Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Repeating the mistake of Eve

Talbot Davis, in a recent guest post at Juicy Ecumenism, reminds us again of just how intolerant the apostles of "tolerance" and "diversity" are. Along the way, however, in explaining why virulent revisionists object to Eddie Fox receiving an award from Candler School of Theology, he makes a statement that is illustrative of a much larger problem.
It’s because Eddie Fox stands with 2,000 years of Christian teaching in affirming celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage. Meaning: he believes that homosexual intercourse is not God’s design for humanity.
The first mistake Eve made in the Garden of Eden was to give an incorrect answer to the serpent's inquiry. "Did God actually say to you, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?'" the serpent asks. Eve's response, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die,’" (cf. Genesis 3:1-3) is an unnecessary expansion of God's command. God said nothing about not touching the tree, only about not eating from it. By adding to God's Word, Eve set herself (and Adam) up for the Fall. They were not tripped up because God had placed upon them an unreasonable expectation, but because they made a simple command complicated.

The ever-crafty serpent, in the present-day guise of smooth-talking revisionists, has tricked us again into complicating the simple. For 2,000 years, the basic Christian teaching on sexual morality could be summed up simply as chastity and faithfulness. Note, however, the qualifications and clarifications employed in the above statement which water down this simple truth.

"Celibacy in singleness" is a redundancy. "Celibacy" is merely the state of being unmarried. There is nothing particularly virtuous or un-virtuous about it. A celibate person is single person, but not necessarily a chaste person.

"Faithfulness in heterosexual marriage" is an exercise in self-contradiction. "Heterosexual," like "homosexual," is a term coined to describe a form of sexual deviance, that is, a form of sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Neither term was ever intended to be used as a qualifier for one type of "marriage" or another. "Marriage" is the union of one man and one woman. It cannot be anything else. Arguments to the contrary betray a basic ignorance of the laws of nature.

When the church succumbs in this way to the serpent's crafty scheme, she is repeating the mistake of Eve. She is taking a simple command of God, which is intended to bring perfect freedom, and perverting it into a cumbersome regulation which makes the church, in the eyes of a world enslaved by the serpent's deception, the enemy of freedom.