Biblical Somatology
How the Bible’s View of the Body Cures Social Ills and Unleashes Human Flourishing
Sean Finnegan (Restitutio.org)
Presented May 6, 2018
27th Theological Conference
Sponsored by Restoration Fellowship
Introduction
Between the apathy and reductionism of those who think our biological bodies don’t matter, and the vanity and superficiality of the celebrity culture that places ultimate value on appearance, the bible offers a surprisingly lofty view of the body that engenders respect but not worship. In a world of sexual harassment, abortion, and sex reassignment surgeries, adopting a biblical somatology provides a welcome framework that curbs destructive behaviors while unleashing human flourishing. In what follows we will work through the bible’s conceptual framework for understanding the body, including (1) creation theology, (2) fallen flesh, and (3) holistic redemption. Next, we’ll examine (4) the body aesthetic in scripture with particular focus on the Song of Songs, before exploring the (5) boundaries God has placed on gratifying our bodies’ appetites. Lastly, we’ll look at how secular (6) personhood theory has infiltrated how our culture thinks about moral issues, including abortion, euthanasia, “hookups,” homosexuality, and transgenderism. For each of these we’ll see how personhood theory fails, and how the bible’s holistic anthropology offers a better way forward.
1 Creation Theology
In the beginning, God created humanity in his own image and likeness (Gen 1.26-27). He formed the first man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2.7). Next, he put the man to sleep and fashioned from his rib the first woman (Gen 2.21). When God presented her to Adam, he said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2.23).[1] Although our culture makes much of gender differences à la Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus, that is not what impressed Adam when he first met Eve. Rather, her similarity to him caught his attention.[2] Having named all the animals, most of whom had partners, he finally saw one that was like him and rejoiced at finding his mate. He called her woman (אִשָּׁה isha) since God took her from man (אִישׁ ish). Some critics have taken offense at God’s statement, “I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen 2.18), opining that the word “helper” is used to imply subservience. Such a misogynistic reading is impossible once we realize the word “helper” (עֵזֶר ezer) describes God himself in the majority of its uses in the Torah.[3] Furthermore, the word for “fit” (נֶגֶד neged) means “opposite” or “counterpart,” and implies equality not inferiority.
Getting back to the text, it says, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen 2.24). Here, God establishes the marital union right from the days of paradise before sin had tainted humanity. This noble view of marriage contains a beautiful mutuality as the two become one. The chapter ends with two perfect humans in paradise, naked and unashamed, in relationship with each other and God. In the creation narratives we do not find even the slightest hint of criticism about the bodies of our first parents. Even thousands of years later, once Israelite wisdom literature reached its peak, the sages thought of a wife as a gift from God (Prov 19.14).
From a biblical perspective, human bodies are God’s good design. They are not the result of a cosmic rebellion like the Gnostics taught, nor are they the tomb of the soul, as Philo put it.[4] In fact, the scriptures exult bodily pleasures, including eating, drinking, manual labor, and intercourse within their proper boundaries. This elevated view of human origins places a staggering amount of value and sanctity on human life. Because God carefully crafted us in his own image, we have inherent dignity. Our intellectual capabilities are not a fluke, nor are our bodies randomly thrown together. Biologists working in anatomy, physiology, and genetics marvel at the complex interconnected systems woven throughout our bodies. It’s hard to disagree with the psalmist who exclaims, “I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made” (Ps 139.14). Yet, the value God places on human life does not arise from our complexity or functionality, it’s innate by virtue of God’s declaration and creative act. It’s clear that this imago dei is not limited to our first parents when we read God’s later command regarding capital punishment.
Genesis 9.6
Whoever sheds the blood of man,
By man shall his blood be shed,
For God made man in his own image.
Precisely because people are in God’s image, human lives have value. We cannot kill whomever we want. Those who would snuff out someone’s life face the same result. There’s no hint of utilitarianism here. People’s lives are not worth more if they contribute more to society. All of us are in God’s image. This perspective has shaped how God’s people have thought and acted over the centuries. For example, James balked at the elitism common in his own day when he warned nascent Christian communities not to show partiality to the wealthy (Jam 2.1-9). Additionally, the bible ascribes dignity and worth to the disabled as evidenced in David’s treatment of Mephibosheth (2 Sam 4.4; 9.3-11), Jesus’ healing ministry,[5] or Paul’s own physical weaknesses (Gal 4.13-15; 2 Cor 12.7-10). Lastly, as an extension of this creation theology, the bible affirms the value of slaves, women, children, and the elderly even though these groups historically faced marginalization.
2 Fallen Flesh
Notwithstanding humanity’s divine origins, subsequent human history tells a disturbing story. To see how this works, we return to the Garden of Eden and consider the temptation that led to our fall. When the serpent addressed Eve about the forbidden fruit, he appealed to her desire for greatness. After assuring her that the fruit would not kill her, he told her, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen 3.5). The serpent’s question drove a wedge between God and humanity. Can we trust that the limitations he puts on us are for our well-being, or should we take matters into our own hands? Are the boundaries God sets for us holding us back from reaching our true human potential, or are they for our own good? Or to sharpen the question, could it be that God’s restrictions are precisely what makes human flourishing possible? We know that Eve believed the serpent because she followed through and ate from the forbidden tree. It’s worth noticing how integrated her mind and body are throughout the process.
Genesis 3.6-7
6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.
The temptation was at once tactile (a piece of fruit) and intellectual (hidden knowledge). Eve’s aesthetic sensibilities conspired with her psychological yearnings so that she pressed beyond God’s boundaries and ate. They both ate. Afterward, their mental eyes opened so that they now became aware they were naked. Now, they experienced fear for the first time—a mental state connected with a physical state. They heard God walking in the cool of the day and they hid themselves among the trees (Gen 3.8). When he asked them about this aberrant behavior, Adam replied, “I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid myself” (Gen 3.10). Their mental awareness of their physical condition resulted in deceptive behavior that ultimately introduced separation from God. After God inquired what happened, he immediately pronounced punishments on the serpent, the woman, and the man.
With the fall of humanity from its paradisal state of innocence, the problem of sin entered the picture more as a bulldog than a mosquito. Within the first earth-born man, rage and jealousy mixed like chemicals in a bomb, exploding in fratricide. Even with Abel’s blood hot on his hands, Cain did not feel remorse. When God asked him where his brother was, rather than confessing and repenting, he quipped, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen 4.9). Within a few more generations, the virus of sin had so infected the human species that “every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen 6.5). As a result, God acted drastically, eradicating the infection with a flood that wiped out everyone except eight souls—Noah and his family. Shortly after the flood, God separated people from each other at Babel so that a lack of cooperation would stem the tide of sin, providing the time necessary to enact his plan of salvation.
From that day until ours, it’s apparent that there’s something profoundly bent within humanity.[6] As a species, we routinely use our God-engineered bodies to injure and kill each other. We employ our God-given intelligence to steal from each other, ridicule each other, and deprive each other in countless ways. We have darkness within us, inextricably linked to our physical nature. The Apostle Paul called this condition “the flesh.” For Paul, the flesh and the body overlap, but they are not identical. Everyone has a physical body, but bodies aren’t the problem. The problem is our bodies are fallen, infected with a propensity to rebel against what God says is right. Our flesh is what makes it hard for us to do the right thing even when that’s what we really want (Rom 7). However, those of us who are in Christ can find freedom.
Romans 8.3-8
3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the spirit set their minds on the things of the spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Because of what God has done through Christ, we can resist the inclinations of our flesh. We can “put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom 13.14). Of course, the Christian is still in the body, but he or she does not have to walk according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα), but according to the spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα) (Gal 5.16-18). Interestingly, Paul does not limit the deeds of the flesh to the appetites of the body, though he certainly includes them. For example, apart from licentiousness and drunkenness, his list of the “works of the flesh” also includes mental sins such as idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, and envy (Gal 5.19-21). This means that our bodies’ appetites are not the sole source of sin, rather our condition is more complicated than that. Our whole beings, both mind and body, are bent toward sin.
