Sex and marriage and sin (part 1)

Last updated on: June 7, 2015 at 1:29 pm by Fred Clark

Sex and marriage and sin (part 1) 2015-06-07T12:35:11-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Let’s start with this, from Terry Pratchett, in Carpe Jugulum. This is a conversation between Granny Weatherwax and a man named Mightily Oats:

“… And sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.”

“It’s a lot more complicated than that …”

“No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.”

“Oh, I’m sure there are worse crimes …”

“But they starts with thinking about people as things … ”

We could’ve chosen a similar statement from Kant or John Rawls or dozens of other eminent moral philosophers — the idea here is not original to Granny Weatherwax or to Pratchett. But this is clear, concise and to the point: “Sin … is when you treat people as things.” It is, to borrow a phrase from another of Pratchett’s wise crones, a nice and accurate definition of sin. It’s straightforward, it’s non-sectarian, and it works.

The story doesn’t say what it was that Jesus wrote with his finger. I like to think it was something like, “Sin, young man, is when you treat people as things.”

There may be more to say on the subject,* but any such “complications” would be derived from this starting point, not exceptions to it. Anything more we want to say about sin — about ethics and morality and oughts and shoulds and right and wrong — can be built atop this foundation. And if we want to say something more that doesn’t seem to agree with this, then we have a hint that something may be amiss with what we’re trying to say.

That last point is why people like Granny Weatherwax are upsetting to people like Mightily Oats — to anyone who bases their claim to authority and power on a sectarian rulebook. It’s not that such religious experts in the law would quite want to say that treating people as things is necessarily ever good or right or acceptable. But they’ve got a lot invested in all their commandments, particularly in those that may seem odd or arbitrary, and all that they have invested in that seems threatened when someone comes along and offers a simple principle that seems to make all of their lawyerly expertise redundant. Even worse, such principles call into question some of the rules and commandments themselves — those rules that don’t seem to have anything at all to do with treating people as things, and especially those rules and commandments that seem to require treating people as things.

(This is why Jesus got in trouble for having the audacity to summarize all the law and the prophets in a simple Golden Rule. Paul wouldn’t have been quite so dangerous a troublemaker if he’d been content to argue that “love is obedience to the law,” but he didn’t stop there. He said “love is the fulfillment of the law” — the culmination and consummation, the end of it. He was replacing the latter with the former in a way that threatened every institution, tradition, authority, career and identity that was based on the latter.)

And but so, let’s start here, with this: “Sin is when you treat people as things.” And let’s consider what this suggests about sex and marriage and the relationship between those two things.

I would guess at this point that some of my friends who advocate/enforce a traditional, authoritative set of rules for sexual morality are getting nervous and perhaps a bit defensive. They’re probably worried that I heading toward a discussion in which I will question the rule that says sex can only be moral within the context of traditional marriage.

But I’m afraid it’s worse than that. What interests me here is not the question of whether or not sex can only be moral within the context of traditional marriage, but the question of whether it is possible for sex to be moral within that context at all.

Spoiler alert: I am married, and I would not have gotten married if I did not believe that it was possible to do so without treating people as things. Nor would I have bothered getting married if I did not believe that doing so can be one helpful way of structuring life to guard against the potential for treating people as things. But the qualified, conditional nature of that endorsement seems unlikely to be very reassuring to my traditionalist friends.

– – – – – – – – – – – –

* Cruelty to animals, for example, is a kind of sin — a kind of wickedness — that may take a bit more considering to line up with this starting point of a definition. But I don’t think it amounts to an exception.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

June 7, 2015

Sunday WTF?

Next Post

June 8, 2015 The triple crown of the American Pharaoh

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Psalm is often read at funerals: "Even though I walk through the valley..."?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 90 Psalm 51 Psalm 23 Psalm 137