Last summer, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America voted to accept actively homosexual persons as members of their clergy and to condone gays and lesbians living in “lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships.” This has caused a firestorm of controversy in that church body. In response, the American Lutheran Publicity Bureau, an independent pan-Lutheran organization that produces a magazine called Lutheran Forum, and a newsletter Forum Letter, published an article titled “Temple Prostitution: A Modest Proposal” by the Associate Editor of Forum Letter, Pastor Peter Speckhard, nephew of the late Father Richard John Neuhaus. I asked for permission to share this brilliant piece of satire here and they kindly granted it. And so, here is the article printed in the December 2009 issue of Forum Letter. Copyright 2009 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. All rights reserved. For further information about Forum Letter, visit www.alpb.org. [Editorial warning: May be unsuitable except for mature readers]
Temple prostitution: a modest proposal
by Peter Speckhard, associate editor
November 2009 Forum Letter
Every now and then a new way of looking at things not only solves a problem but opens up unexpected opportunities for that one solution to lead to a whole host of related solutions. The recent decisions of the ELCA regarding homosexuality solved the problem faced by gay couples seeking church weddings. But even better, the new way of looking at the issue could solve several more perennial problems in the church with one grand innovation.
Facing our problems
What are the biggest problems, practical and theological, that Lutheran churches in America face today? I would submit the following:
—Inability to retain or reach out to young, single people, especially men. Think about it—on a typical Sunday in a typical Lutheran church, how many 28-year-old single men are sitting in the pews? How might we draw them in? What are their felt needs?
—Failure to use the gifts of the laity. Sure, it is easy to use the gifts of creative, educated, energetic, talented people. But many Christians are none of those things. Like the Little Drummer Boy, they have not much to offer. But if they sincerely, humbly, and faithfully offer whatever gifts they’ve been given, shouldn’t they expect their offering to meet the approval of their God?
—Declining revenue. Especially in a tough economy, we need new and creative ways to raise money if we’re adequately going to fund critical ministries such as feeding the hungry or blanketing Africa with condoms.
—Legalism. We can’t be a gospel-centered church with a do-this, don’t-do-that mentality. Legalism, a focus on rules and moralistic preaching have always threatened the freedom of the gospel.
—Biblicism. Too often we use selective proof-texts merely to maintain traditional opinions rather than really listening to the Spirit.
—Irrelevance. We need to address the real social needs in and of the world as it exists around us, not as it supposedly was in the 1950’s or how we might wish it were. We must face the joyful challenges of today.
—Worship without impact. Too often our worship is only a matter of words and music rather than an expression of radical freedom that encompasses the whole person.
Prostitution solution
Now imagine all those problems solved with one simple innovation. The answer: temple prostitution.
I know, I know. Outrageous and offensive. I can hear readers already dismissing the idea out of hand. And I admit that we may not be ready for it quite yet. But please hear me out on this.
First off, let’s address the common objections. Sure, there are a handful of Bible verses that might seem to condemn the practice. But all the condemnation of temple prostitution involves pagan practices or worship of false gods. The objectionable thing is the idolatry, not the physical act itself. Sanctified, faithful prostitution in service of the true God is a new thing. The Biblical writers never foresaw or contemplated sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing prostitution in the churches and thus never wrote about it. Attempts to find a Biblical injunction against the practice therefore fall short.
Interpretive nuance
Secondly, let’s not cherry-pick verses selectively. We don’t stone disobedient children to death. We don’t refrain from pork or sodomy merely because this or that verse says we should. We have to look at the whole Biblical witness in light of the freedom we have in Christ. For example, God ordered Hosea to marry a prostitute. Such Biblical precedent offers interpretive nuance to seemingly black-and-white prohibitions.
Thirdly, Jesus himself seemed to have a soft spot for prostitutes. Many reputable scholars today think he may have been married to one. And Jesus showed radical inclusivity, breaking taboos by hanging out with prostitutes. So he would want us to celebrate and affirm their prostitution and give them a venue for making it their true vocation, a way of serving God by serving man—selflessly and with their whole being.
