""/
Christian Faith, Christianity

The Polyamorous God?

September 29, 2017

Polyamory and the Church

Chuck McKnight thinks it’s time for the church to talk about polyamory. So he’s dedicated a series of posts on his blog, Hippie Heretic, to the discussion. If you are not clear what polyamory even is, you are probably not alone. One of McKnight’s worries is that other LGBT issues have gotten a large hearing and wide embrace by progressive Christians without the polyamorous getting a slice of that pie. McKnight identifies himself as polyamorous and hopes to right this wrong.

So what is polyamory? McKnight cites an academic looking online article that defines it as:

consensually non-monogamous relationships [where] there is an open agreement that one, both, or all individuals involved in a romantic relationship may also have other sexual and/or romantic partners.

So it is different from polygamy (having more than one spouse) since it is not necessarily involving marriage. It could just be a group of individuals who openly, and in a committed way (i.e., it’s also not simply recreational sex) engage in romantic/sexual relationships with each other.

Let’s Talk

Well let’s, as Christians, talk about polyamory.

For many of us, there’s no possible way to square Christian sexual ethics with polyamory. That is, there is no way to be serious about Scripture as a source of truth and guide for moral lives and see polyamory as an acceptable Christian alternative. We can of course ignore the fact that sexual intimacy is reserved only for marriage between one man and one woman in ALL the sexual ethical teaching from cover to cover, if we want to, but then our view isn’t really Christian any longer. There are polygamous marriages in the Old Testament times, but their success (or lack thereof) is much more clearly a counterexample to plural marriage than argument for it. The polygamous relationships are also a far cry from open and committed sexual encounters between groups of men and women. In most cases, it is one man with many wives and the wives have no say at all. So if one wants to be polyamorous, it seems to me, one should just leave Scripture out of it. There really is no way to connect these dots…or is there?

The Polyamorous Trinity

What originally turned my attention to McNight’s project was an interview he did with Jeff Hood entitled “Southern Baptist Preacher Affirms Polyamory”. Now so far as I can tell, it is bit of a stretch to call Hood a Southern Baptist or a preacher. He did get a degree from an SBC seminary, but I have my doubts he affirms any version of the Baptist Faith and Message. Though I’m sure he preaches, from time to time, I could not find a church (SBC or otherwise) for which he serves as a preaching pastor. So the title of the post is a bit misleading, but it certainly baited my click, which was of course the point.

When asked what led him to a polyamory affirming position, Hood repeatedly cites his encounters with God who he takes to be (wait for it) polyamorous. This is how Hood connects the dots between Christianity and polyamory. Here’s a sampling:

“Along the way, I heard the voices of the polyamorous…”

“Divine polyamory found me a sinner and lifted me up by grace.”

“I saw a great cloud of polyamorous witnesses shouting, ‘Holy! Holy! Holy, is the polyamorous love of God!’”

“In the midst of a great resistance, polyamory saved my soul.”

“Then, God said, ‘What you have done to the polyamorous amongst you…you have done to me.’ Without the polyamorous, we cannot know God.”

“I know who I’m listening to. I hear the voice of God, ‘I am the way, the truth and the life…no one can love me and condemn polyamory…for I am polyamorous.’”

And finally:

“While there could be many explanations of the polyamorous God, the one that matters the most is this…God dwells within the oppressed and marginalized (Matthew 25)…polyamorous folks are constantly oppressed and marginalized…God is polyamorous…and if we want to get saved than we have to figure out a way to become connected to polyamory.” (the ellipses are all in the original)

A Dilemma for the Christian Polyamorous

The problem here is that what it is for God to be polyamorous remains radically unclear. Hood repeats this sentiment throughout the interview but cannot be bothered to say what this means. This is even after McKnight asks him to clarify what it means to say this about God. So it is presumably unclear to McKnight who, we should keep in mind, identifies as polyamorous and is likely sympathetic to this sort of an idea.

So I think Hood has himself a dilemma. What does it mean to say God is polyamorous? Either it is a metaphor and is being used to say that God is loving, in a general sense, or it is not a metaphor and means that God is loving in a specifically sexually plural sense.