As a result of this theology of fallen flesh, the bible has a much more pessimistic view of humankind than our present culture. It does not teach that people start out basically good and then only those who suffer childhood abuse or trauma become damaged and dangerous. Instead, our default is to follow the course of this world, living in the passions of our flesh, and carrying out the desires of the body and the mind (Eph 2.1-3). We come into the world radically selfish. This realistic view of fallen humanity helps make sense of egregious acts of heinous harm that all too often make headlines in the news. Rather than merely writing off those who commit horrible crimes as mentally disturbed or insane, the Christian worldview recognizes the same beast in all of us. We recognize that the difference between a law-abiding citizen and a school shooter is one of degree not of kind.
3 Holistic Redemption
Now we turn our attention to the third major component of the bible’s view of the body—holism. Before moving on to look at how the scriptures teaches an integrated view of the body, we need to take a quick detour to Athens. Although most do not realize it, so much of how we think about ourselves today derives from ancient Greek philosophy. According to Plato’s Phaedo, on Socrates’ last day alive, he mocked his closest friends for weeping over his impending death. Having drunk the fatal hemlock, Socrates knew that his time was short. However, he did not turn away from death as one would turn from an enemy but welcomed it with arms wide open. Socrates was an expert at contemplation, spending long hours probing the depths of metaphysics, ethics, and politics with his mind. While analyzing and meditating on a particular concept, his body sometimes interrupted him.
Phaedo 66d-e
But the worst of all is that if we do get a bit of leisure and turn to philosophy, the body is constantly breaking in upon our studies and disturbing us with noise and confusion, so that it prevents our beholding the truth, and in fact we perceive that, if we are ever to know anything absolutely, we must be free from the body and must behold the actual realities with the eye of the soul alone.
Beyond the body’s crasser functions, he said that even the best senses like hearing and seeing could not contribute to pursuing truth.[7] He genuinely believed the body hindered his attainment of knowledge. So, when the time came for him to escape his body, he rejoiced at the opportunity to finally enjoy uninterrupted cogitation.
The bible, on the contrary, presents an entirely different somatology. Rather than looking at the body as a mere outer, disposable husk with the soul as the inner, essential kernel, it portrays the body as an integral and necessary part of the human person. The Hebrew people did not draw strong distinctions between the body and the mind.[8] For example, even after Jesus died, Mary asked the gardener, “Tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away” (John 20.15). Jesus’ body was still Jesus, as far as Mary knew. Earlier she had cried out “They have taken away my Lord” (v13). If she were a Platonist, she would have said, “They have taken away my Lord’s body.” She failed to distinguish between the body and the person, even after death. As it turns out, Mary’s Jewish perspective is not an outlier, but the typical integrated understanding of personhood affirmed throughout the bible. Rather than surveying the whole of scripture, we’ll limit our focus to Jesus himself—the quintessential human representative.
The incarnation of God’s logos (λόγος) as a human being clearly shows the high dignity God places on humanity (John 1.14). God did not bring about salvation through a spirit, but through one “born in the likeness of men” (Philippians 2.7). This decision provided the perfect solution to the problem:
Hebrews 2.14-17
14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
Jesus had to be like his brothers in every way. This means he experienced the body’s appetites, including both the joys of satisfying them and the difficulties of resisting them. The fact that God chose to save the entire human race through a genuine human being dignifies humanity. Ultimately, it was Jesus’ body that bore the suffering and death, resulting in atonement. It was his lacerated back, his pierced hands and feet, his thorn-crowned head, his struggling lungs, his sweat, his tears, and—most of all—his blood, that made peace between us and God. As he hung there, hour after hour, his body became a canvas, depicting the horror of humanity’s sin. The whole person—both body and mind—suffered and bore our grief and sorrow (Isaiah 53.4). They pierced and crushed him—the entire Jesus—for our transgressions and iniquities so that “with his wounds we are healed” (Isaiah 53.5). His will and his body were one on the cross. He did not say, “Do with my body what you will; it doesn’t matter anyhow.” When they offered him a pain killer, wine mixed with gall, he refused to drink it and disassociate from his surroundings (Matthew 27.34). No, he remained an integrated whole person on that cross.
Though God’s choice to enact salvation through a man certainly bestowed incredible honor upon humanity, his commitment to human physicality became evident on the third day when he raised our Lord from the dead as a restored and glorified human being. Far from a one-off event, Jesus’ resurrection foreshadows what God plans to do with all his people on the last day. The bible does not portray eternal life as disembodied souls frozen in an eternal staring contest with God’s radiance, but our old world made new, complete with trees, rivers, people, fruit, and at least one great metropolis (Rev 21-22). This tactile vision of the future may have repulsed the Greek mind, but the Hebrews never saw a problem with it. For example, when the prophet Ezekiel saw the valley of dry bones going through successive stages of rattling bones, stretching sinews, growing flesh, covering skin, and the animating wind of God, he evinces no hint of disgust or disappointment (Ezekiel 37). Moreover, Jesus’ experience leaves little doubt about the physicality of his resurrection body:
Luke 24.36-43
36 As they were talking about these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace to you!” 37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit. 38 And he said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have.” 40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, “Have you anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate before them.
Having seen him, heard him, touched him, and watched him eat, the disciples reluctantly came to grips with the fact that the one standing before them was in fact the risen Jesus. Christ’s example is important for understanding the ultimate state of all God’s people because we know that when he comes “he will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body” (Php 3.21). Christ is “the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep” (1 Cor 15.20). This implies that “we shall be like him” when he returns (1 John 3.2). This means that God not only started off humanity in bodies, but he also intends for us to end up embodied for all of eternity. What more dignity and value could God possibly place on humankind’s physical form?
The simple fact is that God cares about each of us as whole persons. It’s not just our minds or what we do during corporate worship that interests him. Just like a good parent, he cares about our entire lives. His concern for our body stewardship shines through in this oft quoted passage:
Romans 12.1-2
I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. 2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.
The Apostle Paul utterly disregards any kind of a mind-body duality here. Our bodies are to be living sacrifices while our minds resist conforming to this world’s shape and instead align with God’s will. As we will see, this integrated holistic approach can help us make sense of a number of complicated contemporary issues. But, before we dive into any major moral questions, we’ll take some time to consider the bible’s lofty aesthetic as well as the boundaries God set up for our bodily appetites.
4 Body Aesthetic
We can find at least two major opposing somatologies in our culture today: apathy and vanity. On the one hand, social scientists, queer theorists, and many in the media tell us that our physical bodies aren’t important. Someone’s biology may be male, but if his mind disagrees, he may identify as female. They say we shouldn’t let our bodies define us. If they conflict with our “true selves,” then we can just alter our bodies to align with our perceived identity. On the other hand, our culture remains fixated upon physical beauty, including entertainers, athletes, and especially models. One cannot buy groceries without exposure to dozens of airbrushed idealized specimens of perfect humanity. Social media like Instagram has intensified our body aesthetic, as young people take dozens of pictures and then apply filters to contrive the perfect image for public consumption. As ever, physical beauty remains an idol at whose altar most of us pay homage and some of us offer great sacrifices—even if it harms our health or robs us of inordinate amounts of time. Bleached teeth, make up, designer attire, tattoos, piercings, died hair, body building, endless diet fads, tanning salons, plastic surgery, manicures and pedicures are all ways we modify our physical bodies in order to make ourselves look better. On the one hand, our culture tells us our bodies don’t matter then on the other, it says our bodies are all that matters. Isn’t this confusing? Though it’s the last place many twenty-first century Americans would think to look for guidance on how to think about their bodies, the bible offers an excellent middle ground between apathy and vanity.