Fourthly, some primarily Lutheran nations in Scandinavia have already legalized prostitution. Left-hand kingdom legalities need not stand in the way of the general idea of sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing, church-sponsored prostitution.
Science tells us
Lastly, the idea that church prostitution would cause any harm has been put to rest by a host of studies. The opportunity for a woman to explore her sexuality in a controlled, churchly environment surely beats the back seat or back alley. She would have the mutual trust of knowing her client is a fellow faithful Christian. There would be proper testing, protection, and hygiene standards in a suitably sterilized environment. What she might have done in service to the devil, the world, and her own sinful nature she would now do in service to God, whom we serve by serving our fellow man.
No more living a lie
And for the client there are similar advantages. Think of the number of single males who would be saved from living a lie concerning their deepest emotional and psychological desires. The plain fact is that most of the unmarried men in the congregation are sexually attracted to women. Right now their cruel alternatives are to deny those urges and live a lie, carry out those urges in secretive and destructive ways, or leave the church because their desires are not welcomed and affirmed. But with temple prostitution available, they could avoid dangerous, destructive behavior, help the church raise money, use the gift of sexuality in a God-pleasing way, and sit in the pew focusing on spiritual things without all that pent up desire and frustration getting in the way.
Love conquers all
So there are no valid objections to sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing prostitution in the churches apart from tradition and conservative morality, which are surely trumped by love.
Furthermore, even if there are some controversial points, they do not touch the heart of the gospel. This plan does not eliminate John 3:16; it exposes more people to John 3:16 on Sunday (or, more likely, the Saturday night service). And if there is some Biblicist objection that such behavior could be considered immoral according to traditional, puritanical mores, well, everyone is a sinner, right? Salvation by grace through faith says nothing specifically about prostitution, right? And Jesus never explicitly addressed the issue, either. Do we think we’re saved by proper sexual behavior? I think not. Nor are we saved by our interpretations of a few non-gospel related verses of the Bible.
Benefits abounding
Now think of the benefits. This program would attract the very demographic we have had such trouble reaching (young men). It would end our fiscal woes. Think of the money we could raise to feed the hungry! Or do you want them to starve because of your puritan hang-ups? It would also provide a teaching opportunity against the age-old heresy that the body is evil. God made us with perfectly natural sexual urges. Why are you so hung up on sex?
The Law is fulfilled in Christ; we are a free, gospel-centered people. We can serve Christ via sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing, church-sponsored prostitution.
Needn’t be church-dividing
But hey, I understand we’re all in different places on this. This needn’t be church-dividing. We can live together with diverse views on this. Some traditionalists may not be comfortable having temple prostitutes in church. They don’t necessarily hate prostitutes; they might just need time. They don’t have to offer it themselves; besides, what seems crazy at first might, with several years of repetition and refining, become perfectly acceptable. Must those of us who are in favor of it be written out of the body of Christ?
Some of us are ready now. I certainly don’t insist that anyone become a temple prostitute or worship God with the help of one. But I do say that there have always been willing prostitutes and willing clients who have been marginalized by traditional sexual mores, and the time has come to change that. And the way to change it is to stop the marginalizing. We’ll all benefit from being a healthier, more inclusive, more faithful, more forgiving, and more satisfied church body if only we’ll be open to the idea of God doing something new.
—by Peter Speckhard, associate editor
Copyright 2009 American Lutheran Publicity Bureau. All rights reserved.
December 15th, 2009 | 7:36 am | #1
[...] clergy and practice, you need to read this piece republished on First Things‘ Evangel blog: a reprint of Rev. Paul T. McCain’s Temple Prostitution: A Modest Proposal. [...]
December 15th, 2009 | 8:25 am | #2
Keep ‘em comin’.
December 15th, 2009 | 8:59 am | #3
Amazing! Given the direction in which we are moving, future generations might not recognize this as parody.
