The Worst Kind
Posted on December 8th, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
Joe Carter draws our attention to Meacham’s latest. Meacham is so very deeply concerned about the integrity of the Faith and its intellectual seriousness, you see, and so he begins:
On the campus of Wheaton College in Illinois last Wednesday, in another of the seemingly endless announcements of splintering and schism in the Episcopal Church, the Rt. Rev. Robert Duncan and other leaders of the conservative forces of reaction to the ecclesiastical and cultural acceptance of homosexuality declared that their opposition to the ordination and the marriage of gays was irrevocably rooted in the Bible—which they regard as the “final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.”
No matter what one thinks about gay rights—for, against or somewhere in between —this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism. Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt—it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition.
It might be worth bearing in mind that Meacham is an Episcopalian and has very clear views about both homosexual “marriage” and ordination (he is in favor of both), so he has a vested interest in framing the opposing view as the “worst kind of fundamentalism,” which is just about the worst thing one Episcopalian can say about another. That interest is not necessarily disqualifying, but it colors everything Meacham has to say.
Of course theologically conservative Episcopalians are claiming that the Bible is the final authority and unchageable standard of Christian faith and life–the contrary view that the Bible is not this is not only a minority view among Christians today, but is entirely at odds with the “great Judeo-Christian tradition” that Meacham claims to be defending. The word unchangeable does make the claim more powerful, because it states that the revelation in Scripture is eternally valid and the same, but then how could it be otherwise? If Christ is the same “yesterday, today and forever,” as the Apostle wrote in his Epistle to the Hebrews, and Christ is the Word through Whom the Father reveals Himself, it stands to reason that God’s revelation recorded in Scripture will also be essentially unchangeable.
The different senses of Scripture, the complexity of its history and the history of its composition in antiquity do not contradict this claim. Indeed, the presumed complementarity of different senses of Scripture, the different ways of interpreting the Word of God, is founded on the assumption that the Word does not change, but has a richness and depth that cannot be exhausted by one kind of interpretation alone. This is one reason why, particularly in liturgical churches that interpret Scripture in the light of authoritative written tradition, patristic commentaries on Scripture are regarded as valid and authoritative interpretations until today. It is taken as given that the ancient Church and Christians today have received the same revelation. It is an expression of fidelity to the breadth and richness of the Church’s tradition to acknowledge this, and it is the farthest thing from intellectual bankruptcy to respect the intellectual and religious tradition that has recognized Scripture as such a central authority and to give its claims appropriately great weight in Christian teaching.
Having already shown that he has no grasp of any of this, Meacham proceeds with his “Christian case for gay marriage.” He puts enormous weight on the intrinsic nature of homosexuality, which is to make a quality of postlapsarian nature normative. In a fallen world, everyone has a predisposition to act contrary to our true nature, but in no other case that I can think of do we pretend that indulging such a predisposition is inevitable, much less something to be embraced and approved. Meachem is no more persuasive or credible when he cites examples of how certain passages have been abused in the past. Nowhere in his article does Meacham even begin to take seriously the central importance of denying oneself in Christian discipleship. God did not call His people to indulge their inclinations, but to deny themselves to follow Him. This is why the comparison with race is so inapt and ultimately so absurd. There is no way that, and no reason why, someone of any race could refrain from being the way he was born. Homosexuality is entirely different, in that acting on it is a matter of volition and a determination to pursue one’s own will rather than denying it. Whether or not one is born with such an inclination, that would not be a license to indulge that inclination. Meacham’s argument is essentialist and actually denies the responsibility and agency of homosexuals, which is far more of an attack on their humanity than refusing to allow them to “marry.”
The heart of Meacham’s argument does not bear much scrutiny, and we have not even come to the question of how entirely divorced Meacham’s entire argument is from a Christian understanding of the purpose of marriage. Procreation is an important part of that purpose, and joining two people from different sexes in complementary relationship is another, but beyond that it is a vocation to unite oneself to a person radically different from oneself. The uniting of complementary opposites as a type of the unity between Christ and His Church is one of the mystical meanings of marriage. The Christian conception of marriage is of two people joined into one flesh, the full expression of which is a child. Nowhere in the “great Judeo-Christian tradition” that Meacham supposedly takes so seriously is there support for his argument.
Filed under: Christianity, culture, politics
I expect you’ll get a rather strong reaction to this from your commenters.
I’ll just quote John Cole:
I realize the point of your post was to dispute Meachan’s theology. But many of the assertions it contains very much worry us secular folks, because we don’t see any good-faith way we can compromise with people who believe as you do. Since we can’t argue with you over your reasons – because we have no common ground – all that is left to us is to point out to others that it is an all-or-nothing proposition. If you have your way, the result for gay and lesbian people is not just a denial of their civil rights, but as Carter says, it becomes an open question whether their sexuality is even “licit”.
I suppose I did more than just quote Cole. I’ll stop there before I get intemperate.
Well, it’s worth pointing out that while the text may remain largely unchanged, interpretations have never remained static, talk of unchanging tradition aside.
In addition, it might be pointed out that the Bible says nothing about the ordination of homosexuals, indeed the whole concept of ordination is extra-Biblical, so appeals to Biblical authority seem to me to be beside the point.
