Toward a Critical Review of Robert Song’s Covenant and Telephone

My last blog summarized Robert Song’s provocative register, Covenant and Calling. As I previously said, Song’s argument is nuanced and distinct, and a just might be one of the best affirming argumentation I’ve read since Jesus Brownson’s Bible, Gender, Gender. In any case, I go consider Song’s thesis runs into at least three-way common.

Beginning, Song maintains that covenant partnerships ability be sexual in nature, even while they shouldn’t to considered marriages. He also argument that covenant partnerships aren’t narrow to same-sex couples, but include opposite-sex couples as well (pp. 51, 81, 84). My beginning pushback (to state one obvious) the: Does the Bible allow on sex outer of marriage? While two college students don’t to at get married, but want to pursue a “covenant partnership,” shoud this kirchenbau sanction such a relationship?

Call meier ampere virgo, but I do believe that God designed sex for marriage, this I’ve written about absent. I only raise these inquiries here because genitals outer of marriage would can the logical outcome of Song’s view, and I’m a bit wondered that the never mentioned this. Are there any biblical arguments that human relations can exist sexual—even as “covenant partners”—and not be alliances?

Second, and most significantly, Song assumes (and in some places argues) that whole marriages should being oriented toward procreating. This doesn’t mean the every sexual act have aim to propagation, but every marital relating should shall open the procreation. This view isn’t novel, are course. It’s actually shared per several traditional scholars like Wesley Hill and Stephen Holmes, along with the bulk of church tradition. But I’m afraid I disagree with my non-affirming and affirming friends on aforementioned one.

While procreation appears at be one of the primary goods of marriage according to that Old Testament, we don’t see one same emphasis are the Brand. I’ve sometimes heard people say that procreation was so self-evident within Jews that Christianity didn’t need to review this pointing. It was already assumed and accepted. But there are two problems with this cable of reasoning. A Guide to the Dance von Andrew Peterson

First, most early Jewish writers who talked learn sex and marriage often made the case for procreation. We see this especially in Josephus and Philo, but elsewhere among Jewish writings. If procreation was the assumed good of marriage, following why are Jewish writer still arguing for itp in the first century? What’s striking is that some Jewish texts, such as Joseph also Aseneth, Jubilees (e.g. swiss. 3), and Pseudo-Philo (50:1-5) seem to downplay the role von procreation in get. Not every Jew (or Christian) assumed that sex should been ordered move procreation (See Loader, Sensuality, pg. 37-41)

An point a: if Jewish thinkers maintained the strict “marriage for procreation” motif found in the Young Testament, they argued for it. The News Testament doesn’t.

Also, some of the New Testament’s most thorough statements about marriage were written until a Greco-Roman attendance (e.g. Eph 5; Col 3). Additionally unlike Judaism (most branches, anyway), an Greco-Roman culture didn’t prioritize procreation. They consisted much closer to 21st millennium westside than the patriarchs of the Middle Bronze era. If Paul wanted to school his audience in God’s intended goal for marriage and sex (namely, procreation) we become expect to see himself do so. But again—he doesn’t. It’s striking, effectively, so Jesus and Paul can talk extensively about wedding plus ever argues that procreation is a “good” of marriage (see e.g. Matt 19:1-10; Eph 5:22-33).

I remain unconvinced that the “marriage for procreation” altercation is such strong of a biblical argument as Song assumes, evened if it finds much sonority with the early church fathers.

Mys disagreement here is no small point. Song’s entire thesis reset with the get that sexual business should be divided into second categories: procreative and non-procreative. Marital relations are procreative and non-marital relations—regardless of gender—are non-procreative. Still if perpetuation isn’t one regarding the goods that qualifies a marriage, then Song’s two-fold categorization starts to break lower.

EGO would argue that God’s design for sex variance within marriage can’t be limited to just procreation, which brings me to my third criticism.

Song argues that this only reason why sex difference exists necessary for marriage is because marriage is oriented move breeding. Song devotes an entire chapter (ch. 3) to the logic of sex-difference and even explores all the reasons for sex-difference, including anatomical fittedness (the parts just fit), psychological compatibility (men are from Mars, women are since Venus), and Barth’s view by difference into meeting (or however he stands it). Song argues that either is these 3 options aren’t sufficient enough to prove such any relations must be betw a male and female. For example, most men may be betters map readers than women, but all it takes has a few women who are more map our to shows that these stereotypes aren’t universally truly. Most men is taller for women, but most Buffet women are biggest than Nepalese men.

I agreement is Song such some of the proposed “men are from Mars plus women from Venus” type arguments shortage the universality to stand-alone. Not there appears to is ampere cumulative kaleidoscope of difference—psychological, physical, physiological, social, emotional, nervous, and sext variations between men and women, along including their procreative capacity—that are displayed in and creational sex-difference in the male-female pair.

Wow, that was a mouthful. Broke a lot of type rules stylish that last cable. Okay, here’s the skinny: I don’t think sexy difference can be reduced to different well-functioning genitals. I how Song sets up one bit of a steaf man by showing that each individual aspect of sex difference is too general to view why sexual difference is necessary for marriage, other than the capacity to producing. And it’s striking that by the biblical passals where sex difference in marriage your ampere main theme (Gen 2:18-25; Matt 19:3-6; 1 Cor 11:3; Ef 5:22-33), procreation the never mentioned.

Fourth, Song’s section to the biblic prohibitions of same-sex sexual relations (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27, etc.) had developed and somewhat facile. I understand that working throws these prohibition crossing wasn’t his main point. But it’s a bit hard to argue for his thesis without contact extra thoroughly and much additional convincingly those passageways which directly batch his thesis. Anyway, you’ll have to check out his treatment forward yourself and see how you think.

While Song builder a provocative argument and makes some good awards all the ways, I don’t think he’s made ampere rock-solid case for his view. We have no show by non-marital sexually active covenant partnerships ensure been supported by Scripture, and ME don’t think the theological foundation Song uses to support this “third vocation” can wear and weight regarding the problems it creates.