December 15th, 2009 | 9:27 am | #4
Now there’s a scary thought. I know this was Pastor Speckhard’s point: the sense of the absurd of his send-up is precisely the way that our fathers and grandfathers would have reacted to the notion that the Church would bless homosexual relations.
December 15th, 2009 | 10:44 am | #5
Hammer meet nail. Speckhard is a talented satirist.
This one is especially poignant for evangelical churches today:
December 15th, 2009 | 10:57 am | #6
But of course, in this particular post, Speckhard is basically quoting what has been said in the ELCA as to why/how the Church can not speak out against homosexuality, for that would be “legalism” and not being “Gospel-centered.”
December 15th, 2009 | 11:44 am | #7
Along with Theo’s comment, I wonder if some of the mega church people have taken Joe Bayly’s The Gospel Blimp as a roadmap to success.
December 15th, 2009 | 1:13 pm | #8
Rev. McCain, are you serious? Wow. I thought that was something Speckhard made up essentially by himself.
Perhaps we should name this the “Temple Prostitution Test” of whether a document holds any water.
December 16th, 2009 | 1:16 pm | #9
Incredible.
December 17th, 2009 | 1:51 pm | #10
Now this is brilliant. It hits all the right notes. It is exactly the way homosexuality has been sold and the sacred Word stood on its head. It sounds so very, very familiar.
December 17th, 2009 | 7:50 pm | #11
Brilliant satire!! Jonathan Swift would be proud!
http://twelve60.blogspot.com
December 18th, 2009 | 8:57 am | #12
Wow, there just isn’t enough good use of satire in the church. Well done.
December 18th, 2009 | 10:54 am | #13
[...] Re-discovering Temple Prostitution… In a devastating piece of satire, one author puts common arguments for the allowance of certain once… [...]
December 18th, 2009 | 1:59 pm | #14
[...] the bible clearly does not support. I’m thankful Rev. McCain has spoken out, and so well done. Check it out. Good use of literary style to illustrate the absurdity of this [...]
December 19th, 2009 | 2:57 pm | #15
Greetings. That page is the champion, ‘n I have been searching for this web-site for a long time ‘n I’m so blessed I eventually found it.
I am 22 years old and starting my masters at Dartmough.
I am the sort of guy who enjoys to seek radical things. Presently I am fabricating my own photovoltaic panels. I am doing it all alone without the aid of my staff. I am utilizing the net as the only way to acheive this. I stumbled upon a very brilliant website that explains how to build photovoltaic panels and so on. The website explains all the steps involved in solar panel construction.
I’m not exactly sure about how correct the data given there iz. If some experts over here who had experience with these works can have a look and give your feedback in the page it will be great and I’d highly value it, cauze I extremely passion constructing photovoltaic panels.
December 26th, 2009 | 4:04 am | #16
[...] pretty shocking piece of satire, “Temple Prostitution: A Modest Proposal” by Rev. Paul T. McCain and an extraordinary “Suvery or Table declaring the order of the [...]
December 27th, 2009 | 9:56 pm | #17
Hilarious and spot on!
December 28th, 2009 | 10:36 am | #18
Funny. Insightful. Obvious, really, after you’ve read it: Which is always a sign of truth.
But that doesn’t mean that it’ll matter a darn. After all, this satire is presenting, in a funny way, a LOGICAL refutation of the pro-gay-marriage influences in modern Christianity.
But we’re post-modern now, mostly: Logic is your grandfather’s way of thinking; we’re into experiences and emotions, now.
So the fact that the debunking of the pro-gay-normalization movement’s arguments is TRUE doesn’t set back that movement a whit. You can’t, these days, make an idea less popular merely by demonstrating its falsehood. Not even satirically.
You see, logic is all very well, but the gay-normalization movement owns Hollywood and Washington and Academia. These, taken together, represent the purveyors of our cultural traditions: They are for us what the fireside storytellers and myth-makers were for our distant ancestors.
