Flirting with Sophia

Hi Vedant,

I don't have anything especially profound to say about your experience with Henry Edward Lee. I just wanted to let you know I read it, and that it is a really great story. It is wonderful that God was able to speak to you through this man, and remind you of the power of love over hatred. There is nothing we can do to change other people who have hate in their hearts, other than to show them the love of Christ and hope that that transforms them. I think Henry Edward Lee proves that point. It seems to me that, through love, he was able to change your heart. It is a fantastic lesson for us all.

Hope your summer is going very well.

Rick

I was at the March for Women's Lives as a part of a counter protest, a silent vigil of prayer and remembrance for the millions of lost lives since Roe vs. Wade. We stood with a group of amazing women from (ironically, since it was a silent protest) Silent No More. Most of the people in our group were young, around the age of 20, and most were female. We stood as a pro-life witness against the deceit and acrimony propagated by many of the marchers.

It was certainly one of the most moving, if not life changing, days of my life.

Silently we stood there holding our "Women Deserve Better than Abortion" signs, and we were the object of great hatred. I realized that we were, for the protesters, a physical group upon whom they could heap their disgust, and so we had the burden of receiving their hate. For no less than five hours we stood our ground as every conceivable insult was tossed our way. I was proud of how we, for the most part, remained silent, allowing their words to fall at our feet.

Even so, it was an incredibly sad day. At one point, after maybe the first hour, I wondered how anyone could love such cruel people as these. By the second hour, my heart began to rouse. I saw past the hatred and fury; I saw heartbreak. Most of these women have ended the lives of their own children! Undoubtedly, there is great pain and suffering in this. They didn't want to kill their babies, but something told them they had no choice. They need to march for "choice" because the only alternative was to repent, and repenting is a very painful labor. The more women I saw pass, the more pain I saw in their eyes, the more hurt, the more sorrow. These were broken women who at some fundamental level missed their lost children--they longed to embrace their irretrievable babies. How could we respond with anything but love and compassion?

That is why I am proud of the pro-life group we were with. There were a handful Christians who preached a message of hate, but the vast majority of us came in love. Ours was a witness of compassion. We proclaimed that women deserved better that abortion...that they need love, not abortion. I was honored to stand there along that angry road with amazing women, women who have had abortions. These precious ladies have felt the great emptiness and horror of abortion. In their hands they held tissues to wipe away their tears, and signs confessing "I Regret My Abortion".

I know it was a powerful message. I saw what it did to one woman. As she passed by the young ladies in our group, she said (in a pathetic, yet angry way), "You don't know what you are talking about! I was younger than you when I had my abortion!" These words struck my ears as sorrowful, though said in anger.

Then an amazing thing happened. She walked passed Georgette Forney (the head of Silent No More...a truly incredible woman) who was holding her "I Regret My Abortion" sign. And this woman...who had just recently told the young girls they don't understand...she froze. She stood before Georgette, and there on that road, as others marched by, she started to cry. In Georgette she found someone who did understand the agony of abortion. Her husband (boyfriend?) soon pulled her away; she was made to March on.

This story, for me, epitomizes the March for Women's Lives. These women bear a great burden, a grievous yoke around their necks. They want healing, they cry out for it. But as their cries emerge from their lips, the words have changed. They cry for help, but they hear themselves say, "choice." Maybe the only way to deal with the pain is to try and justify it, to even fight for it. But what they really desire is to heal their deep hurts. Even still, their "sisters" tell them to march on. Their husbands and boyfriends tell them to get over it. These are not real choices.

"Choice" is an empty option for women. Make a choice, and then shut up about it. But there is submerged suffering, deep in the deserted recesses of the soul. The "March for Women's Lives" people don't want to talk about those places. They don't care about the gasping soul, they care about the feminist agenda.

I am convinced that we must reach out in love to the millions of heartsick women who have made this most dreadful decision...to end the life of their own young. They need real options, and abortion is not a real option. Yes, abortion is a choice. But the March for Women's Lives failed to address this question: is it a good choice? The women of Silent No More were an incredible witness in silent response to that question. They need not say the words, for most of the women at that march had memorized the answer long ago. It reverberates in their belly. They know it by heart. The answer, alas, is a teary-eyed "no."

Hey Vedant, it was great to see your post. I want to comment on some of the specific things you said. Sorry, I got a little out of control again and went on and on!

++i don't know if i agree with psychological argument with respect to homosexuality; it's probably correlated but probably not the entire cause of it.++

My blog was rather brief, and I didn’t spell everything out in appropriate detail. I did not take the time in the blog to really articulate the argument for homosexuality having a psychological cause. You recognize that there is probably some element of developmental psychology in homosexuality, but you are not sure of the extent. Let me mention that psychologists who have studied the causes of homosexuality and believe it is predominantly “nurture” (or lack there of) rather than nature, agree biology has some impact. But this impact is more along the lines of a boy being naturally more sensitive, or possibly uncoordinated athletically, or any other feature that would set him apart. This would make the boy feel different from other men. I will leave it at that, since to go into detail here would take a long time. But there is no evidence that sexual preference for the same sex is somehow genetically predestined. Indeed, I do not think that it is.

++as for causing harm to themselves, i don't see any harm, except the harm from being ostracized by the majority of christians and rejecting the way because of that alienation.++

First of all, we can both agree that Christians should not ostracize anyone, and surly the experience of being ostracized would be hurtful and harmful to anyone. You also say that being homosexual is not harmful. I agree: being homosexual is not necessarily harmful in and of itself. However, engaging in homosexual sex acts is harmful to oneself. Why? Because such actions are engaged in in an effort to compensate for a profound and deep feeling of inadequacy as a man. (I use the example of male homosexuality because it is much more common than lesbianism. Lesbianism, by the way, is developed somewhat differently). The sexual contact with a member of one’s own sex is an attempt to compensate for what one feels they are internally missing. Those features that are distinctly male (sex organs, muscles, etc) become symbolic of masculinity and sexualized. Sexual contact therefore becomes an effort to internalize someone else’s masculinity because that individual feels their own masculinity lacking. However, this effort will always end in failure since one will never truly internalize another’s masculinity. This process, continually attempting and failing to internalize another’s masculinity, is indeed harmful and, as I said last time, a form of self-mutilation of the soul (Joe liked that line).

++the proposed marriage amendment, in my opinion, is one of the more regressive uses of law and government to adminster and halt the evolution of american society.++

This is a curious statement. Let’s break it down. First, you consider the proposed amendment to be regressive. Naturally, this indicates that you believe there is a certain progress to society, and same-sex marriage is a part of that progress—the next step in the “evolution” of our society. Same sex marriage, of course, is a radical redefinition of the term “marriage”. Indeed, words have meaning, and the word marriage has always had a meaning rooted in a biological reality. This biological reality is well articulated in the phrase “two-in-one-flesh union.” When a man and a woman come together in sexual intercourse they become, quite literally, two in one flesh. This is a biological reality insofar as reproduction is the only biological process that requires two human beings acting together rather than one acting alone. In heterosexual intercourse two individuals literally become one flesh performing one biological action. This biological action is the only environment in which new life can emerge. The state therefore has reasonable interest in promoting, sealing, and protecting the “two-in-one-flesh union” known as marriage. If marriage is defined as such, then same sex marriage would be a profound redefining of the institution, and I would ask you, Vedant, upon what grounds you would redefine it? If we are to lift the definition from its biological foundations, upon what foundation shall it be placed?

Second, I think most conservatives would mourn along with you the necessity of an amendment to the constitution to spell out the definition of marriage. Such “spelling out” should not be necessary since marriage defines itself as a heterosexual institution, as I argued above. However, because marriage is the foundation of society—since it is within a marriage that children are afforded the best environment in which to grow and prosper, and children are the next generation of Americans—then this nation has the obligation to take extraordinary measures to protect the integrity of that institution. It is the preference of conservatives that this protection not require amendment to the constitution, however if it does require such an act, then so be it.

++it seems that christians are wasting time and energy with all this, because the legality of gay marriage seems to be irrelevant if you take the love approach.++

The love approach is based on the “agape” definition of love. This definition of love seeks that which is in the best interest of others. Of course, that which is in the best interest of others is not always what others want. Observe a child in a candy store. The love approach argues that it is, in fact, against homosexual’s best interest to engage in homosexual sex acts because these sex acts are tantamount to “self-mutilation of the soul”. If this is true—and of course it is this point which is most debatable—then for the state to promote homosexual sex acts by making same-sex marriage legal would be a most irresponsible undertaking. You are right in saying the love approach has nothing to say about the legality of same-sex marriage, since this is an issue of reading the laws as they are on the books. It does have a great deal to say about the wisdom of same sex marriage, however. And on this point it rules that same-sex marriage is an unloving idea, despite everyone’s best intentions.

++your approach, rick, is much more intricate and well-thought out than most i've heard, but i'd like to know how it works, and how well it works.++

Vedant, I really enjoyed thinking about your comments. I am afraid that I have hit you with exactly the arguments I find ineffective in national debate: natural law arguments. I believe these arguments to be true and very enlightening, but also somewhat heartless. The theory I am trying to build, the “Christian Offensive in the Same Sex Marriage Debate” is a theory that leaves much of the natural law argumentation aside and emphasizes love and compassion. However, it is a love and compassion based on the psychological understanding of homosexuality. If the “I was born that way” argument falls through, then the debate shifts dramatically. I think the weight of the available evidence very much opposes the biological argument for homosexuality, and therefore we should recognize the psychological understanding of homosexuality, and consider what such an understanding adds to the debate about same-sex marriage. I look forward to continuing this conversation with you Vedant, and anyone else who wants to jump in.

Hi Kyle,

As I was reading your blog I was wondering if you had read anything about the philosophy of dualism and its implications on bioethics. I don't know if this is something Kass has addressed, or any of the other authors you have read, but it is something that Robert George discusses in The Clash of Orthodoxies. However, I would be interested in reading much more.

Basically, it seems, dualism (or at least the modern version of it) holds the soul and the body as distinct, and pretty much thinks the soul "uses" the body. Once the body because useless to the soul, the soul should cast off the body. Therefore, when a patient has a sick body, the body is no longer useful to the soul, then the body should be discarded. This also has implications on sexual morality: our bodies are to be used by our souls for sexual pleasure. However, George argues that this is a inaccurate view of the relationship between the body and the soul. Even so, I don't think he intends to argue for monism, which I believe would suggest that the body and soul are inseparable. I think he intends to argue for a less extreme version of dualism. Anyway, since you are much more familiar with these sorts of issues relating to bioethics, I wonder if you know anything about the different views of the body/soul relationship, and what repercussions that has on this debate.

Tonight on ABC I saw an interview with Kelli O’Donnell, Rosie’s partner. It was a very difficult and heartbreaking interview for me to watch. Kelli was a beautiful, charming, most likeable person. I wanted so much for her to be happy. I have always liked Rosie O’Donnell as well. They have triggered love in my heart, and fundamental questions. The most fundamental is this, how should Christians respond to homosexuals?

Let me lay out some of my basic beliefs here. First, Christianity is a religion about love. One of my least favorite criticisms of The Passion of the Christ is that it does not emphasize Christ’s basic teachings. It does not stress his teaching that one should be “kind to others”. These critics are right, the movie does not contain long sequences in which Christ tells people to be nice to each other. It is far more powerful than that. The movie is about God’s love for mankind. The excessive blood in the movie does not distract from the core message, rather, it is a most eloquent illustration of the core message. God loves us so much he would die a thief’s death to save us. We, therefore, should love others just as fervently.

I also believe that there is such a thing as sin. The principle I use when considering sin, however, is the principle of love. Why is there such a thing as sin? Has God created arbitrary boundaries that we must not cross just to test us? Most certainly not! Those things we call sin are things that are harmful to ones self and others. This is not a cosmic test to see who is good or bad. This is about God saying, “I love you and I loathe to see you hurt yourselves.” When we sin we hurt ourselves and others, and because of God’s love for us he cannot bear to see it happen. Is this an overly “touchy-feely” understanding of sin? Maybe. Is it a complete explanation of sin? No. But again, when I consider theology I consider it in the context of love.

I also believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. I believe it is a sin because it is self-harming. Why? I will summarize my convocations on this here, but be forewarned: I am generalizing here. This is an incredibly brief summary of a complex matter. I believe that homosexuality is a predominantly psychological orientation. It is not something one is “born with.” It occurs when a fundamental disconnect occurs in the psyche of an individual between themselves and their gender. In males, for example, it occurs when a boy sees manhood as “other.” This fundamental disconnect from ones true identity creates a craving for that identity. This craving becomes sexualized at puberty, leading to sexual encounters with the same sex in an attempt to find one’s own (in this example) masculinity. This, of course, is a false way of reconnecting with ones true self. It is a behavior that is ultimately harmful to the individual because the core needs are not addressed.

Homosexual behavior does not deal with the true issues involved, the need for love and acceptance and self-integration. It is a poor attempt to solve a profound hurt. That is why it is a sin, because it looks to solve a problem in a way that makes the problem worse. Homosexual behavior is a sin because of God’s infinite love for those who have same sex attraction. It is not a sin because homosexual people are worthless. To the contrary! It is a sin because they are so very valuable in the eyes of God.

