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

Theology in the Raw

Home
Evangelical
Toward a Critical Review of Robert Song’s Covenant and Calling

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

Last updated on: May 27, 2016 at 7:15 am by Preston Sprinkle

Toward a Critical Review of Robert Song’s Covenant and Calling 2016-05-27T07:15:27-06:00 Preston Sprinkle

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.

song

Dr. Robert Song

My last blog summarized Robert Song’s provocative book, Covenant and Calling. As I previously said, Song’s argument is nuanced and clear, and it just might be one of the best affirming arguments I’ve read since James Brownson’s Bible, Sex, Gender. In any case, I do believe Song’s thesis runs into at least three problems.

First, Song argues that covenant partnerships can be sexual in nature, even though they shouldn’t be considered marriages. He also argues that covenant partnerships aren’t limited to same-sex couples, but include opposite-sex couples as well (pp. 51, 81, 84). My first pushback (to state the obvious) is: Does the Bible allow for sex outside of marriage? When two college students don’t want to get married, but want to pursue a “covenant partnership,” should the church sanction such a relationship?

Call me a prude, but I do believe that God designed sex for marriage, which I’ve written about elsewhere. I only raise these questions here because sex outside of marriage would be the logical outcome of Song’s view, and I’m a bit surprised that he never mentioned this. Are there any biblical arguments that human relations can be sexual—even as “covenant partners”—and not be marriages?

Second, and most significantly, Song assumes (and in some places argues) that all marriages should be oriented toward procreation. This doesn’t mean that every sexual act should aim to procreate, but every marital relationship should be open to procreation. This view isn’t novel, of course. It’s actually shared by 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 this one.

While procreation appears to be one of the primary goods of marriage according to the Old Testament, we don’t see the same emphasis in the New. I’ve sometimes heard people say that procreation was so self-evident within Judaism that Christianity didn’t need to repeat the point. It was already assumed and accepted. But there are two problems with this line of reasoning.

First, most early Jewish writers who talked about 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, then why are Jewish writers still arguing for it in the first century? What’s striking is that some Jewish writings, such as Joseph and Aseneth, Jubilees (e.g. ch. 3), and Pseudo-Philo (50:1-5) seem to downplay the role of procreation in marriage. Not every Jew (or Christian) assumed that sex should be ordered toward procreation (See Loader, Sexuality, pp. 37-41)

The point is: if Jewish thinkers maintained the strict “marriage for procreation” motif found in the Old Testament, they argued for it. The New Testament doesn’t.

Also, some of the New Testament’s most thorough statements about marriage were written to a Greco-Roman audience (e.g. Eph 5; Col 3). And unlike Judaism (most branches, anyway), the Greco-Roman culture didn’t prioritize procreation. They were much closer to 21st century westerners 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 would expect to see him do so. But again—he doesn’t. It’s striking, actually, that Jesus and Paul can talk extensively about marriage and never argue 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” argument is as strong of a biblical argument as Song assumes, even if it finds much resonance with the early church fathers.

My disagreement here is no small point. Song’s entire thesis rests on the claim that sexual relations should be divided into two categories: procreative and non-procreative. Marital relations are procreative and non-marital relations—regardless of gender—are non-procreative. But if procreation isn’t one of the goods that qualifies a marriage, then Song’s two-fold categorization starts to break down.

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

Song argues that the only reason why sex difference is necessary for marriage is because marriage is oriented toward procreation. 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 complementarity (men are from Mars, women are from Venus), and Barth’s view of difference in encounter (or however he puts it). Song argues that each of these 3 options aren’t sufficient enough to prove that all relations must be between a male and female. For example, most men may be better map readers than women, but all it takes is a few women who are better map readers to show that these stereotypes aren’t universally true. Most men are taller than women, but most Swedish women are taller than Nepalese men.

I agree with Song that some of the proposed “men are from Mars and women from Venus” type arguments lack the universality to stand-alone. But there appears to be a cumulative kaleidoscope of difference—psychological, physical, physiological, social, emotional, neurological, and sexual differences between men and women, along with their procreative capacity—that are displayed in the creational sex-difference in the male-female pair.

