17, Romans 13:1-7, Titus 3:1, Acts 25:9-12).
An obvious problem with this submission to earthly authority is that human governments can be unjust in action and decree (Daniel 3:4-7, Luke 2:1-7, 13:1, 20:20-26, 23:4-22, Matt 2:1-19, 14:1-12, Acts 4:8-12, 5:17-42, 12:1-24, 16:4-40). Paul, and the rest of the NT writers were not unaware of this problem, as many of the apostles (not to mention Christ Himself!) lost their lives at the hands of evil and corrupt governing authorities. Not to mention that the apostles suffered lesser persecution many times when thrown into prison, endured beatings, and were falsely accused… all under the authority of the unjust Roman state. We read from John’s gospel that even Jesus acknowledged the jurisdiction of capital punishment God had given the to earthly rulers when Pilot asks “Don’t you know that I have the authority to release you and the authority to crucify you?” Christ’s response to the Roman governor is stunning: “You would have no authority over me at all… if it hadn’t been given you from above” (John 19). Even the authority to kill Jesus was granted by God to earthly rulers.
Additionally, ancient historical sources abound with stories of atrocities and injustices committed by the Roman government. Yet, even with this backdrop, the New Testament writers nowhere alter their prescription concerning the state’s authority and the proper Christian response to it… The response of the Christian toward his earthly ruler is: submission.
However, an important distinction is made by the actions of the apostles and early church recorded in the NT when the decrees or laws of earthly authority clearly contradicted God’s law. Amid such discord Christians were to obey God and not the unjust rulers (Acts 4:17-20, 5:29). The NT Church practiced civil disobedience in response to unjust rulers not unlike the OT church had done before them (Daniel 1, 3, 6, Exodus 1:15-21). For the Christian, God is the ultimate authority and judge.
Luke writes in his Acts of the Apostles about Paul’s encounter with the Romans authorities concerning capital punishment (Acts 25, 28:17-20). Strikingly, nowhere does Paul question the earthly ruler’s right or responsibility to sentence evil doers to capital punishment. On the contrary, Paul’s reason against his own death sentence at the hands of the Roman government is that he “had done nothing deserving of death”… and that he in apparent submission to the God given authority of the Romans government “was not trying to escape a death sentence”. The implication being that were Paul to have committed a crime deserving of death, the earthly rulers would have a right and responsibility to carry out capital punishment.
So while the NT and OT saints practiced civil disobedience in response to unjust rulers, no mention is made by the NT writers in kind toward the practice of capital punishment. The absence of such objection is stark given the heavy hand with which the Roman and Jewish governments subjected early Christians to constant persecution. While it is conspicuous that the NT records no such admonition or action to discredit the state’s right and responsibility to carry out capital punishment, mere absence alone isn’t the best argument in the affirmative.
The absence of any objection to capital punishment should hardly be surprising given the bible’s teaching on the matter as a whole. Throughout the Old Testament, God over and over requires capital punishment to be carried out by the governing authorities (Exodus 21:12,15,16, Leviticus 20:10,13, 24:17-22, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, 22:22). We see by only the 9th chapter of Genesis, after God has carried out his righteous judgement by wiping out all of mankind in the great flood, that a covenant is given to the only surviving family on earth. God grants through the patriarch Noah, to all of mankind His authority in various specific categories. In God’s covenant with Noah, along with granting man authority over the creatures, plants, birds, and fish, God bestows upon man conditional authority concerning the capital punishment.
“…if someone murders a fellow human, I will require that person’s life. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans his blood will be shed, for God made humans in his image.” (Gen 9:5c-6)
Thus, we see God’s requirement of capital punishment formalized in the covenant with Noah. This covenant proceeds from the aftermath of the flood and is not stipulated for a specific time, place or culture. The reformed theologian, Charles Hodge makes this observation concerning the Noahic covenant in its regard to capital punishment:
Because it is expressly declared in the Bible, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” (Gen. ix. 6.) That this is of perpetual obligation is clear, because it was given to Noah, the second head of the human race. It was, therefore, not intended for any particular age or nation. It is the announcement of a general principle of justice; a revelation of the will of God. Moreover the reason assigned for the law is a permanent reason. Man was created in the image of God; and, therefore, whoso sheds his blood, by man shall his blood be shed. ”
– Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Book III § 10.