I also note that you define homosexuality behaviorally. You seem to think there could be no such thing as a celibate homosexual. Which, if true, would seem to make arguments against homosexual ordination moot.
So what IS a good Christian argument for the claim that homosexual desires ought to be suppressed on normative grounds? In particular, is it an argument such that it doesn’t entail that a lot of — ceteris paribus — heterosexual intercourse is equally immoral?
Note that I’m asking for a good argument, not just any implausible set of sentences. If the argument is such that it contradicts that very basic Faktum der Vernunft, individual autonomy, it’s not even in the ballpark. It would be on a par with proposals for creationism, absolute monarchy, ultramontanism, and ether theories: still-born competitors.
“Homosexuality is entirely different, in that acting on it is a matter of volition and a determination to pursue one’s own will rather than denying it.”
For homosexuals, acting on their attraction to people of the same sex, as opposed to their non-attraction to people of the opposite sex, is “a matter of volition” in exactly the same sense as acting on one’s attraction to foods that taste good as opposed to foods that make one want to vomit. Insisting that gays either pursue sexual relations with members of the opposite sex, or remain celibate, is equivalent to insisting that they eat only vomit-inducing foods, or that they refrain from eating entirely. This is not to say that one can’t imagine a person of great religious fervor insisting on such a relation to food. But I would think you would want really, really excellent biblical reasons to insist on that. Those reasons just aren’t there vis-a-vis homosexuality.
……….
“Meachem’s argument is essentialist and actually denies the responsibility and agency of homosexuals, which is far more of an attack on their humanity than refusing to allow them to “marry.â€
Now that’s just ridiculous, Daniel. Come on. Since when is it an attack on “the responsibility and agency” of anybody when we give them what they desperately want, ask for, crave, need?
The Great Spaghetti Monster hath proclaimed that no-one with a last name beginning with “L” shall be allowed to be a candidate for any doctoral degree. In believing that nonetheless you have the right to pursue your degree, you are not even beginning to take seriously the central importance of denying oneself in Christian discipleship. Anyone who thinks it would be acceptable to grant you such a degree is really attacking your responsibility and agency.
Yes I know you’re not a member of the GSM church, and Mr. Meachem is an Episcopalian. But the rationality of the denial of marriage to gays is every bit as rational as the denial of degrees to persons with names beginning in L. And if you did happen to be a GSM believer, you would doubtless be willing to think that, just maybe, the passages about doctoral degrees in the GSM-bible should perhaps be rethought or contextualized, rather than taken as the absolute last word in the discussion.
He puts enormous weight on the intrinsic nature of homosexuality, which is to make a quality of postlapsarian nature normative. In a fallen world, everyone has a predisposition to act contrary to our true nature, but in no other case that I can think of do we pretend that indulging such a predisposition is inevitable, much less something to be embraced and approved. Meachem is no more persuasive or credible when he cites examples of how certain passages have been abused in the past. Nowhere in his article does Meachem even begin to take seriously the central importance of denying oneself in Christian discipleship. God did not call His people to indulge their inclinations, but to deny themselves to follow Him.
Smug, hateful, and vicious.
Anti-gay Christianity is going the way of pro-slavery Christianity. It has far less support in the text of scripture.
Marriage between homosexual persons is, no doubt, theologically simply an impossibility and socially a sign of a rich and decadent culture. That being said, however, I can find no good reason for our society to block homosexuals from entering into “marriage” when we allow heterosexuals to enter into that covenant only to file for no-fault divorce, re-marry multiple times, pursue any kind of family planning they wish, etc. If we were a society that had a substantive notion of the common good and of the role that marriage plays within that good, then, of course, we would rightly forbid homosexuals to marry. As it stands, though, it is probably the paradoxical truth that heterosexuals have more to learn about the meaning and importance of the institution of marriage from homosexuals that are prohibited from it than vice versa. Who knows? Perhaps gay marriage will spur us to reflect on the question “why marriage at all?” (as opposed to shared health care benefits and visiting rights, etc.) and this could only be a good thing. Here’s hoping that those homosexuals who do have the fortune to marry don’t follow the example of those heterosexuals who are attempting to prevent them.
Daniel,
I’m not sure your response to Meachem’s take on scriptural interpretation is all that fair or useful. If what we mean by the “authority of Scripture” is its status as mankind’s record of our encounters with God – particularly His incarnation in Christ – then yes, Scripture is the “final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.†But my impression is that this is not the sense of the phrase meant by those who oppose gay marriage/ordination, nor the sense meant by Meachem (considering who he’s quoting).
Rather, what is meant is the belief that an off-hand comment by Paul in Romans or a single Old Testament purity code (sandwiched in, as Meachem rightly points out, with other laws forbidding certain haircuts) can be understood as literal marching orders straight from the mouth of God Himself. One of the beefs we Christians who support gay marriage and ordination have with many of those who don’t is that they confuse the presence of the Word in Scripture with the Word and Scripture being the same thing. Your post here seems to be muddling those two positions.
I do agree with you on the weaknesses in the remainder of the piece, though while your exposition on the Christian understanding of marriage and the proper ordering of human inclinations and appetites lends little to no support to Meachem’s argument, it seems to me alternative defenses of gay marriage could be put forward within those frameworks.