Wow, that was a mouthful. Broke a lot of writing rules in that last line. Okay, here’s the skinny: I don’t think sex difference can be reduced to different well-functioning genitals. I think Song sets up a bit of a straw man by showing that each individual aspect of sex difference is too general to show why sex difference is necessary for marriage, other than the capacity to procreate. And it’s striking that in the biblical passages where sex difference in marriage is a main theme (Gen 2:18-25; Matt 19:3-6; 1 Cor 11:3; Eph 5:22-33), procreation is never mentioned.

Fourth, Song’s chapter on the biblical prohibitions of same-sex sexual relations (Lev 18:22; Rom 1:26-27, etc.) was underdeveloped and somewhat simplistic. I understand that working through these prohibition passages wasn’t his main point. But it’s a bit hard to argue for his thesis without addressing more thoroughly and much more convincingly those passages which directly counter his thesis. Anyway, you’ll have to check out his treatment for yourself and see what you think.

While Song builds a provocative argument and makes some good points along the way, I don’t think he’s made a rock-solid case for his view. We have no examples of non-marital sexually active covenant partnerships that are endorsed by Scripture, and I don’t think the theological foundation Song uses to support this “third vocation” can bear the weight of the problems it creates.

Previous Post

May 26, 2016

Toward a Theology of Same-Sex Relationships

Next Post

June 6, 2016 Is a Traditional Sexual Ethic Intrinsically Harmful?

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 40 Questions A Letter to my congregation adoption Alan Chambers Alcohol America american Jesus andrew marin angels Anne Paulk Annihilation apology Apostles creed atonement AudioFeed Balkhu Baptism bastard being biblical believer's baptism bible Bible College biblical love biblical studies Boise book review Books buzzwords called celibacy Center for Pastoral Theologians Charis charleston shooting cherubim christian movies Christian teens Christianeze Christmas church Church Refugees civil rights college debt communal faith Conditional Immortality conference david gushee debt free education Dechurched derwin gray desiring the kingdom Discipleship Don Miller Dones ecclesia and ethics Erasing Hell Esther eternal conscious torment Eternity Bible College ethnic diversity ETS eunuch evangelicalism Fight Four Views on Hell Francis Chan Francis Watson Free Bible Resources French Quarter grace gran torino gun control haters hell holy war homeschool homosexuality house church immigration Incarnation individualism Infant Baptism interpretation Intersex Israel James Dunn james smith Jerry Fallwell Jr. Jessica Minassian Jesus Jesus refugee Joey Dodson John MacArthur John Piper John Stott Josh Packard Joshua Ryan Butler judgment Justification Karl Barth Ken Wilson Kevin DeYoung Lance Hancock Leper lesbian LGBT LGBTQ Life Love God liturgy living in a gray world Luke 22 martin luther king mary magdalene Matthew Vines Megan DeFranza Michael Bird millennials Ministry Missions mixed orientation marriage movies Multiethnic churches Music Festival My Exodus N.T. Wright nationalism New Perspective New Year resolution nonviolence obedience Old Testament Online Biblical Training orlando massacre Pacifism parenting pastoral ministry Pastoral Theologian patriotism people to be loved personal relationship with Jesus politics poverty Prayer Preston Sprinkle Project Bayview public square Q Conference qualifications for ministry Racial Reconciliation radio show Reading reading plan real Christianity Reformed refugee refugee crisis rick hogaboam robb bell robert gagnon Romans Romans 13 Romans 9 sam allberry same sex attraction sanctification school segrated churches seraphim sex Sex Difference in Christian Theology sexual fluidity Shawn Gordon short term missions Skeletons in God's Closet Slums Sodom Speaking syrian refugee crisis technology teen girls texting The Bible Project The Gospel Coalition the high definition leader theology Third Way Tim Mackie Touch Nepal trols UK Tour Uncategorized Urban Ministry Us vs. Us Vieux Carre Baptist Church violence vocation Waiting warfare welcome the stranger women women in ministry worship songs writing

Select a Month August 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

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the name of the queen who visited Solomon?

Select your answer to see how you score.

The Queen of Sheba Queen Esther Queen Vashti Queen Jezebel