We’ve already explored the bible’s elevated view of our origins as well as its realistic perspective on our fallenness. Now let’s consider how it addresses the delicate subject of physique and romance. For the sake of brevity, we will limit our focus to the biblical book with the greatest interest in this subject—the Song of Songs (SOS). Although our culture tends to stereotype the bible’s sexual ethic as puritanical and stifling, SOS celebrates romance and erotic love in an unashamed but delicate manner. Through metaphor, it evokes eros while avoiding the crassness characteristic of our culture’s more brazen songs. To give one example, let’s take the third most viewed video on the planet, Ed Sheeran’s Shape of You (over 3.4 billion views on YouTube), and compare it with an excerpt from SOS.
| Shape of You
The club isn’t the best place to find a lover Girl, you know I want your love I’m in love with the shape of you |
Song of Songs 2.4-7; 4.16-5.1
He brought me to the house of wine, I want you to promise Awake, O north wind, I have come to my garden, my sister and bride, Eat, friends, drink,
|
Although the contexts of these songs couldn’t be more different, their similarities are striking. Which is more erotic? I suppose the answer depends on the eye of the beholder. One is a “hookup” while the other involves a married couple, but both are overwhelmed with the feeling of love. In a preindustrial, agrarian society, talk of raisins, apples, gazelles, does, spices, honey, wine, and milk evoke luxurious tastes and flavors, which by analogy convey the pleasantness of the couple’s relationship and lovemaking. Our culture may benefit from a thorough consideration of this book—not because it challenges sexual expression, but because it does so well talking about it. SOS is “a work of subtlety and sophistication, remarkable for its artistic control and elegant finish.”[10] It addresses the same God-designed gift of romance that our love songs handle, but it is at once more voluptuous and more reticent.[11] It does not reduce love to sex or lovers to bodies, but it offers an integrated celebration of them all.
Of particular interest throughout SOS is the role of the woman. She has a realistic though confident body image (SOS 1.5-6). Not only is she the dominant voice throughout, but her speech begins and ends the book. She boldly pursues her beloved throughout, even when it puts her life at risk (SOS 5.7). She utters the most profound lines in the whole book:
Song of Songs 8.6-7
Love is strong as death,
Jealousy is fierce as the grave.
Its flashes are flashes of fire,
The very flame of the LORD.
Many waters cannot quench love,
Neither can floods drown it.
If a man offered for love all the wealth of his house,
He would be utterly despised.
Far from relegating women to a passive role, SOS affirms a woman’s desires and her pursuit of them. She does not ignore that her body has yearnings nor is she ashamed of them. Our heroine knows who she is; she’s in touch with her sexuality. She goes after him, attempting to woo him with her charms. Over and again the two get separated and one searches for the other until they find each other, panting with desire. Then the section abruptly ends and the two find themselves apart again, ready to repeat the cycle.
Sprinkled throughout the book, we find four wasfs—poems describing and marveling at the other’s body.[12] These are particularly significant for understanding biblical somatology. Although their metaphors may strike us as confusing or amusing, it’s impossible to miss the fact that both had a high view of the human body. Here are two of the wasfs:
| Female Wasf (Song of Songs 4.1-7)How beautiful you are, my love, my friend! The doves of your eyes Looking out from the thicket of your hair.Your hair like a flock of goats Bounding down Mount Gilead.Your teeth white ewes, All alike, that come up fresh from the pond.A crimson ribbon your lips— How I listen for your voice!The curve of your cheek A pomegranate in the thicket of your hair.Your neck is a tower of David raised in splendor, A thousand bucklers hang upon it, All the shields of the warriors.Your breasts are two fawns, Twins of a gazelle, grazing in a field of lilies. |
Male Wasf (Song of Songs 5.10-16)My beloved is milk and wine, He towers above ten thousand.His head is burnished gold, The mane of his hair black as the raven.His eyes like doves By the rivers of milk and plenty.His cheeks a bed of spices, A treasure of precious scents, His lips red lilies wet with myrrh.His arm a golden scepter with gems of topaz, His loins the ivory of thrones inlaid with sapphire, His thighs like marble pillars on pedestals of gold.Tall as Mount Lebanon, A man like a cedar!His mouth is sweet wine, he is all delight. |
In this adulation we see how the author(s) employed metaphorical language to compare body parts with beautiful and luxurious objects in their world. Of course, as Chana Bloch points out, “The images are not literally descriptive; what they convey is the delight of the lover in contemplating the beloved, finding in the body a reflected image of the world in its freshness and splendor.”[13] It’s hard to imagine a more positive view of the human body than what we see here in the bible. However, there’s still restraint. SOS stops short where Frank Sinatra continued when he sang:
Fly Me to the Moon[14]
Fill my heart with song
Let me sing for ever more
You are all I long for
All I worship and adore
In SOS we have adoration, appreciation, and celebration of the body, but not idolatry. No matter how exalted and overcome with love each partner gets, they never cross the line into body worship. In this way SOS strikes the perfect middle ground between the apathy and vanity of our age. It recognizes the incredible significance and grandeur of the body without making it an ultimate pursuit.
Before concluding this section, I need to address the issue of premarital sex in SOS. It is true that some commentators today see SOS as a premarital affair, but that’s far from clear. Bloch writes, “It is often hard to tell what is real and what is imagined; for that reason, many readers have found the poem to be dreamlike, with a freedom of movement, a dizzying fluidity, that conveys the intoxication of the senses.”[15] Richard Hess argues on the basis of six usages of “bride” in SOS, that the lovers are either married or fantasizing about marriage.[16] (Whereas in our culture romance precedes marriage, in a world of arranged marriages, romance follows the wedding night.) Plenty of other interpreters see the book as an anthology of loosely connected love poems. But even if SOS is not clear on the issue of sex before marriage, the rest of the Hebrew bible leaves no room for doubt. It roundly condemns premarital sex, adultery, and a whole range of other sexual misbehaviors as we will see in the next section on boundaries.
Lastly, it’s important to understand that although SOS is by far the most explicit meditation on romance and physical beauty in scripture, it is certainly not the only book to address the subject. As we have already seen, Genesis begins with a garden, much like the one in SOS, except there, the lovers are naked and commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The sage in Proverbs commands husbands to take delight in their wife’s breasts, always being intoxicated with their love (Prov 5.19). Amid all the vanity and emptiness of the human experience, the preacher in Ecclesiastes tells men to “enjoy life with the wife whom you love” (Ecc 9.9). Unlike Catholicism and Buddhism, Judaism has not produced monks who deny bodily pleasures in an effort to better connect with God. No, physical pleasure and spiritual pleasure go side by side.[17] The biblical narratives that mention marital relations do so in a matter of fact way—without shame or braggadocio. However, both in the Old and New Testaments we find quite a few prohibitions of sexual misbehavior. These typically deal with scenarios where someone takes sex outside of the boundary of marriage. It is to these that we will now turn our attention.