If Christ is the same “yesterday, today and forever,†as the Apostle wrote in his Epistle to the Hebrews, and Christ is the Word through Whom the Father reveals Himself, it stands to reason that God’s revelation recorded in Scripture will also be essentially unchangeable.
That is a nonsequitur. One can equally believe that Christ was divine; Scripture was written by man. What reason, other than laziness and a psychological desire for certitude, is there to believe your formulation?
Also, it took a mere 1850 years after Christ’s death for Christians to come to the belief that slavery was wrong. The desire to call Christian teaching “unchanging” is purely psychological and completely ahistorical.
As to why homosexuality is undesirable, you are free to believe that. Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. No one will ever force a church to conduct a gay marriage or even to like gay people.
Scripture was written by man.
But did God have anything to do with it?
Also, it took a mere 1850 years after Christ’s death for Christians to come to the belief that slavery was wrong.
No. Chattel slavery was condemned as soon as it appeared. Other forms of servitude, so long as they were not intrinsically unjust, e.g. penal servitude, were permitted.
Chattel slavery was condemned as soon as it appeared.
Chattel slavery is older than Christianity. Christianity approved it as soon as Christianity appeared. Read the New Testament. (Never mind that the term translated ‘man-stealer’ in the King James Version becomes ’slave trader’ in some modern translations.)
I love biblical arguments. It’s like listening to people argue over the exact color of Rudolphs nose and thinking it imparts earthly wisdom.
Homosexuality is not a choice. to say so would imply anyone not gay chose woman, which is absurd. I never weighed the pros and cons and made the best choice for me. I like what I like and I have since the start. Some like both, they aren’t wishy washy, they aren’t indecisive, they like both.
Also I can’t imagine anyone growing up in a household with two guys who sleep together. I would not want to be that kid and the whole situation creeps me out. That said what’s my argument for opposing it? It’s icky? Anything God has to say is left at the front door according to the Constitution (where are teh srtict interpretationists now?) so what’s the foundation to my opposition? I’m not sure I have one.
Chattel slavery is older than Christianity. Christianity approved it as soon as Christianity appeared. Read the New Testament. (Never mind that the term translated ‘man-stealer’ in the King James Version becomes ’slave trader’ in some modern translations.)
I was referring to the institution of chattel slavery as it developed in the New World. Regarding slavery in the ancient world–Christian authorities did not approve of it, they tolerated it.
Daniel,
Great article.
Ah, the usual impasse. This is why a nontrivial subset sees Satan as the hero of Paradise Lost. If God believes what you say he does, then He is a monster unworthy of worship. The revolt and the Fall are the only acceptable options for a moral people to throw off their shackles.
Of course, this is the problem. Your God and mine are not the same, nor can they conceivably be. And the only argument we have between us is “my reading of the Bible is better than yours”. That isn’t going to work, so now what?
The central question is this: Is marriage something from God, or from man?
It’s fides et ratio – faith and reason, not one or the other. Hence Prager’s anthropological overview is one historical, socio-cultural review that is applicable.
Meachem’s commentary is not surprising, he simply assumes a stature he does not possess and likewise does not reason toward.
You know, this blog has a reputation as one of the more intelligent and accessible blogs on the right, one that someone not already ideologically disposed in that direction might profit from reading. But you seem to be just another panty-sniffer, obsessed with regulating what other people do with their genitalia.
Christ is the same “yesterday, today and forever,†as the Apostle wrote in his Epistle to the Hebrews, and Christ is the Word through Whom the Father reveals Himself — and where does Christ speak out on where people put their penises, or that two men or two women can’t have a loving relationship? I can’t recall hearing anything like that in the Bible. It seems out of character for Christ, but not for Christians. Why is that?
Ah, the usual impasse. This is why a nontrivial subset sees Satan as the hero of Paradise Lost. If God believes what you say he does, then He is a monster unworthy of worship. The revolt and the Fall are the only acceptable options for a moral people to throw off their shackles.
I’m one of that non-trivial subset, even though I’m an atheist. To me, the God-Lucifer relationship is an archetype for the authority-autonomy conflict. Think of a continuum between those two poles; between being most comfortable in an ordered, authoritarian value system and being most comfortable in a an oppositional one.
I’m not using those terms in a political sense, but psychologically. To prefer ordered authoritarianism simply means to prefer an established set of rules that you don’t need to define or organize yourself. To prefer opposition doesn’t mean a preference for lawlessness, but simply that one uses the tension between order and disorder to define and organize one’s own values.
It’s puzzled me for a long time why conservative Christians’ values have more to do with the Old Testament than the New; why they seem to run right past Jesus in their eagerness to invoke Old Testament authoritarianism – which Jesus rebelled against! But if I view the seeming contradiction through the order/opposition model, it makes sense. The Old Testament is pure pre-ordered rules; the New isn’t, it’s about mercy and forgiveness and empathy… about oppositional structures, in other words.
The thing is, it’s difficult if not impossible to communicate meaningfully about value systems across that continuum. People who need a more ordered value system can’t believe that the oppositional model can result in anything but chaos/amorality, and people who need the oppositional model can’t believe that the ordered one can result in anything but stasis/repression.