The covenant with Noah makes clear that the taking of human life demands an earthly reckoning. The absence here of the eternal and eschatological reckoning at the hands of God on the day of the Lord’s final judgement shouldn’t be taken as incongruent with the earthly consequence of murder, but rather as a continuation and just harmony with the righteous judgement of God (1 Peter 2:14, Num 35:30-34).
Recently, it has become in vogue to “unhitch” the Old Testament from the relevant truth and love found in the New Testament because the commands of the OT are too difficult for us (read: “too barbaric, backward, non-progressive, unloving, etc…”). Thought there are seemingly apparent problems sustaining such difficult commands from God’s law expressed in the Old Testament to the New Testament believer, those apparent problems stem more from a lack of understanding concerning biblical covenants and God’s eternal law than they do from inconsistencies within the bible. While a robust explanation concerning the passing of the Old Covenant in exchange for the New Covenant is beyond the bounds of this paper, others have done a more than adequate job explaining the various positions why and how the Old Testament isn’t irrelevant to the eternal Law of God and the New Covenant believer (Schreiner 1, 2, 3; Clark 1, 2, 3; Kruger, Riccardi). For our purposes, it is sufficient to conclude that historically the church has taught that the Old Testament is not irrelevant for the New Covenant believer. Regardless if you lean toward the Reformed camp on the Gospel/Law distinction, or in to the Progressive Covenantal camp, or even out toward the fringes of the New Covenant Theology camp (or even the Dispensational camp)… all of these camps and many more agree that the law of God reflected in the Old Testament, is still relevant to the believer today. The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New Testament. God does notchange. (Numbers 23:19, Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8)
Additionally, it is an important observation that the prescription against murder and the institution of capital punishment is established not in the Mosaic law given to the ethnic nation-state of Israel, but rather rooted in creation (Imago Dei). While the means and methods of God’s law may change over time (and especially in the Levitical Laws given for a specific place, culture and time) His moral law, like His character, is eternal. This is why God can forbid the ethnic nation of Israel from eating all sorts of specific foods, animals, methods of cooking meat, etc. in the dietary laws written in the book of Leviticus (ch.11), but then tell the apostle Peter to “Rise! Kill and eat! What God has made clean, you must not call common.” This is why Jesus could say “You have heard that it was said, Do not commit adultery. But I tell you, everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Has God’s moral command changed? Do we no longer need to heed the commands found in the Old Testament? No, in fact, the eternal and moral law of God first revealed in the Old Covenant has not changed and is reiterated in the NT! This is because God’s moral law is eternal, existing from before creation, before the Mosaic/Levitical Laws, making it still binding on the believer today, summed up in what Paul calls the “law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2, 1 Corinthians 9:21).
Correspondingly, we have very good reason to understand Romans 13 as a reiteration of God’s moral law concerning capital punishment established in creation. Paul affirms that the governing authorities “do not bear the sword (machaira) for nothing” (Rom. 13:4). While Paul surely conveys the general principle that the state has the right to punish evil doers, more specifically, since the sword was typically an instrument of death in the New Testament, and certainly in his letter to the Romans (Romans 8:35-36), it is evident that Paul intends to convey the state’s authority and responsibility to administer justice via capital punishment. Paul would not (and the New Testament authors nowhere…) have flinched at endorsing the right and duty given to earthly authorities for jurisdictive capital punishment, since Genesis 9:6 supports it by appealing to the fact that human beings are made in God’s image. The translation here in Romans 13 literally means that the governing authorities are to be “an avenger for wrath to the one practicing evil…”. And though this wrath is not of God’s ultimate judgement, when wielded justly, it is in agreement and cooperation with God’s moral judgement.