5 Boundaries for Bodily Pleasures
Since we have both God’s original design as well as fallenness in our bones, we cannot simply seek to fulfill our bodily appetites whenever we feel an urge. Owing to “the flesh,” our desires are not always in tune with God’s original good design. We can see this easily, using the illustration of eating a bag of chips. When the first chip hits our tongues, it’s flavor and texture cause a cascade of chemical reactions, resulting in the wonderful experience of taste. We chew and swallow, then we go for the second chip. It’s likewise very good, but not quite as mind-blowing as the first. Then we have a third, a fourth, and so on—until the bag is empty. Our bodies do not tell us to stop until it’s too late. We’ve already gone overboard, and we will suffer the consequences. As we repeat this experience we will find ourselves battling health problems such as high blood pressure, clogged arteries, and obesity. This little illustration shows how bodily appetites are not reliable guides for human flourishing. Of course, we were right to alleviate our hunger pangs by eating, but we cannot allow ourselves to eat anything that tastes good without regard for nutrition or quantity. Thus, the appetites of our bodies show us only a clouded and partial picture of what is good for us. Thankfully, God does not leave us without help. He graciously provides us with boundaries for our bodies, so we can know his design for living within the optimal range of human functioning. Here are some example boundaries:
| Behavior | Boundary | Sin |
| drinking alcohol | moderation, sobriety | drunkenness |
| eating food | moderation, no overeating | gluttony |
| working | work hard, but take a day off weekly | laziness, over working |
| having sex | heterosexual marriage | adultery, prostitution, etc. |
| sleeping | don’t over sleep, get enough sleep | laziness, the sluggard |
| killing[18] | war, capital punishment | murder |
| dressing | modest clothes of gender | promiscuity, crossdressing |
Each of these behaviors is something physical we can do with our bodies. We could add to it many other behaviors like speaking the truth, honoring parents, and providing for children, but I want to remain focused on the deeds of the body. Naturally, it’s impossible to work through all of these so I will focus on sex in what follows, because it’s the most addressed in the bible and it’s the most controversial today. To begin with, let’s consider the full range of sexual prohibitions in the bible.
| Old Testament Sexual Sins | New Testament Sexual Sins |
| homosexual intercourse (Lev 18.22; 20.13) | homosexual intercourse (Rom 1.26-27; 1 Cor 6.9) |
| adultery (Lev 18.20; 20.10; Deut 22.22) | adultery (1 Cor 6.9) |
| premarital sex (Deut 22.13-24) | premarital sex (Mat 15.19; 1 Cor 7.1-2, 8-9) |
| prostitution (Lev 19.29; 21.9; Deut 23.17-18) | prostitution (1 Cor 6.15) |
| incest (Lev 18.6-16; 20.11-12, 17, 19-21; Deut 22.30) | incest (1 Cor 5.1) |
| bestiality (Ex 22.19; Lev 18.23; 20.15-16; Deut 27.21) | orgies (Gal 5.21; 1 Pet 4.3) |
| intercourse during menstruation (Lev 18.19; 20.18) | lust (Mat 5.28; 1 Thes 4.5) |
| polygamy with a wife’s relatives (Lev 18.17-18; 20.14) | sexual immorality (Col 3.5) |
| rape (Deut 22.25-29) | impurity (Gal 5.19) |
| refusing levirate offspring (Gen 38.8-10; Deut 22.5-10) | sensuality (Gal 5.20) |
Although the sheer variety of sexual misbehaviors may seem overwhelming, the boundary is as simple as it is elegant:
Genesis 2.24
Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
God invented human genitalia and their accompanying sensations. He did not create these aspects of our bodies to test us or frustrate us. He designed them as part of his good plan for the human experience within the confines of marriage. This arrangement is neither arbitrary nor is it stifling. Rather, the marriage commitment provides a framework for vulnerability and trust, enabling optimal sexual expression. So long as intercourse occurs within what Tim Keller calls, “a consumer relationship,” the experience degenerates into performance, manipulation, and dehumanization.[19] However, within the biblical perspective of covenant, coming together is a physical expression of oneness that mirrors the spiritual commitment each spouse has made to the other. Sadly, space doesn’t allow to explore what the bible teaches about marriage, but suffice it to say the essence of a Christian marriage is an intensified form of loving one’s neighbor as oneself where the husband represents Christ and the wife, the church.[20] Of course, this doesn’t mean that Christian marriage automatically cures every sexual problem, but limiting intercourse to a covenant relationship, certainly eliminates many significant issues facing us today, including cohabitation, sexually transmitted diseases, prostitution, adultery, sexual harassment, and rape. In what follows we will consider each of these.
Cohabitation
Living together before marriage increased from 30% in 1987 to 50% in 1995 to 61% in 2002.[21] In a world where many grew up in families characterized by parental conflict, cohabitation seems like a good way to work out compatibility before making a mistake. Living together also saves money, helps couples get out their parents’ houses, and enables deeper companionship and expressions of love than living apart. However, it also has major problems. Apart from defying God’s design for marriage (Genesis 2.24), cohabitation actually increases the chances of divorce.[22] According to the American College of Pediatricians, “Cohabitation before marriage is associated with lower marital satisfaction, dedication, and confidence as well as increased negative communication with couples spending less time together and men spending more time on personal leisure; there is more violence and a higher rate of divorce.”[23] The report adds that those who live together are more likely to be unfaithful and their children experience increased health risks. They conclude, “The doctors of the American College of Pediatricians urge their adolescent patients to avoid cohabitation and to recognize the life-long benefits of marriage…Saving the sexual relationship for marriage brings physical, emotional, and mental benefits to a couple.”[24] Additionally, it’s bad for kids. As many as 46% of children will experience their mother cohabiting at some time by the age of 16.[25] After three years 49% of these couples split up (compared to only 11% of married parents).[26] This is because a couple living together without any spiritual, legal, or social commitment creates an insecure environment for kids who flourish better living with both parents in a marriage commitment.
Sexually Transmitted Diseases
In Jacqueline Howard’s 2016 CNN article, “STD rates reach record high in United States,” she reviews the data from the 2015 STD surveillance report of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. “Overall,” she writes, “young people [15 to 24 years old] and gay and bisexual men face the greatest risk of getting a STD.”[27] The data from 2016 do not look any better. In fact, the CDC titled their 2017 press release “STDs at record high, urgent need for prevention.”[28] Jonathan Mermin, director of the CDC’s STD prevention, sounded the alarm when he said, “STDs are a persistent enemy, growing in number, and outpacing our ability to respond.”[29] We aren’t shocked when we see exaggerated speech on social media or news websites, but when the CDC uses words like “epidemic accelerating in multiple populations,” we would do well to take notice.[30] Our hookup culture—casual sex with no expectation of having a subsequent relationship—stands at the center of this public health crisis. According to the American Psychological Association (APA), “between 60 percent and 80 percent of North American college students have had some sort of hook-up experience.”[31] Another smaller qualitative study of 71 students found that about half of them aren’t even concerned about contracting STDs during a hookup.[32] Assuming one marries a healthy spouse and both remain faithful, the biblical sexual ethic ably eliminates this entire problem.
Prostitution
Increasingly today, prostitution is moving off the streets and onto the internet where prostitutes look more like entrepreneurs than victims coerced by men. For example, a recent article, “Is Prostitution Just Another Job?” challenged the stereotype of prostitutes as victims who work in the sex industry out of necessity.[33] However, much prostitution remains exploitative and all prostitutes face significant risks, including the spread of STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and violence. In the U. S., prostitution is one of the most dangerous professions—worse than oil rig workers, loggers, or Alaskan fishermen—with a death rate of 204 out of every 100,000.[34] Prostitutes in America get physically assaulted about once a month. Due to the illegal nature of the profession, prostitutes often do not take legal action, since doing so would incriminate themselves. As many as 80,000 prostitution arrests occur each year, costing taxpayers around $200 million.[35] Once again the biblical boundary that limits sex to marriage solves this social problem.
Adultery
According to social scientist Catherine Hakim, “Sex is no more a moral issue than eating a good meal.”[36] She envisions open marriages wherein spouses pursue multiple affairs all the while retaining their original husbands or wives. Although our culture is not quite ready to get on board with Hakim’s new rules, in 2015 the Ashley Madison data breach made public a seedy underground of millions of members who have bought into the slogan, “Life is short. Have an affair.” Statistics are difficult to find, but one estimate is that between 30% and 60% of all married people will commit adultery at some time in their marriage.[37] Another, more conservative guess, puts the number at 22% for men and 14% for women.[38] Data is difficult to ascertain because adultery remains a taboo for many in our culture and adulterers typically don’t want their unsuspecting spouses alerted to their misbehavior. Surprisingly, adultery is still a crime (as of 2017) in 21 states with several classifying it as a felony. Penalties range from a $10 fine in Maryland to up to a year in prison in South Carolina. Even so, prosecutions are rare. But, regardless of any legal consequences, adultery is a relational bomb that shreds a marriage to pieces, obliterating trust. In some cases, adultery leads to murder, as the victim seeks revenge on the unfaithful spouse and/or the other adulterer. Beyond the emotional cost to the innocent spouse and the financial cost of divorce, the cost to the children is simply incalculable. Once again, the biblical teaching on fidelity in marriage excludes this behavior.
