What started as a new dishwasher turned into an expensive kitchen remodel. When we pulled our broken dishwasher out of its happy spot, nestled under our cabinets, we soon discovered a rotting floor. We had mold.
We decided to keep pulling up floor, tile, cabinets, walls, whatever, until there was no more mold. We came to a stop when we got to our bay window area over the kitchen sink. The whole wall, studs and all, was covered in mold. That outside wall had to go.
When we got further into the project we discovered an even bigger problem. The issue which gave rise to all of our problems was a faulty foundation. Apparently cinder blocks holding hands does not a foundation make, especially when there is no drain to move water away from the house.
I could have rebuilt without touching the foundation. We could have kept fighting all the battles above the surface, and maybe even won a few of those. But it would only be prolonging the inevitable. Once the foundation is surrendered the whole thing will eventually give way.
The same is true with our Christian response to current issues of sexuality. I would argue that we are “losing” these battles because we surrendered the foundation long ago. We don’t have a leg to stand on. Today, I’ll explain one of these foundations.
Just Throw Me in a Ditch!
I’ve heard more than a handful of Christians joke that they don’t care what happens to their body after death. “Just throw me in a ditch,” they’ll say, “I’ll be in heaven with Jesus.” The idea is that our earthly body is just like a tent you’d take for a weekend camping trip—it’s only temporary. But it’s also kind of an icky and dilapidated tent that gives us all kinds of problems.
Undoubtedly, such language is taken from 2 Corinthians 5. Here Paul refers to the body as a “tent”. And he says that our preference would be “away from the body and at home with the Lord.” In other words, when I’m home with Jesus just throw that tattered old tent in the ditch.
But is that really what Paul is arguing?
If he is, it would go against not only his Jewish upbringing but also the early church. Jewish tradition completely rejected the idea of cremation and stressed a need for burying the dead. It was sign of dignity and showed the worth of the created body. Rather than moving away from this tradition, the early church continued in this.
Let’s briefly go to Paul again. Notice 1 Corinthians 15:3-4,
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures… (emphasis mine)
Why does Paul add “buried” in there? I mean, if he died and was resurrected, isn’t it kind of redundant? And why does John tell us all about Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea and the tomb that Jesus was placed in?
For one, it’s to show that He was truly dead and truly resurrected. But it’s also to show us that Jesus was buried as a king. What happened to His body mattered. Because the body matters—even in death. A buried Savior is just as much a part of the gospel as death and resurrection.
In 2 Corinthians, then, Paul isn’t arguing for some preferred disembodied existence. Bur rather, as Seifrid notes, “he is reminding the Corinthians that the hope of the Gospel is a resurrected body, and not the bodiless existence of the naked soul.” (Seifrid, 227)
The resurrection doesn’t make less of the body—it makes more of it. We’re trading in our tent body for our temple body. We’re not casting off our evil fleshly body in exchange for a spiritual existence.
That’s Gnosticism, Patrick…(If you don’t get the reference: here)
The Battle With Gnosticism
Gnosticism was one of the earliest rival philosophies that the church had to battle. Foundational to their belief was that all matter was evil and the spirit was good. In their understanding our human spirit is trapped in these evil bodies—and redemption is to cast off the body. Who I really am, is who I am in my spirit. That is my true existence.
This might explain why John spent so much time on the death and burial of Jesus. It’s certainly why he says some of what he does in 1 John. There were already those in his context who were denying that Jesus was truly human (incarnation), that Jesus really died, that he was buried and that He was truly resurrected.
The church fought to teach that Jesus Christ “suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried;” But it wasn’t only doctrine about Christ they fought for. They also taught “the resurrection of the body.”
The early church placed great importance upon the body. What we do in the body matters. What happens to our body matters. The church didn’t separate flesh from spirit as we do. And they certainly didn’t have a “throw me in a ditch” theology.
We, however, think can get away with “throw me in a ditch” theology these days because we have the mistaken assumption that Gnosticism is one of those long-gone beliefs. But I would argue giving up this foundation is shown in the consequence of our battles over sexual ethics.
How This Relates to Today’s Sexual Ethics
In his book, Strange New World, Carl Trueman argues that “expressive individualism” is the water in which we swim. Our understanding of self is the core issue confronting us in issues of sexuality. He defines the self this way:
When I use the term self in this book, I am referring…to the deeper notion of where the ‘real me’ is to be found, how that shapes my view of life, and in what the fulfillment or happiness of that ‘real me’ consists. (Trueman, 21-22)
He goes on to say:
…the modern self assumes the authority of inner feelings and sees authenticity as defined by the ability to give social expression to the same. The modern self also assumes that society at large will recognize and affirm this behavior.” (Trueman, 22)
In other words, who you really are is immaterial. “Throw my body in a ditch” is synonymous with “surgically change my genitalia” because that isn’t who I really am. It’s a similar argument.
Consider these words from Katie Leone:
“In fact, being transgender does not mean that I was born in the wrong body. Being transgender means that God has placed me in a body that looks like one gender while I identify as being another. It is neither right nor wrong that I am a female in a male body, as much as it is neither right nor wrong that I am six foot tall and left-handed. These things just are.” (source)
Do you hear the language there? “Who I really am” is not an embodied question. At it’s core this isn’t entirely different than believing the the naked soul is who we really are. Again, both are basically saying “throw my body in the ditch”. One just still has a beating heart pumping blood through it.
What does all of this mean?
Conclusion
I’m really not intending to argue here about sexual ethics and such, but only to say that at least in this regard we’ve already surrendered one leg of our argument for a God-defined sexual ethic. Instead, I’m arguing that we really need a solid understanding of the body if we’re going to have these discussions. And if we hold a “throw my ditch in the body” theology, we’re already moving away from a Christian foundation for our argument.
To be clear, I don’t think this is all that needs to be said about discussions of sexual ethics and transgenderism. There are complexities here that I haven’t mentioned. For one, how do we define “body”? Is it merely genitalia? How does biochemics, genetics, hormone levels, and other issues help us define our mutually fallen human bodies?
But it does help us to say the body matters. Yes, the body you were born with matters. And the body you die with matters. And as I concluded in another article, “Burial is a last act of faith, and we should choose our method wisely”. Let’s get all that firmly established and then we’ll have better footing to talk about sexual ethics.