So go ahead and prove the gay-normalizers incorrect.
They’ll answer you, not with a counter-argument, but with a feel-good story of acceptance and expressions of “love despite our differences” involving a traditionalist preacher and congregation deciding to officiate at and celebrate the wedding of two men despite initial reservations. In this carefully-scripted myth they’ll show a couple of die-hard traditionalists who refuse to comply, but they’ll paint them unsympathetically, showing them wandering off into the wilderness to leave unhappy lonely lives with their orthodoxy, and presumably beat their children.
The “moral” of the story will be so beat-you-over-the-head chokingly obvious that, were it not a liberal moral, nobody would put up with it…but because it is a liberal moral, it’ll eventually make its way into an overbudgeted major motion picture, perhaps filmed in 3-D and directed by a famous director. And everyone will go see it, and its assumptions will seep into the brains of anyone under a certain age, who will regard their parents’ objections to homosexual liasons with the kind of embarrassed disregard currently reserved for those aging relatives who grew up during racially segregated times and still unwittingly say racially offensive things without noticing it.
And of course these younger folk will be the ones running the next generation of churches, making decisions as elders or deacons or in congregational meetings or whatever. And they will be the population from which the next generation of church pastors are chosen.
So count on it: The majority of Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Evangelical Non-Denominational, Anglican, whatever…90%+ of those churches will cease to publicly teach from the pulpit that homosexual liasons are a sin to be repented within 25 years — they mostly don’t say it now unless pointedly asked. A full 50% will, if asked, teach that homosexual liasons are not in-and-of-themselves sinful. Perhaps 33% of them will actually preach this from the pulpit. And 15-20% of them will solemnize gay “marriages” regularly. Go from 25 to 50 years, and you can up the percentages to 99%, 75%, 50%, and 33% respectively.
The Catholic church will be a large theoretical exception, though a smaller practical one. The Pope and upper hierarchy will still teach that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and that gay marriage isn’t. That won’t change because it’s already infallible dogma, and when you (a.) state something infallibly and (b.) rest your claim to legitimacy and uniqueness on a principle which will be falsified if you ever teach error, you obviously can’t ever reverse yourself. This is one of the great practical benefits of Catholicism: The Pope is always painted into a corner by previous popes and councils.
So the Catholics will be a theoretical exception. But not a practical one, inasmuch as as the American parishes themselves won’t teach against homosexuality in any kind of public way, and you can expect a lot of individual priests to treat SSA therapeutically or silently, and in the confessional, to counsel those who’re living in same-sex partnerships to think of social opprobrium as a “cross” they must bear and to “forgive those who are intolerant of you, for they know not what they do.” Not that there’ll actually BE any social opprobrium any more by then…but that won’t prevent gay-normalization advocates from claiming it, and Christian clergy from playing along.
Sorry. Some might say I’m indulging that part of my Irish ancestry called “prophesying gloom an’ doom.”
But my point is that unless someone has found a way to turn post-modernists into rational critical thinkers, all our best argumentation won’t matter a fig. It’ll all be about how everybody FEELS when the truth is preached truly, versus how everyone FEELS when the preaching keeps everyone comfortable and friendly and socially friction-free.
December 28th, 2009 | 11:55 am | #19
Fantastic. I actually lol’d at this, but then became sad when I realized that this is the way that a lot of people actually think. Brilliant satire, but all too familiar in our society. Sadly, I know people who would read this and say something like: “Finally, the Christians are getting it!” Lord, make haste to help us.
December 28th, 2009 | 12:29 pm | #20
The sins of the last century, reaching the crest, in a “moral tsunami”, with “fee love”, began their out flow, after hitting against the rock of Humane Vitae. Abortion is ok, because I don’t have to take responsibility for my actions. Sodomy is ok, because, in this way, I don’t have to have an abortion, albeit, I may get an incurable disease, I am “with IT”. JPII’s warning in 76, that we are facing the final confrontation between the gospel and the anti gospel, between the Church and the anti-church, led to B-16′s warning that the “idolatry” of moral relativism, will inexorably lead to tyranny. If you are not with IT, you are the enemy. I think this piece is satirical only to those who retain the natural law, but gospel to those on the wide road. Really, it was just a freak storm that snapped off that steeple.