Sexual Harassment
In October of 2017, the #MeToo movement spread virally on social media to create awareness for sexual harassment and assault. The hashtag went viral on Twitter as individuals shared their own experiences, including celebrities such as Gwyneth Paltrow, Ashley Judd, and Uma Thurman. From higher ranking employees engaging in quid pro quo (voluntary or involuntary) to those fishing for hookups at the water cooler to untargeted crass remarks at work to catcalling on street corners, sexual harassment is a major problem in our world today. This behavior makes people uncomfortable and it causes financial losses due to productivity lapses, sick leave, turnover, law suits, and public relations costs. Nonetheless, sexual harassment is extremely prevalent in many workplaces. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reports for 2010 to 2017 indicate that victims have filed little more than 12,000 claims each year,[39] other more informal surveys find that one in three young women (ages 18 to 34) has suffered sexual harassment at work.[40] Much of this behavior results from single men seeking relations with others they do not intend to marry. The biblical ordering that puts marriage before sex, effectively rules out this strategy. Furthermore, the biblical teaching on human origins establishes a firm foundation for respecting women as men’s equal counterparts that excludes the dehumanization inherent in sexual harassment.
Rape
From the conflict in Kashmir to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to the incredible abuses during World War II by the Soviets, Nazis, and Japanese, rape has been a mainstay in wartime. However, sexual assault doesn’t disappear in times of peace. One study, drawing on 150,000 students at 27 colleges and universities found that 23% of female college seniors had endured unwanted sexual contact with 11% experiencing penetration.[41] That’s nearly one in every four women on campus! Additionally, in 2015 incarcerated men faced sexual assault at the alarming rate of 4% for prisons and 3.2% for jails.[42] Considering that the United States had 1,942,500 male federal and state prisoners that year, 77,700 men suffered assault (not including those in jails).[43] Still, the problem is even bigger. Once we add in 63,000 children and 18,900 soldiers, not to mention rapes that occur in the general public, we come to the staggering statistic that more than 300,000 people are victims of sexual violence each year in America.[44] That works out to a sexual assault every 98 seconds! As with the other sexual ills our society faces, embracing a biblical somatology results in respecting and valuing the other person, which in turn precludes sexual assault.
Although we haven’t examined every sexual issue facing our society, this brief survey shows just how robust the biblical boundary of sex-within-marriage is. Far from stifling and repressing sexual expression, God’s marriage limitation actually unleashes the best for us. For the sake of analogy, let’s consider a wild tomato plant
. As it’s fruit grows, the branches become heavier, and eventually the plant tips over. Many of the tomatoes will rest on the ground, inviting pests and rot to spoil the fruit. However, when a wise gardener attaches the plant to a stake, she at once limits the direction the plant can grow while enabling it to become much taller, with the end result that it produces more delicious tomatoes. This is like the boundaries God placed on his people. It is true that they curb freedom, but not to hold us back from reaching our potential; rather his boundaries enable us to maximize the good in our lives. Now that we’ve seen how the bible’s sexual ethic exemplifies how a biblical view of the body works, we will turn our attention to critique one of our culture’s dominant somatologies—personhood theory.
6 Personhood Theory
The bible’s nuanced and practical view of the body has lost much ground in our culture today. In its place a new understanding has grown up that draws a strong distinction between the body and the mind. Much of this thinking grew out of the work of René Descartes (1596-1650), a French philosopher and mathematician who saw a strong divide between the material (bodies) and immaterial (minds). His view, subsequently called Cartesian dualism, applied to the human being produces what Nancy Pearcey calls “personhood theory.” In her book, Love Thy Body, Pearcey shows how this worldview paradigm sits in the background behind many of the anti-biblical moral stances of our time:
The key to understanding all the controversial issues of our day is that the concept of the human being has likewise been fragmented into an upper and lower story. Secular thought today assumes a body/person split, with the body defined in the ‘fact’ realm by empirical science (lower story) and the person defined in the ‘values’ realm as the basis for rights (upper story). This dualism has created a fractured, fragmented view of the human being, in which the body is treated as separate from the authentic self.[45]
To illustrate this dualistic anthropology, Pearcey employs a two-story analogy, drawn from Francis Schaeffer. The physical body remains at the lower level of physical reality in the realm of scientific facts. The mind or true person, however, exists in the upper story of autonomy and freedom. Splitting the human being into these two sections helps us understand the incredibly low view of the body so prevalent today.
PERSON
mental, true self, free, human rights, gender
________________________________________________
BODY
physical, malleable biology, mechanistic, expendable, sex
In order to see how personhood theory lurks in the background behind major moral issues, we’ll take our cue from Pearcey and consider abortion, euthanasia, the hookup culture, homosexuality, and transgenderism. For each we’ll see how dualistic thinking both makes the behavior tenable as well as causes problems before showing how a biblical somatology offers a better way.
Abortion
In former times, pro-life activists spent an incredible amount of energy attempting to convince society that the unborn fetus was a human being. They showed ultrasounds, cited heartbeat facts, and demonstrated how the unborn react to pain. Over time, the science of embryology developed, resulting in the admission among most bioethicists that fetuses are more than clumps of cells; they are living human beings, members of the human race. Nevertheless, personhood theory makes it possible to equate a fetus with a human life and yet justify ending that life. Sure, the baby may be alive, but that doesn’t make it a person since it is not yet self-aware or volitional. Bioethicists Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva took it one step further in their controversial paper on “after-birth abortion,” arguing that even a newborn baby girl is not yet a person, since she is not yet “capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.”[46] As a result, they said, “newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop…those properties which will make them ‘persons.’”[47] As horrifying as this conclusion sounds, it is the consistent and inevitable consequence of personhood theory. Just because a fetus exits the womb, doesn’t mean that it magically becomes a person. In the end personhood theory proves too much. It was brought in to justify terminating the unborn, but it results in a culture of death not only within the womb, but outside it as well. Human life is not sacred or even protected unless it demonstrates an acceptable level of cognitive functioning. If this is the case, then an unborn human child “is just a disposable piece of matter—a natural resource like timber or corn.” Pearcey continues, “It can be used for research and experiments, tinkered with genetically, harvested for organs, and then disposed of with the other medical waste.”[48] How opposite this is to the lofty dignity that the bible places on human beings in the womb (Ps 139.13-16). The womb is not a murky limbo of human potentiality, but a perceivable region like the sea, the sky, and the darkness where God is present and at work. From a Christian perspective, humans don’t earn personhood, neither do governments grant it, rather it is inherited from their ancestors, all the way back to the beginning when God made humanity in his own image and likeness.
