Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
LBCF, No. 243: ‘Morality and sex and all of that’

LBCF, No. 243: ‘Morality and sex and all of that’

Last updated on: August 2, 2019 at 3:03 pm by Fred Clark

LBCF, No. 243: ‘Morality and sex and all of that’ 2019-08-02T15:03:17-04:00 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.

Originally posted March 22, 2010.

You can read this entire series, for free, via the convenient Left Behind Index. The ebook collection The Anti-Christ Handbook: Volume 1, is available on Amazon for just $0.99. Imagine needing a tape recording of actual slurs to realize that Nixon and Reagan were racist. Volume 2 of The Anti-Christ Handbook, completing all the posts on the first Left Behind book, is also now available. Volume 3 is coming someday.

Tribulation Force, pp. 175-177

If you’ve ever been part of a small-group Bible study, then you’re familiar with the routine of such sessions. After discussing the passage’s “application” for our daily personal lives and before going around the circle to collect prayer requests, the leader usually takes a moment to check in with those members who spent the day in the lair of the Antichrist. You know, just casually checking in to see if they may have inadvertently betrayed the congregation to the embodiment of evil.

The Bible study in Bruce Barnes’ office has now arrived at that moment:

Bruce turned to Buck. “How did your day go?” To Rayford, it seemed like an inside question.

“More to talk about than I can get into here,” Buck said.

Rayford is jealous. Here he is in a closed executive session of the Tribulation Force — the inner circle of Bruce’s inner circle — and yet it seems like Bruce and Buck have yet another circle of their own that’s even more inner than that. He seems about to protest this point, to suggest that it’s OK to keep secrets from Loretta and the rest of the congregation, but not from him, when Chloe changes the subject:

“More to talk about than I can get into here,” Buck said.

“No kidding,” Chloe snapped. It was the first thing she had said.

Buck glanced at her and said, “I’ll debrief you tomorrow, Bruce, and then we can talk about it here tomorrow night.”

“Oh, let’s talk about it now,” Chloe said. “We’re all friends here.”

Her snippy tone would be entirely appropriate if she actually knew what it was that Bruce and Buck were talking about. Buck, a member of this secret four-person resistance cell sworn to oppose the Antichrist, spent his afternoon ad-libbing his way through an interview with that very same mind-reading Beast. He put all of their lives in jeopardy without consulting the group and he came back with nothing to show for it.

But that’s not why she’s upset with Buck here.

Rayford, for his part, is embarrassed by his daughter’s harsh tone:

Rayford wished he could shush his own daughter, but she was an adult. If she wanted to press an issue, regardless of how she came across, that was her prerogative.

Step back for a moment to let that sink in. He “wished he could shush his own daughter” because she’s getting ready to tell off Buck Williams. This same daughter has spent the last two days in tears after learning that this man who had seemed interested in her was secretly engaged — that he was, it seemed, already living with his fiancée. And when his daughter begins to confront Buck about this, Rayford “wished he could shush” her.

What kind of father thinks like that — instinctively siding with the man who made his daughter cry? As we’ll see next week, this gets worse.

“You don’t even know where I was today,” Buck told her, clearly puzzled.

“But I know who you were with.”

The authors seem to wish they could shush Chloe too. Can’t she see that poor, innocent, falsely accused Buck is “clearly puzzled”?

Rayford saw the glance Buck shot at Bruce, but he didn’t understand it. Obviously, something had transpired between the two of them that wasn’t public knowledge yet. Could he have told Chloe that Buck met with Carpathia?

Did I miss something here? As far as I can tell, Rayford shouldn’t know any more than Chloe does about Buck’s secret trip to New York. So that’s a pretty amazing guess on his part.

The authors take a few more paragraphs to reaffirm Buck’s innocence and to convey their dismay (and Rayford’s and Bruce’s) over what they regard as Chloe’s inappropriate hostility. But then the conversation takes an oddly realistic turn: “I have a question and a prayer request for tonight,” she says. “I’m wondering what you think about dating relationships during this time.”

I was joking above about small-group Bible studies, but in all seriousness this very thing will be familiar to anyone who has participated in such a group: The passive-aggressive prayer-request accusation. This is how we evangelicals gossip and sometimes how we argue — via the loaded prayer request.

“I just feel we ought to be praying for Cheryl at this time.” “Why?” “Oh, you haven’t heard?…”

Or, “I just want to pray that God would give me a spirit of mercy, because someone has treated me unfairly and I’m just having a hard time finding forgiveness in my heart toward this person right now. …”

It can get really nasty without ever getting impolite. The description and implementation of this tactic here in Tribulation Force rings true, even if it seems terribly out of character for Chloe to be doing this.

“You’re the second person who’s asked me that today,” Bruce said. “We must be lonely people.” Chloe snorted, then scowled at Buck.

She must assume it was Buck who asked Bruce that earlier, Rayford thought.

Throughout this scene, Chloe’s behavior toward Buck closely mirrors his behavior earlier toward Verna. The authors cheered and applauded Buck’s every snort and scowl in that earlier scene, but here they go out of their way to tell us that Chloe’s behavior is unacceptable. (The double standard here is only partly due to the fact that Buck is a man and Chloe is a woman. It’s also partly due to the fact that Verna is a woman and Buck is a man.)

Bruce agrees to address the topic of “dating relationships” in the Great Tribulation at their next meeting, but Chloe isn’t done yet:

“And can you add to it what the rules are for morality for new believers?” Chloe said.

“Excuse me?”

“Talk about how we’re supposed to live, now that we call ourselves followers of Christ. You know, like morality and sex and all of that.”