Re: Christ and sexual morality
1. Christ came to fulfill the law, not abolish it, and love is meaningless without a proper conception of the good, and what is rightly ordered to it, and what is not. Christ implicitly endorses what had already been revealed concerning sexual morality.
2. Sola scriptura appeals will not work with apostolic Christians.
While acknowledging that some churches support same-sex marriage, it’s clear that religious objections to homosexuality are strong enough to affect public policy with regard to same-sex marriage.
I think it’s helpful to think about divorce when considering the issue of same-sex marriage. Early in the 20th century, religious objections to divorce drove secular policy regarding divorce. I can’t pinpoint when things changed, but California’s Family Law Act of 1969 certainly indicates that a tipping point had been passed.
Thirty or forty years ago, most protestant denominations required clergy to leave the ministry if they divorced. This is no longer the case.
The Biblical passages regarding divorce didn’t change. The culture changed, and churches followed.
Shifting gears a bit . . . .
While I realize that many gay and lesbian couples would not like to be compared to adulterers, my tongue-in-cheek suggestion is that they ask to be granted the same marriage rights that adulterers currently enjoy in this country.
I was referring to the institution of chattel slavery as it developed in the New World.
You mean this?
http://rujournalism.blogspot.com/2007/05/dominican-empathy-in-age-of-imperialism.html
Antonio de Montesinos, a Dominican Friar from Spain, attempted to free the Indians from the slavery to which the Spanish — both military and clerical — had reduced them. . . . the elite of society, who controlled the wealth and profitted from exploitation, called Montesinos’s sermon, which called for justice based on the inherent equality of the immortal soul, “heretical.” . . . However, after hearing Montesinos preach, a Spanish priest by the name of Bartolomeo de Las Casas had a conversion experience. . . . In 1514, he became a Dominican Friar, freed his Indian slaves, and began a quest to ban slavery . . . Until the end of his life, Las Casas continued to speak out but he had few supporters.’
The words that catch my attention are ‘heretical’ and ‘few supporters’.
Regarding slavery in the ancient world–Christian authorities did not approve of it, they tolerated it.
Ephesians 6:5-6 – ‘Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God with from the heart . . .’
Colossians 3:22 – ‘Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God . . .’
I Timothy 6:2a – ‘And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit.’
See also Philemon 1:10-14, for evidence of the Apostle Paul’s respect for the institution of slavery.
In the Middle Ages slavery of one Christian to another was frowned upon, but there was no objection to enslaving pagan captives. Often they were sold to Arabs before they could convert.
tedschan: As Meacham notes in his piece, Biblical references to slavery were indeed a major factor in the justification of slavery in the Antebellum south. Check out Harry Stout’s “Upon the Altar of a Nation” as one source detailing many of the arguments made from the pulpit on the justness of retaining the institution.
Daniel: You downplay that argument, and given your inclinations I can understand why. But you realize, of course, that to invoke children as the primary purpose of marriage suggests that marriage between those who don’t or can’t have children is somehow less valuable morally.
@ David Tomlin:
The passages you cite don’t seem to me to approve of slavery. Rather, they have the feel of “given that we have this institution, here’s the way to make the best of it.”
That said, I think that slavery as practiced in St. Paul’s time was quite different from slavery as it was later practiced (this, anyway, is what Peter Gomes claims).
That said, I think we should apply the same analysis to St. Paul’s remarks on homosexuality. That St. Paul condemned homosexual acts is clear. However, St. Paul certainly didn’t think of homosexuality the way we do now–as part of one’s identity. My guess is that he saw homosexual acts simply as perversions by people who were perfectly willing to have sex with people of the opposite sex but who also, perhaps because of jadedness, also sometimes had sex with people of the same-sex. That doesn’t change the fact that he condemned the acts because they seemed to him to be unnatural, but if he our ideas about homosexuality he might have changed what he wrote.
@ gsmart
I can’t speak for Daniel, but that won’t stop me from trying. I don’t know whether he’d say childless marriages are less valuable morally than marriages with children (though he may say this about childless marriages where the childlessness is intended), but he would have to say at least that such marriages are less than ideal, and so are worse in some important sense than marriages with children.
David Tomlin, as for your first point, I was referring to papal documents. See The Popes and Slavery by Joel Panzer. As for the second point, see Bobcat’s post.
From a quick google, it seems that in 1435 Pope Eugene IV for unknown reasons issued a bull specifically calling for freeing of slaves on the Canary Islands. It is this document that the author of The Popes and Slavery puts forward, implausibly, as a general condemnation of slavery.
In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued a bull authorizing the king of Portugal to enslave ‘Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers’. In 1455 the same Pope extended the authorization to all the Catholic nations of Europe.
The Castilian conquest of the Canary Islands began in 1402, so it may be that by 1435 many of the ‘natives’ were Christianized.
“this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind (?) of fundamentalism.”
All conservative Christians “resort” to Biblical authority. That is what conservative Christians do. If they don’t, they are not conservative Christians. (Some nuance aside.) How is this the “worst kind” of fundamentalism? What better kind of fundamentalism does he have in mind?