Euthanasia
As we extend the influence of personhood theory beyond the womb, the death toll climbs precipitously. When we think of the typical “right to die” case, most of us probably imagine someone in excruciating chronic pain with no hope of relief. However, this turns out to be the minority case in jurisdictions where it is legal. Of those seeking physician assisted suicide, only 24% cite debilitating pain as their reason and a paltry 3% worry about the cost of treatment. Yet, a staggering 91% of those pursuing euthanasia feared losing autonomy and 89% worried about a diminishment in their ability to engage in activities.[49] Does this mean people consider their own lives no longer worth living if they must give up autonomy and depend on help from others? This is the same cause behind regular suicides as well. In the US, suicide is now the tenth most common cause of death, totaling to 44,193 deaths in 2015—that’s over 121 deaths per day.[50] People have so imbibed a utilitarian calculus for human life, that they don’t see their own value anymore. What’s more, there’s no reason to assume that governments will stay out of making decisions on these same principles. If the state is responsible for defining and bequeathing human rights then anyone perceived as a drain on society could lose their personhood status and suffer the ignominious consequences of dehumanization, including marginalization, imprisonment, or even extermination. Thankfully we are not there yet, at least not in America, but Pearcey muses over a future when this happens:
Cancer drugs can cost anywhere from $3,000 to $6,000 a month, while the cost of lethal medication is about $35 to $50. It doesn’t take a genius to see that the easiest way to reduce healthcare costs is physician-assisted suicide. When human life is no longer seen to have inherent value, it will be subject to purely utilitarian calculation of costs and benefits. Voluntary euthanasia may not remain voluntary.[51]
In contrast to this mindset, biblical somatology attributes value to the human being, regardless of one’s social contributions, cognitive capacities, or physical abilities. Not only does the Torah establish clear laws prohibiting taking advantage of the disabled, but it also provides for the needy, the orphaned, widows, and immigrants.[52] Additionally, Jesus embraced the lepers, the blind, the lame, and the outcasts of society. The Christian perspective recognizes the image of God etched on every cell, regardless of someone’s abilities, and holds that God alone is sovereign over life (Deut 32.39). This dignified view of human life drove Cicely Saunders, a Christian, to found the modern hospice movement in the 1960s, offering palliative care and love to those suffering at the end of their lives. She challenged reductionistic approaches and focused on the patient rather than the disease. Now nearly 45% of all deaths in the U. S. occur under the care of a hospice program.[53] This sets up the contrast starkly: on the one hand the secular worldview reduces the suffering and the needy to sub-personhood, especially if their minds degrade, on the other, Christians lift up the disabled, the elderly, the chronically ill to God’s own image. The former results in a culture of death whereas the latter leads to creative solutions to improve life, however limited. Now that we’ve considered the beginning and end of life, we’ll turn our attention to those in the prime of life.
Hookup Culture
According to personhood theory, the body belongs to the lower level of reality; it is a mere physical and amoral mechanism for the real person to get around. I’m reminded of the original Men in Black movie when a morgue worker pushed a button on a corpse’s ear that opened his face, revealing a tiny alien surrounded by levers and controls. The whole body was a mere vehicle to enable this little fellow to blend in on earth. If one adopts such a fantastical interpretation, he or she can easily draw a sharp distinction between deeds of the body and deeds of the mind. If what we do with our bodies doesn’t matter, why deny our bodily cravings and appetites? Why should we assume that sexual expression has anything to do with our hearts? This is precisely what happens in today’s hookup culture where young adults pursue a long string of anonymous or surface-level physical relationships prior to marriage. Pearcey explains:
If you have not talked with young people lately, you may not realize how soulless the hookup culture is. A hookup can be any level of physical involvement, from kissing to sexual intercourse. According to the rules of the game, you are not to become emotionally attached. No relationship, no commitment, no exclusivity. The script is that you are supposed to be able to walk away from the experience as if it did not happen.[54]
But, living this way is no easy task, since the cascade of hormones released during sexual contact (especially oxytocin) naturally produces feelings of attachment.[55] People must train their minds to detach while their bodies connect in the most intimate ways. It’s like the culture is pushing sane people to practice a kind of “body schizophrenia” when it comes to sexuality—“that’s not me, that’s my body.” Surely such artificial fragmentation cannot be good for one’s psychological health. Furthermore, as we already explored, sex outside of marriage makes people vulnerable to a whole host of diseases and behaviors that diminish human flourishing. By contrast, the integrated holism of the bible’s somatology lifts sex up from the muck and mire of genital infections, the chaos of cohabitation, the heartbreak of adultery, the brutality of rape, the disrespect of sexual harassment, and the vulnerability of prostitution to a psychosomatic experience with a transcendent spiritual meaning. The wife and husband renew their commitment to each other through physical union and demonstrate the magnificence of Christ’s loving relationship to the church. It’s a much higher view of sex than we find in the hookup culture.
Homosexuality
Now we turn to see how personhood theory has contributed to the psychology of homosexuality. When observing animals, biologists do not generally struggle to infer teleology from anatomy. In other words, the body plan of sexual species indicates their inherent complementarity. However, when we arrive at humans, suddenly we boldly defy our bodies’ designs, asserting that our minds alone can determine sexuality. Once again, this mind-body split results in a low and disrespectful view of the body and the purposes for which God engineered our body parts. Nevertheless, our culture’s script—promoted in countless shows, movies, blogs, and books—comes across as an appeal to authenticity, not with respect to our bodies, but for our feelings of sexual attraction. If I experience same-sex attraction, then I owe it to myself to accept my “true self” and act on my impulses regardless of the consequences.[56] Robed in the rhetoric of courage, our “hero” has just elevated sexual attraction to the level of identity. However, as evangelical scholar Mark Yarhouse and lesbian APA researcher Lisa Diamond affirm, sexual attraction is not fixed for many people and can shift on a spectrum over time.[57] Regardless of one’s sexual ethics, shouldn’t we all agree that anchoring something as inviolable as identity in something as variable as sexual attraction is suboptimal at best and devastating at worse? This creates a fragile ego incapable of dealing with alternate viewpoints that call into question one’s lifestyle choices. For example, if a lesbian sees her attraction to women as her identity, questioning her decision to act on that desire feels like an attack on her very personhood. Let’s consider the analogy of a successful professional football player. For a decade he enjoyed the rush of running onto the field, making plays to the roar of the crowd. He’s made millions and spent much of it in lavish living. He’s taken his role as a football player as his core identity. Then he gets injured or age catches up with him and he retires. Now he’s lost. He doesn’t know what to do. Decades pass and people don’t even remember him anymore. He sinks into depression, because football wasn’t just what he did, it was who he was. This is the inevitable result of basing one’s identity on a temporary behavior rather than something immutable. Sexual attraction, physical prowess, even intellectual abilities all result in vulnerable identities, easily injured at the slightest challenge. In contrast, the biblical view both takes seriously the teleology inherent in God’s design of the body, but it also provides a stable identity based on God’s grace not our shifting feelings and experiences. That doesn’t mean that those of us who struggle with same-sex attraction have it easy. Space does not permit to tell of the testimonies of Rosaria Butterfield and Jackie Hill-Perry who went from lesbian lifestyles to committed heterosexual marriages. Nor can we look at Sam Allberry, Christopher Yuan, Wesley Hill, or Becket Cook, all of whom have heroically embraced singleness because of Christ. Whichever way same-sex attracted Christians go, their worth and value emerge from God’s decision to make them in his own image. We need not lay our foundations upon the shifting sands of physical, intellectual, emotional, or sexual proclivities, but instead on the bedrock of being God’s creations, his children. Furthermore, he deemed us so worthy and loveable that he gave his only begotten son to redeem us so that we could spend eternity with him (John 3.16). He wants to spend forever with us.
Transgenderism
Now we come to our last area where personhood theory has infected our culture, resulting in a challenge to the biblical boundaries God has graciously given us for or own good. When it comes to the question of gender identity, our society has driven a wedge between gender and sex. Gender lies within the realm of the person and is fluid, while one’s sex is physical and biological. With the notable exception of intersex people, societies have generally failed to separate physical anatomy from mental gender. Now, however, one may choose to identify as a woman or a man regardless of biology. When the mind and body come into conflict, the prevailing wisdom of our age is to alter the body to conform to the mind. Rather than finding a psychological solution or a medication to alleviate the painful experience of gender dysphoria, we cross dress, employ puberty blockers, and surgically disfigure our bodies. Those who do not use someone’s preferred gender pronouns find themselves attacked for their insensitivity, their lack of compassion, and their colonialist imposition of “gender norms.” A man may use a woman’s bathroom whether he’s dressed in drag or not—so long as he identifies as female. An analogy may help to clarify the issue.