If it is simply a metaphor and means that the Father loves the Son and that the Son loves the Spirit, etc., then the thesis is uninteresting (in the sense that it is not controversial). Everyone thinks that, in some sense, the Son is the beloved of the Father (Matt. 3:17) and so on for the persons of the Trinity. But then consistency calls for using that same general notion (i.e., not the sexualized notion) for us all to be loving to others. It certainly doesn’t follow that we are all called to embrace a specific open sexual relationship with others. Scripture calls us to be loving and this call is grounded, on my view, in Trinitarian love. I have friends that I love very dearly. I also believe I’m called to love my enemies. But it is absurd to think this commits me to having open sexual relationships with my friends or my enemies.

But c’mon, nobody understands polyamory as merely a loving relationship. It’s a provocative thesis precisely because what we mean by the term has to do with sexual intimacy. In other words, being polyamorous ain’t just having friends! If it was, then everyone on the planet (except for a handful of genuine hermits) would be polyamorous and the term loses all meaning.

On the other hand, if God is polyamorous in a sexually intimate sense, then this ceases to be a Christian notion altogether and has become rankly pagan. Paganism, as a religious belief system, has gods who are sexually intimate with each other (and often with humans too!). The pagan gods would be polyamorous if they weren’t so dang jealous and possessive. But there you go, this “scripture” would provide these guys the requisite religious backing they seek. So what if it is not true? Given the topic under discussion and their liberal posture, I’m not sure they are all that worried about objective truth claims any way.

I’ll be honest. I find polyamory morally repugnant. I think sexual intimacy is diminished when there are multiple partners in view. But I completely respect a person’s right to embrace this lifestyle. What I don’t get is the attempt to say this is consistent with Christian teaching. My suggestion, for what it’s worth, is to own up to the lack of Christian grounding. If you are going to defend a view so out of step with Scripture, you’ve got a right to do it, but just admit it’s not Christian and stay away from clickbait titles.

 

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Doubt

Doubt That Is Toxic for Faith

September 25, 2017

Doubts

Over the last few years, I’ve been known to say things like “doubt is a good thing for Christian faith” and I go on to explain that doubts can lead to truth and an even greater faith. But about 1/3 of Christians initially react to my saying this with a distinct look of horror on their face. If I have enough time, I can typically explain enough that the look of horror goes away (at least on the outside!). What I say is, in doubting, there’s a real value in getting our hands dirty with objections to Christianity precisely because there is a robust case for Christianity. My experience and the experience of many I know is when we genuinely pursue these matters, Christianity provides deeply satisfying answers to our doubts. When we get these answers, we secure a greater faith.

But these are doubts of the intellectual variety. It is where we are wondering or are curious about some fact or other. To be sure, it may be a pronounced struggle, but (and this is really important) this form of doubt is entirely consistent with faith. We can have a variety of questions about Christianity and still maintain faith.

I often use the example of flying on an airplane. I have a lot of questions about how it is possible for a craft made of mostly metal to safely cruise 6 miles off the planet. I have some unanswered questions about this, but I can quite rationally get on board my next flight. I can place my faith in the air plane in the face of my doubts. Similarly, I can have questions—a lot of questions!—and still place my faith in Christ.

Toxic Doubt

But there’s another form of doubt (that seemingly 1/3 of people I talk to have in mind). It is a bit more complicated and is, in a way, toxic for Christian faith and relationships, in general. This is where we lack trust and doubt a person him or herself. It’s not propositional here. It is personal. Perhaps we’ve lost our trust in their character or integrity. This happens in marriages from time to time. For a variety of reasons, one can no longer trust his or her spouse. One is in this unfortunate place of doubting him or her. This is really toxic for a marriage since faith in the other is lost. The survival of the marriage, it seems to me, depends on regaining this lost trust.

The parallel for Christian faith should be obvious. When we lack trust in God, this is of course a bad place to be as it relates to our Christian faith. In fact, if Christian faith is a state of trust (as I argue here, here, and here), then this form of doubt just is to fail to have faith. One cannot doubt (in this sense) and have faith.

Sometimes we are completely justified in lacking faith in someone. Spouses and other people in our lives are sometimes unfaithful and it is completely appropriate to doubt them. I of course do not think that this is the case with God, but I won’t take the space here to defend this claim. I will say, however, I am more certain about God’s fidelity, then just about anything of my Christian beliefs. But for the sake of this post (and I know not everyone reading this agrees), I’m going to assume that when we doubt God in this way, we aren’t thinking rightly about God.