We see from the previous verses in Romans 12 that this just act of wrath carried out against wrong doers by earthly governments, is juxtaposition the unjust act of an individual carrying out wrath against their offender. The verb “avenge” (ekdikeō) in 12:19 is the same word (adjective form) used in 13:4 “avenger” (ekdikos). The connection Paul makes is plain. While the individual is not to wrathfully avenge himself against those who do him wrong, the governing authorities ought to do so in order that justice might be done. The implication is that there is a lack of justice, indeed an injustice when the ruling authorities let evil doers harm the innocent without penal repercussion. Notice also that the wrong being done is in the past… “do not avenge yourselves” assumes something has already been done deserving vengeance. So Paul’s argument is not primarily that the ruling authorities are to only prevent harm from ever occurring, by simply restraining the wrongdoer prior to his evil act. Instead the emphasis is on the wrathful consequence of an evil already committed.
Scripture consistently teaches that God has given a right and responsibility to human authorities to carry out wrathful vengeance upon those who harm others, and more specifically, to carry out capital punishment upon the murderer. It cannot plainly be shown that the New Testament is inconsistent with the moral principal of this command. It is plain that the NT writers had many occasions to instruct or imply that this moral principal was no longer binding, yet they passed up every such opportunity. It is plain that the Old Testament is replete with commands for capital punishment. It is plain that capital punishment was instituted not in the Mosaic law to the nation of Israel, but rather in creation (Imago Dei) and covenanted with all mankind through Noah. And it is likely certain that Paul reiterates this duty and responsibility explicitly in Romans 13:4.
My wife once told me a story from A Tale of Two Cities. It took place in a small village outside of Paris in the late 18th century. The French Revolution had not yet begun, and the townspeople were living under oppressive poverty.
One day a large cask of wine was being unloaded from a cart when it tumbled, fell, and “shattered like a walnut shell.” Wine poured out into the street, making pools and rivulets in the cobblestones. The townspeople stopped what they were doing to attend to the spilled wine.
Some men kneeled down, made scoops of their two hands joined, and sipped, or tried to help women, who bent over their shoulders, to sip, before the wine had all run out between their fingers. Others, men and women, dipped in the puddles with little mugs of mutilated earthenware, or even with handkerchiefs from women’s heads, which were squeezed dry into infants’ mouths…. others devoted themselves to the sodden and lee-dyed pieces of the cask, licking, and even champing the moister wine-rotted fragments with eager relish.
Did the townspeople lose their humanity? That’s one way to read the story. Like a pack of hyenas on an antelope they scavenge, staining their hands and faces blood red. Without dignity or composure, they lick to the lees.
Yet a broken cask of wine is not like a fallen antelope. The meat of the antelope keeps the hyenas alive, but the spilled wine keeps the townspeople human. They scoop up a dribble in a broken pot to taste the product of human ingenuity. They bury their faces in the wine-dark street to celebrate a memory of celebration.
And this celebration is not private. Like all festivals, it is public. Even the infants get a handkerchief of wine.
There was a special companionship in it, an observable inclination on the part of every one to join some other one, which led, especially among the luckier or lighter-hearted, to frolicsome embraces, drinking of healths, shaking of hands, and even joining of hands and dancing, a dozen together.
We all seem to be alarmed of late. Conservatives and liberals are both wringing their hands, convinced of a looming dystopia. In light of these concerns, perhaps Dickens’s story could be read as a kind of doomsday preparation. In what ways can we exercise and celebrate our freedoms by being connoisseurs of the products of civilization?
When was the last time you tasted something so urgently as those townspeople tasted that spilt wine? When did you last savor a taste of coffee or a conversation or a song as though it were the official representative of humanity – a scrap, a souvenir of goodness? We don’t lack for treats, generally. But we do often lack for attention.
Furthermore, when did you last make something worth savoring? Have you made a meal, built a campfire, or told a story that is worthy of rapt attention? It needn’t be perfect. But, like wine mixed with the mud on the street, it should contain some notion of the human, which itself contains some notion of the divine.
Last week I posted some thoughts regarding virtue ethics. The previous week I wrote disparagingly about Clean Eating. Since then, a lot of people have asked me about the connection between diet and virtue.
