Chris, I think if you were to glean the writings of the Church Fathers (especially St. Augustine of Hippo) to find their attitudes and beliefs about sex, you’d change your mind about the traditional, Orthodox teaching on sexuality. Unless of course you would agree with them that sexual intercourse is a dirty ordeal that we must nevertheless bare for the sole purpose of procreation. I don’t think you take this view, though, no thanks to the likes of St. Augustine! Let’s face it, the church has had a great deal of anxiety about sex, especially in the west. The Eastern tradition is a little better, but even the likes of a St. Maximus Confessor expressed the silly notion that sex was a result of the fall - that God would’ve devised another method of procreation if it wasn’t for Eve and the forbidden fruit. is this a realistic, holistic, healthy and compassionate attitude to take towards sexualty? I sure hope it’s not!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2007-10-10-christians-young_N.htm

Huw (not “hew” which is verb…)

“Is it that the religion in question can’t outgrow its cultural biases, or is it that it is too slow to adopt the biases of the culture that it now finds itself in?”

Clearly, I’m assuming that the teachings regarding sex have evolved - in the understanding of the writers of the bible, as well as in our day. And I’m assuming that both of those evolutions were/are God inspired.

As Abraham’s Generation had multiple wives - but later this was determined to be wrong - but both were part of the God-inspired evolution of the people, so I also believe that God is moving us to better understanding today - and that we are writing scripture today, as well.

You wrote:

I’m glad the church is taking a more realistic, holistic, healthy and compassionate approach to sex in general than it did in ages past.

I have a couple of questions about this.

First, what is your working definition of “the Church” which enables you to say that “the Church” has changed its “approach to sex”? Clearly some denominations have become more “liberal” (for lack of a better word), but does that mean that the Church as a whole has changed its attitude towards sex?

Secondly, to be able to compare the Church’s current “approach to sex” with its earlier approach to sex, you have to have some standard by which to judge the Church’s attitude. By what standard are you judging the Church to be able to conclude that its new attitude is “more realistic, more holistic, more healthy, and more compassionate”?

FWIW, I think the traditional, orthodox teaching on marriage and sexuality is more realistic, holistic, healthy, and compassionate than is the “new attitude” of contemporary culture.

It depends on what issue we’re talking about, Chris. For instance, I’m glad the church has made some changes to its approach and beliefs about women. I’m also glad that the church is taking a more compassionate approach towards Homosexuals and Lesbians, both conservatives and liberals. Heck, I’m glad the church is taking a more realistic, holistic, healthy and compassionate approach to sex in general than it did in ages past. There are times when the surrounding culture (or the world as we Christians like to call it) is on to something and we should listen. There are times when we need to resist the World. We need to turn our faces from the materialism, greed and militarism of American culture for instance. Pornography and any other attempt to objectify sexuality must also be resisted. But let’s not say that everything coming from the mouth of Modernity and post modernity just because it is modern or post modern. This would be uncritical.

Oh, if only this were so, Hew! I met many people under the age of 35 in the Orthodox Church that were drawn to it because of its outdated cultural biases. Alas, I was one of them! Kyrie Eleison!

You once made a comment on my weblog in which you said “There’s so many theological claims in those 8 words that you would need something at least as long as the XXXIX Articles to defend them all.” The eight words above deserve the same remark.

Is it that the religion in question can’t outgrow its cultural biases, or is it that it is too slow to adopt the biases of the culture that it now finds itself in? Any religion that seriously claims to have eternal and transcendent truth is going to be in conflict at some level with every culture it encounters; and any religion that doesn’t make some effort to remain the same in the face of cultural change isn’t worth believing in.

So, claiming sola scriptura, the local population says, “Well, no: there are the gays.” And later, they will say, as you point out, “Trinity?” Etc.