December 28th, 2009 | 12:39 pm | #21
http://www.markmallett.com/blog/?p=501#more-501
December 28th, 2009 | 2:58 pm | #22
[...] issue could solve several more perennial problems in the church with one grand innovation. … Temple Prostitution: A Modest Proposal Evangel | A First Things Blog __________________ Hermonta Godwin Christ The King PCA Raleigh, [...]
December 29th, 2009 | 9:36 pm | #23
The comment from RC is as powerful as the satire. RC jr?
December 29th, 2009 | 11:15 pm | #24
I find nothing absurd or parodistic about this at all. On the contrary, I find it refreshing and persuasive – and vastly preferable to nearly every element of historical and contemporary institutionalized Christianity, Lutheran or otherwise.
But that’s just me (and others).
I am grateful that some half a century ago I was sufficiently brutalized by religion to finally have been able to find my way to spirituality.
I can say that as, among other things, the heterosexual father of two heterosexual sons who would rather see both of them in gay leather bars than to see them become as vicious, inhumane, and filled with hate as so many self-righteous and mentally and spiritually constrained soldiers of God.
December 30th, 2009 | 9:01 am | #25
[...] on Evangel, Paul McCain republishes an article by Pastor Peter Speckhard, nephew of Fr. Neuhaus, advocating for the institution of temple prostitution. Fortunately, the [...]
December 30th, 2009 | 11:16 am | #26
Epictetus, it seems you are a great candidate for the new ELCA. I suggest going to a Lutheran congregation, especially in a few years– you’ll probably hear stuff like this article!
December 30th, 2009 | 1:48 pm | #27
“Fourthly, some primarily Lutheran nations in Scandinavia have already legalized prostitution. Left-hand kingdom legalities need not stand in the way of the general idea of sanctified, faithful, God-pleasing, church-sponsored prostitution.”
The first time I ever visited the website of the Church of Sweden, there was an advertisement on the site for, I kid you not, “Sex Tourism in Stockholm.” I have no idea whether it is still there now, but it was as of about the middle of 2002.
So your spoof is closer to reality than you might have thought.
December 30th, 2009 | 6:02 pm | #28
It is just like those who have made a case for murdering the innocent(abortion). The problem is — if you are a Christian–I assume you have some belief that we will be held accountable for our actions or lack of them on earth.
Did the Lord tell us it is OK to make it all up as we go – forget scripture and what it tells us-just because it makes us uncomfortable?
December 30th, 2009 | 10:42 pm | #29
[...] Eric Speckhard proposes a logical future step for the ECLA based on this year’s policy change on homosexuality. (Hat Tip: Crunchy [...]
December 30th, 2009 | 10:58 pm | #30
[...] Eric Speckhard proposes a logical future step for the ECLA based on this year’s policy change on homosexuality. (Hat Tip: Crunchy [...]
December 30th, 2009 | 11:14 pm | #31
It’s sad how many of you think this is brilliant satire.
Gay marriage is akin to interracial marriage, not to sexual promiscuity.
Christian conservatives opposed interracial marriage half a century ago, and we all know they were wrong.
The gay marriage movement is a move away from promiscuity and toward loving relationships, not the reverse.
December 31st, 2009 | 5:00 pm | #32
DB: What is sad that you do not address the substance of the post and substitute assertion for argument on behalf of your preferences.
E.g.:
1. How is gay marriage like interracial marriage?
2. Who were the conservative Christians who were against interracial marriage? Did they rely on Biblical bases to do so? Do they represent a majority or fringe of the whole population of Christians? (Oh, and back to #1: so what?)