OK, Tom Hanks is right. No one has asked me that. But still, it’s a question I’d like to engage. Because it isn’t as though Americans are particularly healthy. Our habits are so far from what they ought to be that the FDA has approved a device that will suck the bad decisions right out of your stomach.
So if what we’re doing isn’t working, and if Clean Eating isn’t the solution, what should we do? I’m so glad you asked.
Diets are like tightropes, suspended a few inches off of the ground. People have strong opinions about which tightrope is best. Maybe they’re a believer in Paleo, raw food, or intermittent fasting. But whichever tightrope they choose, that’s their focus. They hope to stay on the tightrope indefinitely (or at least into the ill-defined future). Through the pure exertion of willpower, they intend to balance perfectly until balancing becomes as easy as walking.
Of course, things seldom work out this way. Life becomes demanding, busy, or unpredictable, and so they fall off of the tightrope. Maybe they try to hop back on, but before long, they are on the ground again. Eventually they find that they’ve abandoned the tightrope all together. They are walking again on the same ground they’ve tried to leave behind so many times before. Perhaps they’ve even become interested in a new tightrope. What’s this Keto diet all about?
UCLA researcher Tracy Mann conducted a study that looked into the problems with dieting.
We found that the majority of people regained all the weight, plus more. Sustained weight loss was found only in a small minority of participants, while complete weight regain was found in the majority. Diets do not lead to sustained weight loss or health benefits for the majority of people.
Although diets tend to be effective in the short term, dieters tend to fall off the tightrope in the long term. And, over time, all of those falls begin to take a toll.
We concluded most of [the study participants] would have been better off not going on the diet at all. Their weight would be pretty much the same, and their bodies would not suffer the wear and tear from losing weight and gaining it all back.
Ms. Mann isn’t the only one criticizing dieting. Sandra Aamodt’s popular TED Talk explains why diets make us fat. And just yesterday, NPR reported that yo-yo dieting may be bad for our hearts.
So, what does Virtue Ethics have to say about all of this? What, exactly, is the Aristotelian plan for weight loss? As I described last week, Virtue Ethics is chiefly concerned with what kind of people we are. In other words, it is less interested in the tightrope than it is in the ground. And so the key question is: when we fall of our diets, where do we land? What are our underlying habits? And what does it take to change them?
Our habits are the things we do without trying. Our habits don’t take any willpower. For instance, imagine that you wake up one Saturday morning to find that your spouse has bought a box of doughnuts. You’re probably going to eat some, but not all, of those doughnuts. As much as you might like doughnuts, you probably don’t evenwant to eat all of them. When you manage not to eat an entire box of doughnuts, you aren’t exercising willpower. You aren’t walking on a tightrope. You are walking on the ground.
I’m more interested in changing my habits than I am in balancing perfectly upon some artificial diet. When I think about my life 10 or 20 years from now, I want health to be second nature. To achieve that, I think I need to pay more attention to my habits than the latest nutritional fad.
For the past couple of years I’ve been working on this very thing. I’ve chosen one habit per year that I want to change, and made that my focus. I try to think about what I really want to do, not just for this year, but for the rest of my life. For the first year, for instance, I focused on overeating. I noticed that I had a tendency to mindlessly finish the food on my plate, whether I was hungry for it or not. The resulting over-full feeling was something I was happy to be rid of.
That first year seemed to be moving awfully slowly. I didn’t feel like I was doing enough. The plan didn’t seem sufficiently difficult. Yet, the habit has stuck. It’s not something I have to think about any more because it has become second nature. For instance, if I eat a lot of chips and salsa before a meal, I take it pretty slow on the meal. I had to consciously pay attention to it for the first few months. But somewhere between then and now it has become second nature.
This has been a somewhat strange post to write. Talking about dieting seems at once too personal and not serious enough. Yet, it’s clearly something that a lot of people spend a lot of time thinking about and even anguishing over. Virtue Ethics may be the stuff of serious books and learned lectures. Yet, I think it has application for this kind of very practical subject.