The Emperor’s Not Naked[58]
There once was an emperor who suffered from nudity dysphoria. Catching even the slightest reflection of his naked body elicited sharp pangs of mental anguish. Furthermore, he can’t stand clothes because they restrict his movement and cause him to sweat. To ameliorate his condition, he has not only removed all mirrors and reflective surfaces at eye-level throughout his palace, but he’s also forbidden them in his entire realm. One day a visitor from across the sea saw the king in the marketplace and inquired, “Why is the emperor naked?” With fear in her eyes, a nearby citizen whispered, “It’s forbidden to say he’s unclothed. He says it’s not right to impose other’s sense of what it means to be clothed on him. He has the right to identify himself as clothed regardless of his physical condition.” The visitor retorted, “That’s preposterous. Anyone can see he’s naked. Don’t you have scientists in this kingdom who use facts and logic to arrive at truth?” “Well, we did have some in the guild who insisted on the emperor’s nudity as an objective fact, but they were all charged with hate speech and told to change their truth so that it wouldn’t offend those who struggle with nudity dysphoria or suffer banishment. A group of these intolerant conservatives could not accept this, so they had to leave the realm. However, some of our most progressive and creative scientists hypothesized a glorious invisible and immaterial fabric. Even if such a substance is beyond the scope of their instruments, they are sure it exists.”
This little parable gets at the conflict between modernism and postmodernism that play out in the transgender issue. The former insists on objective reality while the latter pushes for the individual’s right to create his or her own reality. The emperor genuinely struggles with a psychological condition, but instead of pursuing a psychological solution (psychotropics, counseling, prayer, etc.), he insisted on a physical solution and then imposed his delusion on everyone else. Similarly, transgender activists seek to impose a fact-defying reality on society at large. This does not mean that gender dysphoria isn’t a genuine problem; it is and those who face it should receive our sympathy and support. But, it does mean that the way forward is not through marginalizing Christians because we can’t go along with sex-reassignment surgery or cross dressing.
Conclusion
Although we were only able to scratch the surface on many of these issues, we’ve seen how the bible’s somatology holds up today against the reigning secular paradigm. Even though critics malign the bible as repressive and puritanical, ultimately it has a higher and more respectful view of the human body. Beth Felker Jones writes, “The cult of the young body, the veneration of the air-brushed, media produced body, conceals a hatred of real bodies.”[59] Altering the body, sculpting it, dieting, etc. can easily result from a dislike of the body and a desire to conform it to an unrealistic ideal. However, Christians also diet and exercise and wear makeup, but this is isn’t done out of a desire to defy God’s good design, but to care for it and steward it. For example, if a husband buys his wife yellow roses and she insists on spray painting them red, how would that make him feel? He probably would feel like a failure since she did not appreciate the gift he chose. Instead, if she puts them in water mixed with a nutrient rich powder that extends their life, that shows her gratitude and her desire to enjoy the gift as long as possible. The former scenario defies the husband’s choice and the latter honors it. Now, of course, God is not a husband, he’s much more than that, but he did chose to give us the sort of bodies we have and as such, we do well to cherish them appropriately and satisfy our bodies’ cravings within his boundaries.
Pearcey offers hope when she writes:
We live in a moral wasteland where human beings are desperately seeking answers to hard questions about life and sexuality. But there is hope. In the wasteland we can cultivate a garden. We can discover a reality-based morality that expresses a positive, life-affirming view of the human person—one that is more inspiring, more appealing, and more liberating than the secular worldview.[60]
God calls us to live in accordance with his design for the human body. When we give up our rebellion and our own efforts to create our own way of doing life and submit to his will, we find not only wholeness and healing, but a whole way of life that works. So long as we are screwdrivers trying to bang in nails, we may get some work done, but once we come to grips with our true nature, we begin searching for screws, functioning within our designed role. Now, of course, we are all bent screwdrivers with our own unique flaws and shortcomings, but this does not make us hammers. We do the best we can to fulfill our God-given roles and respect his boundaries now. Sometimes that takes incredible faith and courage, but in the end, Christ will redeem our bodies and set us free from our fallenness when he resurrects us to be like him—embodied whole persons in harmony with God, ourselves, and each other.
[1] Unless otherwise noted, all quotations from English Standard Version (ESV), (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles 2011).
[2] Mary Willson expertly makes this point in her talk “Is God a Misogynist?”, TGC Women’s Conference, Jun 17, 2016, available as podcast 133 on resitutio.org.
[3] Out of 8 references in the Pentateuch, 2 refer to Eve (Gen 2.18, 20), 5 refer to God (Gen 49.25; Ex 18.4; Deut 33.7, 26, 29), and 1 refers to other gods (Deut 32.38). Rendering help has nothing to do with superiority or inferiority. In the case of Eve, she’s to help Adam in the tasks God has given him: filling the earth and ruling over it. For a more detailed treatment see David Lamb, God Behaving Badly (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011), pp. 49-60.
[4] Philo, Legum allegoriarum 1.108, The Works of Philo Judaeus, the Contemporary of Josephus, trans. by C. D. Yonge, (London: Henry G. Bohn 1854-55): “…Now, when we are alive, we are so though our soul is dead and buried in our body, as if in a tomb. But if it were to die, then our soul would live according to its proper life, being released from the evil and dead body to which it is bound.”
[5] Jesus healed many disabled people including the blind (Mk 8.22; 10.45; Mt 9.27; Jn 9.1), lepers (Mk 1.40; Lk 17.11), paralytics (Mk 2.1), lame (Jn 5.2), mute (Mt 9.32; Lk 11.14), deaf (Mk 7.32), epileptics (Mk 9.14), a woman bent double (Lk 13.10), a man with dropsy (Lk 14.1), a man with a withered hand (Mk 3.1), many who were demonized (Mk 5.1), a woman suffering from a hemorrhage (Mk 5.25), and the man whose ear Peter cut (Lk 22.50).
[6] I take the term “bent” from C. S. Lewis’ enlightening and dramatic exploration of human history in his book Out of the Silent Planet (NY: Scribner, 2003, originally 1938), pp. 132ff.
[7] “What I mean is this: Have the sight and hearing of men any truth in them, or is it true, as the poets are always telling us, that we neither hear nor see any thing accurately? And yet if these two physical senses are not accurate or exact, the rest are not likely to be, for they are inferior to these. Do you not think so?” Plato, Phaedo 65b, Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 1, tran. Harold Fowler (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1966).
[8] Psalm 32.3; 44.25; 63.1; Prov 4.21-22
[9] Translation by Richard Hess, Song of Songs in Baker Commentary on the Old Testament Wisdom and Psalms, ed. by Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 2005). Though some translations obscure it by translating it “love,” the word דּוֹדִֽים (dodim) refers to the physical act of sex (see Hess, p. 49 or Bloch p. 3).
[10] Bloch, p. 19.
[11] “The language of the Son is at once voluptuous and reticent. ‘Let my lover come into his garden and taste its delicious fruit’ (4.16) is characteristic both in what it boldly asserts and in what it chooses to leave unexpressed” (Bloch, p. 14).
[12] “The Song contains three description of the female’s body (4.1-7; 6.4-7; 7.1-7) and one of the male’s body (5.10-16). These reflect a form known elsewhere to drive from an Arabic term for ‘description’ (wasf). A wasf is an Arabic love song in which the lover praises the physical attributes of his or her partner” (Hess, p. 31).
[13] Ariel & Chana Bloch, The Song of Songs: A New Translation with an Introduction and Commentary (NY: Random House, 1995), p. 15.
[14] Originally written by Bart Howard in 1954 and performed initially by Kaye Ballard.
[15] Bloch, p. 15.
[16] Hess writes, “Phipps is correct when he rejects as anachronistic a view that the Son deals with free love and sexual experimentation…The language of commitment pervades the whole Song and provides one of the most important interpretive keys for understanding the work” (Hess, p. 28).
[17] For example, in the 18th century, Israel ben Eliezer (Baal Shem Tov), the founder of Hasidic Judaism taught that a physical act can become a spiritual act if it is done as worship to God.
