Love versus platitudes

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, July21, 2106

Love versus platitudes

Love is important. Jesus clearly tells us that the greatest command is to love God and that the second greatest command is to love our neighbours—and that these commands sum up the law and prophets.

Scripture as well as popular culture also tell us that love is a verb: love involves action. I've even heard it said that beliefs don't make you a better or loving person, it's doing that matters.

An internet meme goes so far as to sum up the popular view of love this way: “It matters not who you love, where you love, why you love, when you love, or how you love, it matters only that you love.” After all, according to gay pride placards, “love is love is love.”

But wait. Are we being misled by platitudes? [A platitude is a commonplace, shallow, trite remark that verges on being meaningless; sometimes described as a thought-terminating cliché.]

Love is important, and so is action. I don't deny this. But moral content is important, too.

Pause with me, and think.

First, what about the claim that it’s not what you believe but what you do that makes you a better/loving person? Answer: On its own, it lacks sense.

Making sense of this claim depends on what one believes a better or loving person is. Making sense of this claim depends on what one believes is behaviour a better or loving person ought to do. It depends on what one believes matters.

If you're not convinced, consider this: Ted Bundy (rapist and murderer of more than 20 women) believed what matters is to be daring and willing to rape and murder. Or think about the beliefs of ISIS.

Ideas have consequences, in other words. What's believed is crucial.

Still not convinced?

Consider this: “I love you,” said the married businessman to his secretary, as the businessman abandons his young children along with his wife who is dying of cancer.

“I love you,” said the pedophile to the child.

“I love you,” said the zoophile to his dog.

“I love you,” said the sadist to his torture victims.

“I love you,” said the masochist to encourage her abuser.

Clearly, we must define “love.” Love has a moral structure. A belief content. A truth content.

Philosopher David Horner: “what we believe will determine how we behave, and ultimately who we become.”

This means that if we seek to love truly, we should discern—and believe—what is truly right and good and excellent and praiseworthy.

Of course, beliefs not acted upon don't amount to much. To paraphrase the Apostle James: belief without behaviour is dead. But we should also add the whole counsel of Scripture (and reason): behaviour without belief is blind.

Jesus, whom Christians believe is God come to Earth as a human being, teaches that love is of utmost importance. He also teaches us what real love means: to believe and follow Him.

It turns out that following Jesus involves respecting moral law.

Really? Yes.

Jesus fulfilled the law, but He didn't abolish it. Jesus set aside the ceremonial and ritual law, but not the moral law.

Jesus even says things like, “you’ve heard you shouldn't commit adultery, but I’m telling you that you shouldn't even think about committing adultery.” Jesus intensifies the moral law.

(Yes, Jesus forgives the woman caught in adultery, but He also tells her to stop sinning.)

Clearly, for Jesus, love involves holiness—which involves obeying moral truth.

Now, in view of Steinbach's recent gay pride parade, consider this: Jesus taught that among the things that defile is porneia, i.e., sexual immorality (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21). Porneia is a Greek catch-all term (from which the English “pornography” comes) which, in Jesus' Jewish context, includes any sexual activity outside marriage between one man and one woman.

Yes, love is love is love. But this is like saying X=X=X, which is a mere principle of logic (the principle of identity). So what is X? What is love?

Is love whatever makes me feel good? Or is there moral truth to love, by which I must judge my feelings?

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy at Providence University College. The views expressed in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Other Apologia columns on related matters for further reading (please read these first, along with my critics' comments plus my replies to critics, before offering a criticism):

Bible and homosexuality 

• Jesus and homosexuality
• Homosexuality and history
• Debunking Internet Arguments: Bible and Homosexuality
• For the Bible tells me so – Critical Review
• Evangelical Christian Gay-Straight Alliance Club?
• The Golden Rule

Non-religious philosophical criticisms 

• Lady Gaga and moral reasoning
• Is being gay like race?
• Homophobia, bigotry, intolerance?
• It's all society's fault?
• Born gay?
• Think for baby's sake
• Careful thinking
• Reductio ad absurdum
• Is promoting same-sex sex wise?

Same-sex marriage

• Questioning same-sex marriage
• Same-sex marriage, Subway sandwiches

Politics

• Pride Parade pros and cons
• Politically Incorrect Thoughts: Orlando massacre, HSD and LGBTQ
• Thoughtcrimes
• Phobia-label fear
• Men in women's bathrooms?
• Bill 18 needs revision

 Replies to my critics

• Questioning a critic's credibility
• A critical review of a critic's work

Jesus and homosexuality

James Tissot, "The Beatitudes Sermon" (1890)

APOLOGIA

By Hendrik van der Breggen

The Carillon, July 24, 2014

Jesus and homosexuality

I sometimes hear the argument that because Jesus didn't say anything about same-sex sex, same-sex sex is not sin. So Jesus' absence of speech on the topic means approval.

This argument is problematic, however, for several reasons.

First, it's an argument from silence. Good arguments are usually based on positive evidence, not absence of evidence.

Second, the argument falls prey to a reductio ad absurdum: we can concede the view for the sake of assessment, deduce falsehoods/ absurdities, and thereby show the argument fails.

Assume it's true that Jesus' not saying anything about X is sufficient grounds for thinking X is okay. Jesus was silent about incest and bestiality. Therefore, incest and bestiality are okay, too. But, obviously, these are not okay.

Thus, the argument's assumption—that Jesus' silence about same-sex sex is enough to conclude it's not sin—is false.

Third, it's not true that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexual sex. He did, indirectly.

Jesus taught that among the things that defile is porneia, i.e., sexual immorality (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21). Porneia is a Greek catch-all term (from which the English "pornography" comes) which, in Jesus' Jewish context, includes any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage. So Jesus teaches same-sex sex is sin.

Also, Jesus is God the Son who is one with God the Father, and both Father and Son are one with God the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets and the apostles. (God is a trinity, i.e., God is one in essence and consists of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.)

This means the God-breathed scriptures—Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians, etc.—are from the God who became a human being in Jesus. Significantly, these scriptures teach sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is sin. So, again, Jesus teaches same-sex sex is sin.

(Keep in mind that Jesus abolishes the Jewish dietary/ ritual purity laws, but not the universal moral law. Jesus also intensifies the moral law to apply to our thoughts as well as actions.)

At this juncture, one might object that, for Jesus, love is enough. Love justifies all.

In response, we should notice that, for Jesus, true love—holy love—is structured by moral law. In holy love Jesus calls us to turn from sin, not embrace it.

Also, the love-is-enough justification justifies too much. Enter another reductio ad absurdum.

If love is sufficient for justifying sexual behaviour (contrary to otherwise clear biblical moral principles), then if I love X it should be okay that I have sex with X. But X could be another's spouse, a relative, a child, or an animal. Love would justify adultery, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.

True love, then, requires a framework of moral truth.

Therefore, justifying same-sex sex via the argument from Jesus' (alleged) silence is a failure.

For further thought: see Sam Allberry's book Is God anti-gay? (2013), Michael Brown's Can You Be Gay and Christian? (2014), Joe Dallas's The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (2007), and Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (2001).

See too last month's online debate between Michael Brown (pro traditional understanding of scripture) and Matthew Vines (pro gay-revisionist interpretations). [See too Michael Brown's follow-up on this debate: "A 'Gay Christian' Advocate Sinks His Own Ship".]

For help with unwanted same-sex attractions, and for testimonies of same-sex attracted persons who seek holiness via costly discipleship, see Restored Hope Network and Living Out and Courage.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy and is no stranger to struggles against sinful desires. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Further reading in Apologia:

• Homosexuality and history