And there you have it. Morality is about sex. Morality means sex and it only means sex. Or, rather, morality means refraining from sex. “Moral” questions have to do with what one may or may not do with one’s genitals. This is, for the authors, all you need to know about “how we’re supposed to live” and all you need to know about “following Christ”: Don’t have sex outside of marriage.

It would take volumes just to list the ways in which this view distorts and shrivels the meaning of morality (and the meaning of sex), just to name or identify all the things this leaves out from the matter of what is good or “how we’re supposed to live” and all the things it leaves out from the matter of what is not good or how we’re not supposed to live.

And of course many volumes have been written critiquing this stunted notion of morality and offering a more comprehensive, holistic, practical and human vision for “how we’re supposed to live.” We don’t have to repeat that critique here. (Some suggested authors who do a good job on the subject: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Amos, Paul, James.)

The prophet Elijah commends King Ahab and his faithful wife Jezebel for the moral example set by their lifelong marital fidelity. (Print by Francis Dicksee via Wikipedia)

So what I’d like to highlight instead is how this little vignette illustrates the way this morality=genitals concept prevents those who adopt it from having any meaningful notion of sexual ethics.

Despite her father and the authors wanting to shush Chloe here for lashing out at Buck, her behavior makes sense given what she believes to be true. From where she’s sitting, it seems she has been betrayed and misled — that she has had her emotions toyed with by someone who was trying to take advantage of her. Her misunderstanding of the Alice situation may be a mistake, but given that mistake her actions here have a certain emotional logic.

But, this being a book by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins, that emotional logic is contradicted by the words the authors give Chloe to say. She isn’t allowed to feel betrayed or to express anger over that betrayal. She is only allowed to feel and express an abstract indignation at Buck’s perceived immorality.

The authors seem to think they’re doing her a favor here. They don’t think it’s unflattering to portray Chloe as a prudish busybody. Rather, they imagine that by having her focus her anger on the sinfulness of Buck’s premarital cohabitation, they’re actually making her appear more virtuous. (Indignation over the sins of others is, for the authors, the hallmark of virtue.) They’re also trying to protect her virtue. They can’t allow Chloe to seem upset that she had been falsely led on by Buck because that would imply that she had been led on — that she was the sort of girl who might be led in a direction in which no virtuous woman would ever allow herself to be led.

Chloe’s angry response here is confined to the terms of the authors’ narrowly defined, or almost nonexistent, sexual ethic. What that ethic says is that sex is wrong. Sex is always wrong unless you’re married and you’re having sex with your spouse (in which case sex is always right). Chloe can’t get upset over Buck’s apparent betrayal because the idea of betrayal doesn’t fit into the binary married-good/unmarried-bad sexual ethic of the authors.

To the authors, sexual betrayal is wrong because it is sexual — exclusively because it is sexual — and not because it involves betrayal. Sexual infidelity is wrong because it is sexual, not because it is infidelity. Exploitative and predatory and abusive sex are wrong because of the sex, not because of the exploitation or the predation or the abuse.

This binary married/unmarried sex ethic leaves people like the authors ill-equipped to articulate or to think about any of the other, more significant considerations that ought to be part of a mature ethical framework. And that can lead to some monstrous conclusions when people try to apply such an inadequate binary ethic to a matter such as rape. Or when, consulting this binary ethic, they find themselves unable to condemn anything a husband might wish to do to his wife.

Bruce Barnes, speaking on behalf of the authors, has nothing to offer beyond this binary ethic:

“I don’t think it’ll come as any great shock to you to know that the rules that applied before the Rapture still apply. I mean, this could be a short lesson. We’re called to purity.”

And “purity” here translates, roughly, into “abstinence until marriage.” Taken as an exclusive rule, that has proven to be an inadequate approach to sex education. It is even less adequate as a sexual ethic or, worse still, as the entirety of morality and how we’re supposed to live and all that.

“We’re called to purity. I’m sure it won’t surprise you –”

“It might not be so obvious to all of us,” Chloe said.

“We’ll deal with it tomorrow night then,” Bruce said. “Anything else for right now?”

Before anyone said anything or even offered closing prayer requests, Chloe said, “Nope. See you tomorrow night then.” And she left.

If only the authors had allowed Chloe to express human-type emotions in this scene. If she’d been allowed to be hurt and angry over Buck’s alleged betrayal rather than just being offended by his failure to meet the Purity Standard, then her abrupt departure here might have been kind of cool. But as it is, not so much.

Her behavior in these pages is another place where I wish I could believe Jenkins was actually trying something subtle. It’s almost possible here to impose a reading on this section that interprets her focus on Buck’s alleged impurity as a mask for the more personal wound of betrayal she’s feeling — the real source of her anger. That would be a realistic, human response — a way for her to strike back at Buck without giving him the satisfaction of her acknowledging that he had gotten to her personally. But Jenkins gives us enough clear cues that her indignation is meant to be genuine, and he provides nothing to indicate that she really is nursing a sense of betrayal.

And, again, the last thing LaHaye and Jenkins would ever want to suggest would be that the extravagant indignation of the virtuous might sometimes — or often, or almost always — be a pious disguise for nasty retaliation in response to a misperceived personal insult.

The authors are wearing that disguise, so they’d prefer not to draw attention to it.

Uncategorized

Left Behind

purity culture

Previous Post

August 1, 2019

Trust me, truth is more fun than its opposite

Next Post

August 6, 2019 Smart people saying smart things (8.6.19)

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 contains the line, "Taste and see that the Lord is good"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Psalm 34 Psalm 100 Psalm 23 Psalm 51