[18] Jesus challenged his followers to love their enemies, which precludes killing for Christians (Mt 5.5, 9, 38-48; cf. 1 Thes 5.15; Rom 12.14, 17-21; 1 Pet 3.8-11).
[19] For an excellent treatment of the Christian view of marriage see Tim & Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage (NY: Penguin, 2011).
[20] For biblical teaching on marriage see Eph 5.22-33; Col 3.18-19; 1 Pet 3.1-7.
[21] Mindy Scott, Erin Schelar, Jennifer Manlove, Carol Cui, “Young Adult Attitudes About Relationships and Marriage: Times May Have Changed, But Expectations Remain High,” Child Trends Research Brief, Publication #2009-30 (Washington DC: ChildTrends.org, 2009), p. 3, accessed January 24, 2017, http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Child_Trends-2009_07_08_RB_YoungAdultAttitudes.pdf.
[22] One source reports divorce increases by 46%: “Cohabitation,” ForYourMarriage.org, accessed January 24, 2017, http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/cohabitation/.
[23] Patricia Lee June, “Cohabitation: Effects of Cohabitation on the Men and Women Involved—Part 1 of 2,” American College of Pediatricians, March 2015, accessed January 24, 2017, https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/societal-issues/cohabitation-part-1-of-2.
[24] ibid.
[25] “The American Family Today,” Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends, December 17, 2015, accessed on January 24, 2017, http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/12/17/1-the-american-family-today/.
[26] Patricia Lee June, “Cohabitation: Effects of Cohabitation on the Men and Women Involved—Part 2 of 2,” American College of Pediatricians, March 2015, accessed January 24, 2017, https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/societal-issues/cohabitation-part-2-of-2.
[27] Howard, Jacqueline, “STD Rates Reach Record High in United State,” CNN, October 20, 2016, accessed on April 6, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/health/std-statistics-record-high/index.html.
[28] https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2017/2016-STD-Surveillance-Report.html
[29] Center for Disease Control and Prevention, “STDs at Record High, Indicating Urgent Need for Prevention,” press release of the 2016 STD Surveillance Report, September 26, 2017, accessed April 6, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2017/std-surveillance-report-2016-press-release.html
[30] ibid.
[31] Justin R. Garcia, “Sexual Hook-Up Culture,” February 2013, vol. 44, no. 22, accessed on April 16, 2018, http://www.apa.org/monitor/2013/02/ce-corner.aspx
[32] ibid.
[33] “Is Prostitution Just Another Job?” Mac McClelland, New York Magazine: The Cut, March 21, 2016, http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/03/sex-workers-legalization-c-v-r.html, accessed February 28, 2017.
[34] “Prostitution in the United States,” HG.org, accessed April 8, 2018, https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=30997
[35] ibid.
[36] Catherine Hakim, The New Rules, (London: Gibson Square Books, 2010).
[37] “Facts and Statistics about Infidelity,” Truth about Deception, accessed April 6, 2018, https://www.truthaboutdeception.com/cheating-and-infidelity/stats-about-infidelity.html
[38] “Infidelity Satistics,” Statistic Brain, accessed on April 6, 2018, https://www.statisticbrain.com/infidelity-statistics/
[39] “Charges Alleging Sex-Based Harassment (Charges filed with EEOC FY 2010 – FY 2017), U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, accessed April 6, 2018, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment_new.cfm.
[40] Based on a Cosmopolitan survey of 2,235 employees. Accessed on April 6, 2018, https://www.cosmopolitan.com/career/news/a36453/cosmopolitan-sexual-harassment-survey/.
[41] AAU Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, Association of American Universities, September 3, 2015, accessed April 6, 2018, https://www.aau.edu/key-issues/aau-climate-survey-sexual-assault-and-sexual-misconduct-2015.
[42] Allen J. Beck, “Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) Data Collection Activities, 2015,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 25, 2015, NCJ 248824, accessed April 16, 2018, https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5320.
[43] For population statistics in prison for 2015, see appendix table 3 in “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2015,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2016, NCJ 250374, accessed April 16, 2018, https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus15.pdf.
[44] “Scope of the Problem: Statistics,” Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, accessed April 16, 2018, https://www.rainn.org/statistics/scope-problem.
[45] Nancy Pearcy, Love Thy Body (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2018), p. 14.
[46] Giubilini, Alberto and Minerva, Francesca, “After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?” Journal of Medical Ethics 2013; 39:261-263, accessible at jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/261, p. 262.
[47] ibid., p. 262. Here is the abstract from their paper: “By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled” (ibid., p. 261).
[48] Pearcey, p. 20.
[49] Pearcey, p. 90.
[50] “Deaths: Final Data for 2015,” National Vital Statistics Reports, vol 66, no. 6, November 27, 2017, accessed April 18, 2018, https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr66/nvsr66_06.pdf
[51] Pearcey, p. 91.
[52] disabled (Lev 19.14; Deut 27.18), elderly (Lev 19.32), poor (Lev 19.9-10; 23.22; Deut 24.19), widows and orphans (Ex 22.22-24; Deut 14.28-29), immigrants (Ex 22.21; 23.29; Lev 19.33-34; Deut 10.18-19)
[53] “Hospice Care Statistics,” Johns Hopkins Medicine, accessed April 18, 2018, https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/healthlibrary/test_procedures/urology/hospice_care_statistics_85,p00608.
[54] Pearcey, p. 118.
[55] In fact, oxytocin is the same chemical released in a nursing mother to create attachment bonds to her newborn. For an excellent description of the hormones released in intercourse see Mark R. Laaser, Taking Every Thought Captive (Kansas City: Beacon Hill Press, 2011), pp. 49-50.
[56] Typically, the way many of us decide which impulses are our true selves and those that aren’t depends on what society we are a part of rather than an objective moral standard. Tim Keller explains: “Imagine an Anglo-Saxon warrior in Britain in AD 800. He has two very strong inner impulses and feelings. One is aggression. He loves to smash and kill people when they show him disrespect. Living in a shame-and-honor culture with its warrior ethic, he will identify with that feeling. He will say to himself, That’s me! That’s who I am! I will express that. The other feeling he senses is same-sex attraction. To that he will say, That’s not me. I will control and suppress that impulse. Now imagine a young man walking around Manhattan today. He has the same two inward impulses, both equally strong, both difficult to control. What will he say? He will look at the aggression and think, This is not who I want to be, and will seek deliverance in therapy and anger-management programs. He will look at his sexual desire, however, and conclude, That is who I am” (emphasis his, Tim Keller, Preaching: Communicating Faith in an Age of Scepticism (NY: Viking, 2015), pp. 135-136).
[57] Lisa Diamond, Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). Mark Yarhouse, Homosexuality and Christian: A Guide for Parents, Pastors, and Friends (Bloomington, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2010).
[58] This is my own remix of Hans Christian Anderesen’s 1837 fairy tale, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”
[59] Beth Felker Jones, Marks of His Wounds (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 4.
[60] Pearcey, p. 15.
Outstanding!
But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceful, gentle, obedient, full of mercy and good fruits, nonjudgmental, without hypocrisy,
James 3:17 – LEB
In reading your paper, I definitely connected with my life at work with my co-workers, the acceptance of homosexuality, transgenderism, hookup culture and body image. I’ve grown numb to a lot of it as a way to maintain good work relationships and not “cause a stir”. I am confronted with having accepted that the “Emperor is not naked”. I’m inspired to change that. Thank You
This is very well done, Sean, presenting clear biblical truth on a much confused subject in our day and time. The body of Christ will certainly benefit from all the time and effort you have put into it. The whole biblical view and the excellent documentation are especially appreciated. A very well written little book that goes along with all that you’re saying here and that is also very biblically based is: “Sex, Lies, and the Truth” by Linda L. Belleville, Professor of NT at Grand Rapids Theological Seminary.