Addressing Toxic Doubt

What should we do then when we doubt (as in lack trust in) God? We are, it seems, “like the surging sea, driven and tossed by the wind…being double-minded and unstable in all [our] ways” (Jm. 1:8-9).  It seems to me the answer is the same as it is for all doubts: we’ve got to pursue truth and knowledge. If one is doubting one’s spouse in a possibly inappropriate way, one should pursue the truth about one’s spouse. One needs to figure out whether he or she has in fact been unfaithful.

On the God front, apologetics may prove helpful here, but it is not the full answer. It seems one must also press in relationally (true of marriage too!) to taste of God’s fidelity. One should dive in devotionally and allow God to provide evidence of his character. This is coming face to face with God, confessing our doubts, and opening our hearts and minds to his corrective. It’s not easy but, in the process, there’s rest for your soul.

Consider the words of Jesus:

Come to me, all of you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take up my yoke and learn from me, because I am lowly and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light. (Mt. 11:28-30)

It’s a standing invitation.

""/
Christian Faith, Doubt

How to Doubt and Have Faith without Exploding

September 19, 2017

An experience of intellectual doubt is often taken by Christians to be a sign of weak faith. I argue, however, that an encounter with doubt, when treated properly, is extremely valuable, since it can lead to knowledge and an even greater faith. To see this, it’s important to understand the nature of doubt. Intellectual doubt should be defined as finding plausible what we take to be a potentially defeating claim. This definition provides insights for how to evaluate one’s doubts. My claim is that it is completely rational to maintain our Christian faith while experiencing doubt. This allows us to in turn evaluate the reasonableness of our doubt. Evidence matters with intellectual doubt, since a doubt requires outweighing evidence to defeat a belief effectively. Merely to find an objection plausible is not for there to be a preponderance of evidence in its favor. The upshot of all this is that, by addressing our doubts, we are forced to think more carefully about our faith (i.e., we have greater knowledge) and, in the case that a doubt is diffused, we have more reason to trust (i.e., we have an even greater faith).

Read the full article here.

(This is an article I wrote for the Christian Research Journal. These are very well done magazine style journal that is broadly on apologetics topics. If you are into these topics, it’s a great subscription. Check it out here.)

""/
Apologetics, Christianity

The (Morally Appropriate) Jealousy of God

September 12, 2017

The Bible in no uncertain terms describes God as jealous. In fact, God himself proclaims:

You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God (Exodus 20:5)

This, it seems, is grist for the New Atheist hostility mill. What?! You think God is jealous? In the words of Bill Maher, in his not-so-much interesting movie Religulous, “Your God is jealous? That seems so un-godlike that God would have such a petty human emotion. I know people who have gotten over jealousy, let alone God.”

The problem with this response is the problem with much of the New Atheist content, which is it treats superficially a notion embedded in a very specific tradition and a context. Virtually absent from their critiques is any attempt to understand what Scripture or Christians mean by this sort of claim. If Scripture was predicating of God a petty human emotion, I too would react with disdain. But maybe, just maybe, there is a bit more subtlety here and if we dive into the context, we’d see something actually quite profound and interesting. Fingers crossed!

Is Jealousy Wrong?

Let’s first ask whether jealousy is always morally wrong. There’s certainly a way of being jealous that is morally inappropriate. In this case, one is strongly desiring something one lacks or to which one has no right to possess. So if you strongly desire your neighbor’s car, your co-worker’s house, or your friend’s good looks, then you are jealous of them in a way that seems overall inappropriate. The moral virtue is to be content with what we possess and to moderate our desires accordingly.

Is this what the Exodus passage is referring to? Well, no, of course not on the Christian view. For the Christian, God is without lack and so it’s suspect from the start to think that Scripture is picturing God as desiring something he lacks. Perhaps Christian theology gets the Bible wrong here…or (said with emphasis) perhaps we shouldn’t see this as God’s desiring something he lacks and there’s a better reading of what’s going on.

It’s also worth noting the Bible goes on to explicitly prohibit an attitude of jealousy in Galatians 5:20. This is (since it is prohibited) the morally inappropriate sense of jealousy. So perhaps Galatians is prohibiting something that Exodus is ascribing to God…or (said with emphasis) perhaps there are different senses of the term and there’s a morally appropriate sense of jealousy.

I want to suggest there is a morally appropriate sense of jealousy.

Appropriate Jealousy

What would be a morally appropriate sense of jealousy? The term seems to have enough flexibility to include strongly desiring something that is in fact rightfully ours. On the Christian view, the world is rightfully God’s. We, in particular, are his. So for him to desire us and our affections, for him to be jealous in this sense, is not morally inappropriate.