Here is what I don’t get. People like Meacham don’t accept Biblical authority, so why do they care so much about what the Bible says about homosexuality one way or the other? Why go through the farcical exercise of trying to justify homosexual behavior based on the Bible? The Bible CLEARLY condemns homosexual behavior. To maintain otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
From a quick google, it seems that in 1435 Pope Eugene IV for unknown reasons issued a bull specifically calling for freeing of slaves on the Canary Islands. It is this document that the author of The Popes and Slavery puts forward, implausibly, as a general condemnation of slavery.
No, it puts forth all relevant papal documents.
In 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued a bull authorizing the king of Portugal to enslave ‘Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers’. In 1455 the same Pope extended the authorization to all the Catholic nations of Europe.
The whole text would be necessary to put this into context. Did it pertain to the war with the Muslims? Were there any limits set forth? The document would also not be an instance of Church teaching on slavery, but a legal action on the part of the Pope.
Anyway. Thanks for illustrating how religious conservatives think, Daniel. We won’t forget this time.
The Bible condemns some types of same-sex behavious quite clearly: gang rape, for example. The Bible also condemns certain types of opposite sex behaviour: betrayal, violation of consanguinity, and allowing a spouse to pull you away from the faith. The Bible also quite clearly affirms certain types of same-sex behaviour: passionate and faithful commitment and love between people of the same sex form the basis of many of the most moving and important stories in the Bible. Witness the tenderness with which the Bible speaks of Naomi and Ruth, David and Jonathan, or Jesus and John.
Clearly, the Bible draws a moral line, and equally clearly, while we can confidently put some actions on one side of it and others on the other, the exact location of the line in relation to the issue, that of a loving and committed same-sex couple, remains a matter of interpretation.
Wow, I’ve rarely seen so much unadulterated stupid concentrated in a single comments section.
My favorite is this piece of bullshit:
Wow. Where to even begin? Well, for starters, “refraining from eating entirely” will cause you to die. Meanwhile, refraining from gay sex never killed anyone, though participating in it certainly has.
The idea of gay people being forced into straight sexual relations is a red herring, since nobody has advocated it, and even if they did, it wouldn’t result in anything like vomiting.
In fact, I’m not even sure what the point of vomit analogy is supposed to be. That anytime someone controls some desire they have, be it good or bad, that’s it’s tantamount to being forced to eat vomit-inducing food?
Of course, the topic here is whether Christianity can genuinely support recognition of gay marriage, not whether gays should be forcibly prevented from engaging in gay sexual relations, so the whole comment is off-topic to begin with. And to the extent that we’re talking about regulation of gay behavior, we’re talking about people controlling themselves.
Um, you’re joking, right? Saying that a person is a slave to their desires like some animal, and can’t control themselves, is the very definition of denying their agency!
Adulterers, pedophiles, alcoholics and meth addicts can (and often do) try to excuse their indulgence by claiming that it’s something they they “desperately want, ask for, crave, need”, and that therefore they can’t control themselves, and their argument is just as strong as a homosexual’s. Accepting that argument for any of them is a denial of their agency.
Let me try to explain my take on this to” the Deuce”. Try to imagine that you belonged to a community which required assent and affirmation of criminal punishments by all members of the community. Suppose your child had done something heinous, and the community required you to publicly affirm and consent to their execution, out of respect to the victim, or the community, or whatever. You might do it, but it would tear your heart out, and it would hardly show respect for your position, or even common decency, to prattle about self control or agency or slavery to your desires. To anyone who does not see the biblical relevance of my example, I suggest Genesis 22.
Well, we know people can have deep, caring, and committed relationships with others of the same gender; the Bible says so. So when we talk about denying same sex marriage, we speak of denying relationships, not animal desires or “appetites”. When someone wants to get married, or simply persists in a caring relationship, they say “I love this person”, not “I have an appetite for this act”.
So I suggest we leave the attitudes about sexual self control to the Boy’s Own Paper of a century ago, and discuss the question of whether the Bible, which affirms committed and supportive same-sex relationships but forbids their genital expression in some circumstances, forbids them in the context of a committed relationship.
I would gather that the Christian argument in favor of gay ordination, gay marriage, etc., is that the NT Gospel takes precedence over the OT. If there’s a question about biblical authority, this view gives precedence to Jesus’ own teachings, not to old customs of the ancient Jews, many of which were already in need of reform in Jesus’ time.
In that light, the primary guide for Christians would be Jesus’ 11th commandment, to love others as he has loved us, meaning unconditionally. In this view, the Christian’s primary social obligation is to increase the amount of love in the world, and to foster that love in whatever ways can do that most simply and easily. Encouraging gays to marry is one way of doing that, nurturing their love for one another, and giving it God’s blessing. Likewise, any gay person who wishes to serve in the priesthood would be encouraged to do so, simply as a way of increasing the number of people wholly dedicated to Christ’s love. The fact that this might violate some minor precept from ancient times would not take precedence over the primary mission of Christians, which is to fulfill Jesus’ commandment to love all unconditionally.
