One thought on “Does hetrosexuality get you to heaven?”
I like his recasting ‘sin’ in terms of things that work against human flourishing (I’ve tended to say similar things myself). What isn’t so convincing about that in relation to homophile relationships is also casting it in terms of not being God’s ‘best for’ human sexuality.
This is because, imo, we don’t tend to work the ‘God’s best’ line of argument the same way in other cases where it could apply. For example, a friend who has cerebral palsy is not by this sort of account living ‘God’s best’. Do we then insist that nothing should be done for him until he is able-bodied? On the whole we don’t: we accept that sensible adjustments need to be made in order for him to flourish as a human being who happens to have CP. In other words we work with the lack of ‘God’s best’ in such a case and make the best of it towards human flourishing.
To make a ‘God’s best’ norm from Genesis 1 and 2 and turn it into an absolute to stifle human flourishing for those who cannot constitutionally fulfil that norm is unjust and (given we don’t do it anywhere else, I think) inconsistent.
I suspect it is not really God’s best for me to have to wear glasses like I’ve had to start to do. But I don’t think I’m sinning in any meaningful sense if I use glasses. In fact there are times when not to do so is definitely sin -when out of vanity or pride I end up making inconveniences for those around me because I don’t use the prosthetic help. I need to accept my condition and work with it with the help available to me.
I think that applies in the case of homophile persons too.
Curious Christian
I like his recasting ‘sin’ in terms of things that work against human flourishing (I’ve tended to say similar things myself). What isn’t so convincing about that in relation to homophile relationships is also casting it in terms of not being God’s ‘best for’ human sexuality.
This is because, imo, we don’t tend to work the ‘God’s best’ line of argument the same way in other cases where it could apply. For example, a friend who has cerebral palsy is not by this sort of account living ‘God’s best’. Do we then insist that nothing should be done for him until he is able-bodied? On the whole we don’t: we accept that sensible adjustments need to be made in order for him to flourish as a human being who happens to have CP. In other words we work with the lack of ‘God’s best’ in such a case and make the best of it towards human flourishing.
To make a ‘God’s best’ norm from Genesis 1 and 2 and turn it into an absolute to stifle human flourishing for those who cannot constitutionally fulfil that norm is unjust and (given we don’t do it anywhere else, I think) inconsistent.
I suspect it is not really God’s best for me to have to wear glasses like I’ve had to start to do. But I don’t think I’m sinning in any meaningful sense if I use glasses. In fact there are times when not to do so is definitely sin -when out of vanity or pride I end up making inconveniences for those around me because I don’t use the prosthetic help. I need to accept my condition and work with it with the help available to me.
I think that applies in the case of homophile persons too.
LikeLike