Perhaps an analogy is when someone’s spouse has, in a way, wandered from the marriage. It is completely appropriate for one to be jealous after one’s spouse in this scenario. In fact, if there’s any hope for the marriage, then one will desire and seek to win one’s spouse back.

For God to be a jealous God, he desires our affections and worship, not because he lacks in some way, but because he is the appropriate object of our affections and worship. Other gods, even if they existed, are not worthy of worship. They indeed, without fail, lack in various respects. The gods are to be appeased and placated, but not worshipped. We flourish best when we turn our affections and worship to God. It’s our telos, it’s our design. Being religiously plural–in giving our affections to other “gods”–is ultimately harmful to our wellbeing.

Rather than this being some expression of a petty emotion, this is a quite beautiful picture of God’s attitude towards us.

""/
Apologetics, Christian Faith, Christianity

Are atheists committed to a world without moral facts?

September 6, 2017

Christian Apologists often say that without God there would be no such thing as morality. But the obvious counterexample to this is the many moral philosophers who are not theists but are moral realists (that is, they posit the existence of moral facts).

What’s going on here? Are all these professional philosophers just blind to their incoherence?

It’s important to see that the primary reason to posit God’s existence is because of the many features of the world that would be radically unexpected if God did not exist. For example, the way the universe is fine tuned for human existence is rather unexpected if God did not exist. However, if God does exist and God had planned intentions for humans to occupy a smallish piece of dust in the universe, then one would expect to see a world tuned for the realization of those intentions. There are many such features, and there’s no doubt moral facts are an important example of these.

Mackie’s argument from queerness

It seems exceedingly odd that the world has moral values that govern the actions of human beings. This very point is made by the eminent philosopher of religion, J.L. Mackie, who was one of the most famous atheists of the 20th century. Mackie argued against the existence of moral facts, in part, on the basis of what he called the argument from queerness. He says:

If there were objective values, then they would be entities or qualities or relations of a very strange sort, utterly different from anything else in the universe. Correspondingly, if we were aware of them, it would have to be by some special faculty of moral perception of intuition, utterly different from our ordinary ways of knowing everything else. (Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong)

Mackie concludes, given their queerness, there actually are no moral facts and defends an Error Theory, according to which all of our morally normative claims are, strictly speaking, false. However, this is a steep price to pay and many (perhaps most) subsequent atheist philosophers haven’t been willing to deny the existence of morality. Moral facts seem too obviously part of our world despite their queerness.

Moral facts are expected on theism

But moral facts are queer (or strange or unexpected) only on the atheist’s worldview. Moral facts are at home on a theistic picture. Theists have thought God, as the ground and source of morality, makes good sense of morality. This of course gives way to the moral argument for God’s existence.

But notice this doesn’t yield the claim that without God, there’s no such thing as morality. That’s overstated. Moral facts are queer (or strange) on atheism. They are not logical incoherent.

Atheist morality

What can the atheist say to account for morality? The atheist can say moral facts exist as brute facts of the world. That is, the world just is this way. Moral principles are necessary truths such that it isn’t possible for moral facts to fail to exist in a world with human agents. And the atheist can say we can apprehend these truths via our reflective (i.e., non-empirical) reasoning in coming to have moral knowledge.

An atheist, on this view. would not be a materialist or a naturalist, but something of a atheistic platonist. There seems to be logical space for this sort of view.

Is this ad hoc? Yes, yes it is. It leaves moral facts as posited, but not explained. But perhaps some entities of the world need not have an explanation. We all have to posit some brute facts at some point. Theists will think that God needs no reason or explanation for his existence. Rather, he is the explanation of the world. God exists in a brute way. Perhaps moral facts are like this. They explain the moral domain without themselves being or needing to be explained.

Who wins?

Now I think that theism wins hands down here. God is perhaps not entailed by moral facts but he is a far better explanation. God’s existence also explains a host of other features of our world (e.g., that there’s a world, the fine tuning of the world, the intrinsic value of human beings, logic/math, the regularity of nature, etc.). The atheist seems to have to say all of these things just are and this strikes me as extremely implausible. On the whole, I find atheism to be an impoverished worldview since it actually explains very little.

But are atheists committed to a world without moral facts? No, I think that’s overstated.

Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta
Welcome to my blog! ~Travis Dickinson, PhD
Recent Posts
Top Posts