The arguments Daniel mounts against homosexuality are wholy unconvincing and filled with so many holes one wonders how he can even pretend they are “rational”. It’s an example of emotion prevailing over wisdom, and it fails to be guided by Jesus’ own teachings about love, preferring instead pre-Christian notions that stigmatize various natural relationships such as homosexuality simply because they do not conform to an unrealistic, idealistic, and homogenized view of “human nature”.
Oh good grief! I can’t take it.
As I said, any attempt to reconcile homosexual behavior with the Bible is pure intellectual dishonesty. There are plain condemnations of it Old and New Testament.
Conservative Christians believe the Old Testament is not just a collection of “old customs of the ancient Jews,” but direct commandments from God to His people. As such they represent the wisdom of God.
Is there any sin that liberal Christians are not willing to paper over in the name of love? Love tells the sinner the truth. It doesn’t try to justify him continuing in his sinful ways.
locutas:
Clearly, the Bible draws a moral line, and equally clearly, while we can confidently put some actions on one side of it and others on the other, the exact location of the line in relation to the issue, that of a loving and committed same-sex couple, remains a matter of interpretation.
Love does not justify all actions–some actions are counter to authentic love, because they are opposed to the good of the individuals involved. Yes the Christian tradition praises love between friends, but the relationship that exists between homosexuals is not that kind of friendship, but rests on fundamental confusions.
Mr. Phillips, sometimes there isn’t any point to arguing with those who recognize no authority but their own.
You are right that I don’t recognize the authority of scripture that condones slavery, stones adulterers to death, and considers homosexuality to be a sin. There’s plenty of outright nonsense in the Bible, that should be news to no one. No one, and I repeat no one, actually believes the Bible to be inerrant, and follows it word by word. We are left to decide for ourselves what is important in the Bible, and what is not so important. Those who agree with one another about these things, form or join with others like themselves, and then declare their group to be the only true Christians. Well, this is the real danger of making oneself the only authority. One starts to believe that one has chosen the truth for its own sake, when one has simply chosen to acknowledge as true only what one already believes and prefers.
True, I choose to honor and value those aspects of Biblical teaching which I find convincing on moral and spiritual grounds, such as the actual life and teachings of Jesus. I reject those aspects of Biblical tradition which condone slavery, put people to death for merely moral transgressions, and make homosexuality a sin. Those who already find things like homosexuality distasteful or morally destructive would continue to feel that way regardless of the Bible, if it disagreed. They would continue to imagine that homosexuals only want to marry in order to indulge themselves sexually, rather than to make a loving union between two committed people. These same people don’t, I’m sure, give their spare coats to people who have none. But homosexuality, which Jesus never even mentioned, is somehow hugely important to stigmatize.
Bobcat raised an important issue when he wrote “The passages you cite don’t seem to me to approve of slavery. Rather, they have the feel of ‘given that we have this institution, here’s the way to make the best of it.’” The passages cited as pro-slavery certainly permit this interpretation, but the equally certainly do not compel it. Nowhere do they assert that the Creator has blessed and ordained slavery, but nowhere do they ever assert that freedom, not slavery, fulfils the Kingdom. We see slavery as clearly wrong, and we lean to one interpretation of the passages in the Bible that deal with it, precisely because we bring to our reading a belief in the inherent dignity of all people, and a consequent belief in the wrongness of slavery.
Likewise, the Bible clearly affirms loyalty, caring, and love – the attributes of marriage – while equally clearly condemning certain types of same-sex genital activity under some, or for some people under all, circumstances. We can say clearly that the Bible affirms certain things, and equally clearly condemns others, but I believe the place we draw the line in between depends on two things: first, the experiences of our own lives, and second, the (secular) cultural convictions we bring to the question. I classify abstract invocations of “the good” in the latter category.
Which brings me to the second problem: this abstraction extends to blanket statements about what the Bible says. However, texts often raises question of the intent of a passage. Some of the most frequently cited passages condemning same-sex behaviour have contexts that when we study them closely, at least raise questions about their universal application, and particularly their application to committed, loving relationships.
America is under the authority of the Christian bible????
Let me put it more simply, leaving out the issue of slavery. The Bible categorically states that practicing homosexuals should be stoned to death. Would it not be correct to assume that for any Christian who believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, that this is the only proper way to deal with homosexuality. And further, would it not be correct to assume that any Christian who does not believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death, does not believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God?
This is just one example of what I mean when I say that no one really believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Some may actually believe homosexuals should be stoned to death, but they inevitably leave out some other part of the Bible, like loving one’s neighbor as one would wish to be loved.
And let’s be reminded that while the OT says that adulterers should be stoned to death, he intervened and saved an adulteress from being so executed, suggesting instead “he who is without sin should cast the first stone. Given that in our day and age adultery – sex out of wedlock – is not only condoned but actually encouraged by most people, we can hardly suggest that homosexuals should be stigmatized for, of all things, wishing to live in monogamous marriage, or serve in the celibate priesthood.
I’m going to touch on the theological argument, and leave out the political debate for now.
No. Let’s leave aside the issue of context, in that the punishment system laid out for moral transgressions were designed to keep the Israelites as a holy people in the midst of idolatrous nations, and focus on the law itself.