3. What evidence do you have that gay marriage moves gays away from promiscuity toward loving relationships (especially in light of the statistics that seem to indicate to the contrary)?
4. Why is it “sad” that people disagree with your preference and perceive your position as logically (and scripturally) indefensible?
Just wondering.
And happy new year!
December 31st, 2009 | 5:57 pm | #33
Good for you DB. What I don’t understand is why most of you “bible believin” folks aren’t out there writing brilliant satire about usury, or the “abominations” of eating certain kinds of meat, wearing mixed fabrics, etc.
The “satirist” is absolutely correct about one thing. That is the generation coming up now is indeed eschewing arguments (biblical or otherwise) against equal rights for all people, whether they be in the arena of marriage, housing, jobs, whatever. Thank God for that.
And as for my Anglican brother, if you don’t see the striking similarity between the arguments used against interracial marriage then and same-sex marriage today (it’s unnatural,etc.), then perhaps you need to do some serious Googling and look up the arguments made then and now and compare them side by side. And what statistics are you referring to in regard to same-sex marriage and promiscuity? Are they from a “we can convert you gays to straights” group? A good dose of common sense is in order here.
December 31st, 2009 | 7:24 pm | #34
DB:
Judging on literary grounds alone, this is brilliant satire, whether you agree with Pastor Speckhard or not.
The comparison to interracial marriage is phony, as is every other attempt to equate sexual persuasion with race. People of two different skin colors can still generate children by the marriage; people of the same sex can’t. As hard as so many people have tried to make it otherwise, reproduction is still part of the foundation of marriage, and the biggest reason why “gay marriage” is an oxymoron.
Yes, we all know that racial bigots — who weren’t all Christian conservatives (let’s not re-write history)! — opposed mixed marriages, for reasons that were neither religiously justified nor scientifically valid. But even if the integrity of the sciences had not been compromised by social-action interest groups, we would still have valid religious grounds not to call same-sex unions “marriages”. Yes, some form of committed long-term relationship is better than promiscuity. But it would be even better not to abuse the gift of sex. And it still wouldn’t justify calling that relationship a “marriage”.
December 31st, 2009 | 10:44 pm | #35
“Gay marriage is akin to interracial marriage, not to sexual promiscuity. . . . The gay marriage movement is a move away from promiscuity and toward loving relationships, not the reverse.”
Why, DB, are you so willing to deny the benefits of marriage to those persons who are constitutionally unable to handle any other than multiple sexual partners? And why limit marriage to those in long-term loving relationships? Do not the demands of inclusivity call for abandoning such atavistic and bigoted limitations? If you really want to embrace those on the sexual margins, you really need to move beyond them.
January 1st, 2010 | 11:12 am | #36
I would suspect that most of the married men in the congregation are also sexually attracted to women, not just most of the single men!
January 1st, 2010 | 1:46 pm | #37
A little breathtaking that folks brush the satire aside and belly on up to the thought of temple prostitution. What’s the difference between homosexuality and being a temple prostitute? Maybe the slope is more slippery than anyone thought, including the author. It was supposed to be shocking food for thought, not a good idea?!
January 3rd, 2010 | 9:27 am | #38
[...] Temple Prostitution by Rev. Paul T. McCain [...]
January 4th, 2010 | 10:59 am | #39
Thank you, Fr.McCain, for sharing this piece from Lutheran Forum (may they reap new subscriptions therefrom!). It is spot-on.
But beside the irony is also the tragedy, the deeply unsettling reality that the moral markers have been moved, first to justify abortion, now to justify institutionalized sodomy. Those of us who supported civil rights in the ’60′s feel “taken in,” because what we thought was a moral consensus based on recognition of universal moral law is now transmogrified into “trendier than thou.” The greatest sin, apparently, is to be behind the times. The frenetic need to anticipate the future and to disown the past, as well as devalue (by relativizing, if not by actually defaming) past values is not new. It is as old as hell.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact