The New Testament and Gay Sex: Response #2

This is my second response to Jeff Cook's post.  This started to get a bit lengthy so there will be one more.

In the last two posts, I turn to the heart of his opening statement.  I'll first look at a passage where I agree with him, with one added qualification, and then I will move on to what I take to be some of the more salient, problematic passages.

The virtues picture what it looks like for a human being to reflect God. The virtues describe our proper function and are the attributes we exhibit when we are fully sanctified.

This is for the most part accurate.  The sanctified, holy person of the Bible is the wise person who is maximally inclined towards justice and love, who has hope and faith, and so on.  Of course, there is a bit more to the story than that.  There is justification for one.  Standing in a certain relation to God via Christ's atoning sacrifice is also necessary for sanctification--how the details are spelled out will depend on whether one takes a more Catholic or Reformed line or something in between--though all agree that grace is necessary.  But I doubt Cook disagrees about this.

Conversely, Paul said actions that are wondrous yet not inspired by virtue—are “clanging cymbals”, and the person who commits them “gains nothing” and “is nothing” (1 Cor 13:1-3). Apparently our actions do not matter if they do not emerge from virtue. 

Many actions might not matter if they do not emerge from virtue, but at least one important action does, namely accepting (or refraining from refusing) God's grace.  That is, there is at least one action pre-virtue that matters.  Now, if one takes a certain Reformed line, this might be the only action that matters ("matters" here is vague but I'll run with it) which does not emerge from virtue.  But then on some Reformed views, it's the only action that matters and virtue does not really matter.  Yes, virtue will follow from any genuine one-time acceptance of grace through faith, but virtue adds neither moral worth to one's actions nor any additional merit; virtue is a necessary condition that, so to speak, comes along for the irresistible ride.  On different theological views, though, other actions will matter which do not emerge completely from virtue, at least if we think of virtues as coming in degrees, sanctification as a synergistic process, and free will as operative in accepting additional grace, responding to grace such that one does not lose the faith one has, increasing towards perfection in love, and so forth.

 In short, the New Testament writers, unpacking and recording the ethic of the Lord Jesus, reject the moral foundation of the deontologists. True moral goodness and the life that is pleasing to God are a matter of virtue, and virtue alone.

It has not been shown that the New Testament writers reject the moral foundation of the deontologist as I described deontology in the previous post.  It has not been shown that the New Testament writers did not think that some actions are intrinsically wrong and are inconsistent with what a virtuous person would do.  What has been shown is that the New Testament picture of the sanctified Christian is such that she is one who maintains and cultivates virtue; but that is consistent with a non-consequentialist ethic which holds that there are some actions which one should not do in spite of whatever good consequences it produces.

[A] Nothing about monogamous same-sex relationships by necessity contradicts a life of virtue. [B] Physical relationships between same sex individuals may be enjoyed by faithful, courageous, wise, hopeful, loving, grace-filled, self-controlled people. 

[Ad B] There is no doubt that physical relationships between same sex individuals can be meaningful and have good elements; the same, though, can be true of polygamous relationships, non-monogamous relationships more generally, and the like.  The question, though, is whether any of these sexual relationships are per se good or bad, right or wrong or whether they violate God's will.  If homosex is instrinsically wrong, it would contradict a life of virtue in spite of whatever meaningful and good elements are a part of the relationships (e.g. friendship, having someone who fulfills certain desires, being in a relationship with someone who cares for you, etc.)

[Ad A] Nothing about monogamous same-sex relationships by necessity contradicts a life of virtue only if same-sex sexual relationships are not morally impermissible.  Does Cook provide an argument that same-sex sexual relations are permissible?  It's hard to see that he does.  But I shall consider the most pronounced arguments in the final installment.