The law is and always will be a constant reminder of God’s standard and our collective human failure to meet it. If there is any doubt about that, Christ himself laid it to rest with his own exposition on the law where he expounded further on various commandments (how the feelings in your heart were also transgressions), and topped it off with a call to ‘be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect.’ And as he pointed to the religious paragons of his day and said, unless you’re more righteous than they are, you will not see the kingdom of heaven.
His disciples had the perfect reaction. Who then could be saved? And it is a valid question. We are all lawbreakers. Every one of us.
Which is what the first three chapters in Romans is laying out. It’s not just an injunction against homosexuals. It’s an injunction against all of humanity. We are all guilty. We are all condemned.
Many of the entire letters in the New Testament touch on this theme and then go into how God intervened in the person of his Son, reconciled us to himself through his death and raised us to new life through his resurrection, so that we might bear fruit and live through him in the newness of life, not in the former manner in which we lived.
Hence, there is forgiveness in the person of Christ and once one has come to him admitting their sin and acknowledging him as their Lord. At which point, we are called to continue to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him.
Is this something we succeed at every day? No. But we don’t stop trying. Is this process painful? Yes, hence the imagery of the cross. Do we sometimes take our own personal sins and struggles as less serious than our brother’s? Absolutely. It is a unique condition of our hearts that we view our own moral failings as more worthy of mercy because we sometimes lack empathy.
Homosexuality is condemned, as is pre-marital heterosexual sin, as is lust outside of marriage in general. Which is also why there are many ministries devoted to helping men break free from pornography.
The spiritual danger, of course, is that if we all start writing off our sins as cultural interpretations, then why exactly do I need Christ at all? If my sins are not sins and love covers all, why on earth would I need a Savior at all? I’ll just be really nice to people, enjoy football on Sundays and do otherwise as I see fit and God should be okay with me.
locutas:
We can say clearly that the Bible affirms certain things, and equally clearly condemns others, but I believe the place we draw the line in between depends on two things: first, the experiences of our own lives, and second, the (secular) cultural convictions we bring to the question. I classify abstract invocations of “the good†in the latter category.
I’ll let those who adhere to sola scriptura deal with this, but for those who do not adhere to sola scriptura, this choice regarding interpretation does not apply.
Comrade Dread:
Look, we know that our cultural assumptions affect what we classify as a sin. Some people in the nineteenth century honestly read the scriptures dealing with slavery, and they honestly thought of slaves escaping, or people helping slaves to escape, as a sin. And they pointed to the Bible, which they read through their cultural lens, to justify themselves. We do not believe them, because we read the scripture differently, and most of us now seen slavery as the monstrous sin, and those who helped slaves escape as meritorious.
Our culture and tradition came to understand the truth that helping a slave escape did not constitute a sin without jettisoning the concept of sin. Likewise, if we come to the conclusion that physical love-making within the context of a committed and loving same-sex relationship does not constitute a sin, we will still have plenty to confess. Nor does the process involve “writing off” a sin; rather, it entails coming to a new understanding of where the sin actually lies.
tedschan:
My position does not come from sola scriptura (although that tradition, too, has an honourable history, but rather from the belief that scripture has a uniqu authority, and therefore we have a responsibility to discern the arguments we make based on the scriptures themselves, and the arguments we make based on a cultural or church tradition. Tradition deserves a hearing; we ought not to dismiss it out of hand, but I do not believe that tradition should ever have the last word. Reason can trump it (and in reason, I include logical deduction, conclusions based scientific discovery, and the collective experience of the world).
Well, it is certainly counter to the position that Tradition as it bears the content of Divine Revelation trumps ‘natural reason’, but does not contradict it.
“The spiritual danger, of course, is that if we all start writing off our sins as cultural interpretations, then why exactly do I need Christ at all? If my sins are not sins and love covers all, why on earth would I need a Savior at all? I’ll just be really nice to people, enjoy football on Sundays and do otherwise as I see fit and God should be okay with me.”
Being nice to people is not love. Sin is not about sex, it is about turning away from God. You can have sex and be turned to God, even if it is homosexual sex, or sex with someone of a different race. You can also be turned away from God even while having sex with your wife while practicing as a “good”, nice Christian. Christ did not come here to reward people for “not sinning” and being conventional heterosexuals. And people who believe all the “right” things, and do all the “right” things, without genuine love in their hearts, are not “saved”. The need for Christ does not come merely because we suffer from sexual urges not deemed proper by certain people, it comes from the need each of us have in our hearts for perfect love, which is not assauged by any sexual experience, no matter how pleasurable or forbidden. If watching football and being nice to your neighbors is enough for you, then you will not know God’s perfect love. Sex is really the least of it, the very least. This identification of illicit sex with “sin” is so utterly juvenile. It has nothing, just nothing to do with what Christ came here for.
“The Bible categorically states that practicing homosexuals should be stoned to death. Would it not be correct to assume that for any Christian who believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God, that this is the only proper way to deal with homosexuality. And further, would it not be correct to assume that any Christian who does not believe that homosexuals should be stoned to death, does not believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God?”
conradg, that is a misunderstanding of what is meant by inerrancy. Theonomist would accept that, although they would not, as far as I understand it, support the immediate imposition of OT judicial law on all. They believe the OT law would be the ideal template for a consciously Christian covenantal society which doesn’t currently exist anywhere.