Imagine a young woman being pursued by two suitors. The first is staid and predictable. He’s consistent, punctual, and perhaps a bit boring. The second is spontaneous. He tends towards the unexpected and adventurous.
Our young woman considers a life with each of these men. She imagines that the first is a safe choice. He won’t quit his job on a whim to become a skydiving instructor. [Note: this example intends no offense towards the skydiving instructors upon whom our nation depends.] However, the safety he offers isn’t likely to be exciting. The second guy, on the other hand, may be more whimsical than trustworthy. He might be more fun, but will he bail on his vows in a fit of spontaneity?
All else being equal, which guy should she pick? Or, to put it more broadly: is spontaneity a virtue? Is it a characteristic we should value in others and attempt to cultivate in ourselves? Virtue ethics offers some clarity to this question.
The school of thought known as virtue ethics was developed in ancient Greece and has been a subject of renewed interest in recent decades. It recognizes four cardinal virtues which, taken together, represent an ideal of human development. The four virtues – Prudence, Justice, Courage, and Temperance – don’t appear to contain anything having to do with spontaneity. If anything, the virtue of temperance would seem to suggest against it. Temperance is about resisting temptation, after all, and the spontaneous person seems to be giving in to temptation.
But take a closer look at courage. Courage is the ability to overcome fear or difficulty in service of the good. Historically, courage is most closely associated with the warrior who must endure hardship and danger, long marches and fierce opponents, to complete a mission. Courage has two faces. It entails both endurance and attack.
The brave man not only knows how to bear inevitable evil with equanimity; he will also not hesitate to ‘pounce upon’ evil and to bar its way, if this can reasonably be done. – Josef Pieper
Endurance, or fortitude, is the ability to withstand difficulty. The mountaineer trudging up the peak and the shift worker dragging himself out of bed in the morning are both exhibiting courage. They are actively sticking with a difficult thing because it is what needs to be done. Endurance is the persevering, unchanging, even stoic face of courage.
The willingness and ability to attack is an aspect of courage that looks very different from endurance. Unlike endurance, attack presents itself suddenly, in a decisive moment. A courageous man who sees a woman being abused in a parking lot will intervene.
And, pertinent to our question, virtue ethics calls on him to act this way without deliberation. Courage should be second nature. This differs from the modern tendency of thinking that ethical questions pertain to what we do. Virtue ethics is more interested in what kind of people we are. Through long habituation, courage becomes automatic.As Aristotle said, “we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.”
Paradoxically, courage may cause a person to seem both steady and spontaneous. Life often calls for faithful repetition. It is an act of fortitude to clean the same dishes every day, to exercise regularly, and to consistently report to work on time. However, there are those times when one must become critical of an established routine; when the path of safety and familiarity should be questioned and rejected. There is a time to endure and a time to attack.
Our imaginary young woman would do well to consider which of her suitors is more courageous. Perhaps the first man is predictable because he is timid. Maybe he is simply too afraid to do anything outside of his routine. If so, then life with this man is likely to be not only boring, but shameful. The situation is different, however, if his consistency is a sign of courage. It may be that he has developed the habits of fortitude. The evidence will be in his actions.
As for the second man, is his spontaneity the result of courage or evidence of its absence? Is his apparent whimsy actually a demonstration that he cares more about goodness than convention? Maybe the pursuit of the good life will often appear idiosyncratic.
Then again, what looks like free spiritedness may actually be cowardice. It may be an inability to suffer under discomfort. And so our imaginary young woman will have to ask herself which of these men is more courageous. Which is more likely to meet the challenges of courage, whether of endurance or attack?
Seven years ago, 3 teenage boys took a joyride in a small aluminum boat they’d stolen from an uncle. The boys lived on the Tokelau Islands, a small remote pacific atoll governed by New Zealand. The boys were familiar with the ocean and its dangers, but that familiarity couldn’t restrain their youthful desire for adventure.
In the middle of the night, they pushed off into the open sea, hoping to reach a neighboring island within a few days. Instead, they drifted like a speck in the Pacific Ocean. Before they were rescued, they spent more than fifty days bobbing in salt water with barely any food or water.