So, what do we know? God is love. There is such a thing as sin because of God’s unending love. In this context, homosexual behavior is a sin.

Christians have been doing a horrific job of dealing with the same-sex marriage debate. We will never succeed by pointing to “tradition.” Tradition has no heart. It is cold and dead (not in my opinion, but in the eyes of the world). We will never get anywhere with little slogans. “Hate the sin, love the sinner!”

Here is the fundamental problem: Rosie and Kelli love each other. These two people are in love and want to be with each other. What is wrong with love? What do Christians have against love? Oh, we respond, but we do love them, we just hate their sin. The media responds: what is their sin? “Homosexuality” says the Christian. The media says…oh, so their only sin is that they love each other? What’s so bad about love?

Christianity is the religion of love, and we have been boxed out of the discussion. How is it that the people who know true love the best (Christians) are the same people who sneer and scowl at homosexuals? Where is our love for homosexuals? We as a church should overflow with love, and yet the overflow never makes it to Dupont Circle or San Francisco.

Some Christians have experienced hearts warmed by homosexuals, and they have wanted to show their love for them. So they sold the store. They have said, “Sure you can get married! We love you, and we celebrate with you your love!” However, what these people don’t understand is that this not true love for homosexuals. If I am correct that homosexual behavior is ultimately harmful to the homosexual, then to encourage such behavior is an astoundingly unloving act. Naturally, people who do promote homosexual marriage do not believe the behavior is self-harming, so that is an important point of debate. My argument is that giving up and saying “do as you please” is not the truly loving act.

Then again, the current way in which conservative Christians behave is certainly not overflowing with love. Most Christians simply are not radically and unendingly loving homosexual men and women the way God loves them. They back away and keep their distance. In the process of backing away they look heartless and cruel. Homosexuals seem loving people who are under attack from Christians. Christians are not showing the love of Christ through their actions, and homosexuals are promoting a love that seems so right, even if it ultimately does not satisfy.

What am I trying to say? In this same-sex marriage debate, Christians have been failing. The lesson is: the best defense is a strong offense. We need to show in our every action that Christ loves homosexuals very, very much. We also need to argue that it is our deep love for the individuals that prevents us from endorsing the behavior. The behavior is a form of self-mutilation of the soul, and because of our love we cannot bring ourselves to approve. But this cannot be rhetoric. Our love must be true, because God’s love is true.

I hate this debate because I hate the fact that Christians end up seeming so heartless. We need to make strong our offense. We need to love more radically than ever before. Nothing can ever change a homosexual’s mind. We must go for their heart. This is a debate about love, and The Passion of the Christ emphasizes what love is all about. It is about God sacrificing himself for us. Now that we know what love is, we must spread that love far and wide. We must show homosexuals that our love for them tells bars us from smiling upon homosexual marriage.

This is long, but it is important to me to sort of arrange some of my thoughts on this matter. If anyone has any thoughts on it, please let me know.

I have been driven nearly mad with the "arguments" presented in favor of "gay marriage" (civil rights, separation of church and state, etc). The utter lack of depth to these arguments, the total reliance on rhetoric over any from of reason, has been very difficult to listen to day after day. The very idea that a marriage amendment would enshrine intolerance into the constitution...what can be said other than that this is thoughtless.

Naturally, there are lazy thinkers on the right too. Simple appeals to "tradition" or God's opinion of homosexuals (and by the way, I am sure God would be far more gracious and loving towards homosexuals than many of these people would be) will not cut it. However, it is the nature of political debate to throw around phrases that have little meaning or depth.

My problem is, when I read liberal arguments for gay marriage in places where there is plenty of room for well articulated, coherent thought, they seem to continue to rely on their catch phrases. Heaven only knows what they mean by "rights". Where can the "right to marry" be found? By what logic? On the other hand, when given the space to lay out their case, I find conservatives set aside their rhetoric and point out the natural law on this issue. A good example is Thomas Sowell's piece. Look it over, it is a needed breath of fresh air.

I have written before about the negative film critics of the Passion and what I supposed might be some of their motives. These earlier film reviewers were most likely liberals and probably agnostics or liberal Christians. Now, however, there is a strange new occurrence. The conservative critic. Over the last couple of days we have seen reviews come out by Charles Krauthammer and Gertrude Himmelfarb slamming the film. Stunningly, Himmelfarb has not even seen the movie.

Both writers said, again, that the movie was anti-Semitic. Neither seems to understand Christianity at all. Both said the movie was too gory. I would be interested to hear what reactions people on this blog have to these two editorials on the movie. What are these people missing?