One day, malnourished and sick from the sun, the boys watched as a gray gull landed on their boat. Quickly grabbing the bird, they twisted its neck, and plucked its feathers. They pulled off its skin with their teeth before devouring the meat, organs, and the contents of the bird’s stomach. They then crushed and ate the bones, and with growling stomachs wished for more.
****
The eleventh chapter of Leviticus names twenty different birds that should be regarded as unclean, inedible. “The gull” is among them. Distinctions between clean and unclean are applied to the animals of the land and the sea, and of insects. Some can be eaten; others must be avoided.
You must distinguish between the unclean and the clean, between living creatures that may be eaten and those that may not be eaten.
In the Gospels, Jesus dismisses these dietary restrictions. It’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, he says, but what comes out of your mouth. Whatever is put in the mouth will eventually be expelled. “But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them.”
The apostle Peter, having grown up with the dietary restrictions of Leviticus, internalized their logic of disgust. Lizards and catfish represented contamination. Camels and rabbits, through long habituation, were repellent to him. And so it took a vision from heaven to expand his diet.
He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
“Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
****
There is a way of relating to food that is only nominally about health. Its chief concern is the aesthetics of purity. It fetishizes the natural, a concept which its adherents can identify intuitively, but cannot quite define. Kale is natural, as are flax seeds. Wheat and corn are not.
Gwyneth Paltrow, who has published multiple cookbooks, is a priestess of the religion of Clean Eating. She offers spiritual guidance to her followers, covered in a diaphanous layer of pseudoscience.
The bottom line is, our bodies have a hard time with anything processed. That doesn’t only mean kool-aid and goldfish. White flour, white rice and soy milk are all heavily processed as well.
Or again,
We’re human beings and the sun is the sun—how can it be bad for you? I don’t think anything that’s natural can be bad for you.
Clean Eating is driven by a religious impulse to avoid contamination. But, unlike the Levitical proscriptions, the source of defilement here is modernity. It isn’t the pig that’s to be avoided, but the pig’s antibiotics and growth hormones. It’s his sunless stall and the industrial methods of his processing facility that cause impurity.
Clean Eating’s adherents must strive to avoid that which is artificial or manufactured. Through rituals like juice fasts and cleanses, they can atone for the toxins they’ve ingested. In so doing they strive to recover a kind of Edenic innocence. As a recent article explained, “It seems that the further we go with fancy and intricate treatments, the more we’re engaging in a ritual effort to make ourselves pure again.”
But the path of Clean Eating is asymptotal. It desires a state of purity that is always just out of reach. More antioxidants are always needed, more potent probiotics, or a more exotic source of hydration.
Those boys from Tokelau, starving almost to death, confronted an unsavory truth. Our day to day existence depends on sacrifice. The only way to stave off our own death is by killing and ingesting plants and animals. It’s a process that weds us to the world and frustrates our attempts at a diet-based transcendence.
I first read Into the Wild as a teenager. I was working at a Christian bookstore at the time, selling copies of Left Behind and The Prayer of Jabez in a shopping center off the highway. On breaks I would walk across parking lots and past chain restaurants to the Barnes & Noble to read John Krakauer’s account of Christopher McCandless.
McCandless was a young man with a deep longing for the wilderness and an acute awareness that civilized society could not answer that longing. After graduating college, he gave his money away to charity, cut off ties with his family, changed his name, and walked into the mountains of Alaska.
There was something thrilling about living vicariously through McCandless. My view may have been dominated by parking lots and overpasses, but he was immersed in, “nature in its most staggering grandeur.” What’s more, McCandless took his longing seriously. He refused to be content in anything less than a radical existence.
McCandless was a kind of secular saint of longing. He held nothing back, but gave himself over entirely to the object of his desire. He was also a martyr. His body was found by a hunter just a few months after he entered the Alaskan wilderness.
His story, sad as it was, articulated something that I hadn’t found in the shelves of the Christian bookstore. It spoke of human longing, and of the ways in which those longings make us wild.