But Theonomist are in a very small minority. Most Christians do not believe the judicial aspects of the OT law are binding post Christ. The moral aspects are. That does not mean they reject inerrancy which a lot of them very specifically affirm.
Talk about people being products of their times. The widespread availability of contraception is new on the scene. The Bible does not conceive of recreational, consequence free contracepted sex. Moderns act as if that is a given and has always been that way.
So a statement like this is absurd.
“Likewise, if we come to the conclusion that physical love-making within the context of a committed and loving same-sex relationship does not constitute a sin, we will still have plenty to confess.”
“Physical love-making” with the same sex can never be licit.
I do think it is possible that the prohibitions against homosexual behavior were primarily aimed at opportunistic homosexual liaisons and not exclusive homosexuality. Having your young men able to fulfill themselves without the risk of pregnancy or the need for commitment is incredibly disruptive of a society. The wisdom of confining sex to marriage with the possibility of procreation is that it tames a society’s young men.
That said, the prohibitions are clear and so there can be no exception for exclusive homosexuals.
“Look, we know that our cultural assumptions affect what we classify as a sin.
Yes, but they do not affect what the scriptures clearly state are sins.”
Slavery and polygamy are neither condoned, nor expressly forbidden. They are cast as less than what is ideal, and guidelines are in place to ensure that abuses did not occur within the culture they were given. (Hence, the injunction to Israel that all slaves were to be freed every seven years, that injuries to a slave allowed them to legally go free, etc.)
Within the context of the New Testament, the commands given to Christians living under the burden of Rome in that condition of slavery was to live their lives in such a way that they would be a living example of their faith, and be a witness to their masters.
There are, however, no such injunctions, explanations, evolution, or exceptions to the moral laws given.
“Sin is not about sex, it is about turning away from God.â€
And how, exactly, do you know when you are turning away from God, if not through His word? Either it defines your relationship with God, or you do. And I would define sin more as anything which violates the character of God.
Aside from which, I was only dealing with sexual sin within the context of the discussion. Of course, there are other sins: both of action and of inaction.
“Christ did not come here to reward people for “not sinning†and being conventional heterosexuals.â€
Nowhere in my statement did I imply this was the purpose of Christ’s mission. His mission, he clearly states was to seek and to save that which is lost: i.e. all of us. To reconcile us to God and to bear the penalty for our sins and give us new life to follow him.
“The need for Christ does not come merely because we suffer from sexual urges not deemed proper by certain peopleâ€
The need for Christ comes because we are lost, and we need illumination, salvation, and reconciliation. Our acting on our natural urges (whatever they may be) is a symptom of our lost state and our need for Christ.
“If watching football and being nice to your neighbors is enough for you, then you will not know God’s perfect love.â€
If all I need God for is love, well, God loves me, so we’re already good. There’s no need for trying to follow Him in the biblical sense. If the bible is just a bunch of cultural suggestions anyway, I’m not even certain what exactly God would want from me to begin with, so why not just try to be nice, and do good from a cultural perspective and hope for the best? Or throw the whole thing out altogether?
Now, mind you, there is certainly an intellectual and political argument to be made against merging civil law or basing civil law upon the bible as a whole, but this is not what you are discussing.
Perhaps someone could explain to me how it is that what the bible says about homosexuality is any way relevant to a discussion as to whether gay marriage should be made legal in the United States.
“Perhaps someone could explain to me how it is that what the bible says about homosexuality is any way relevant to a discussion as to whether gay marriage should be made legal in the United States.”
The fact that you ask the question in that way indicates that you know it is relevant. You may not like it, but you know it is relevant, and you know why.
Gay marriage is the social equivalent of a mutation. Most mutations are deleterious. Why mess with it?
True, there are places where it’s accepted that some biological men assume female rôles (the berdache, the mahu). That’s not what’s happening here. It’s a mass turning away from the minimum of social discipline and cultural coherence necessary to reproduce a functioning society–not just gay marriage but the whole panoply of sexual self-indulgence.
As a sinner I can say, it has its attractions, but it’s no way to make a life or save one’s soul.
Redphilips:
“But Theonomist are in a very small minority. Most Christians do not believe the judicial aspects of the OT law are binding post Christ. The moral aspects are. That does not mean they reject inerrancy which a lot of them very specifically affirm.”
Yes, but isn’t that precisely the point? If the OT is only a non-binding”moral guide”, rather than literally true, isn’t its very morals subject to revision? Once you begin revisionism, where can you really stop? Wasn’t Christ himself a revisionist? They tried to stop him, and look where that led. So a Christian is by his very nature a moral revisionist, rather than a believer in bedrock OT values and practices.
It’s certainly true that modern attitudes towards homosexuality represent a revisionist approach to the OT, but that is by no means an illicit approach for Christians, in that Jesus himself condoned it, and practiced it openly.
It’s certainly true that only a tiny fraction of Christians beleive in upholding OT practices such as stoning homosexuals. But as I mentioned, they seem not to be able to practice more central dictums of Christianity, like loving your neighbor as Jesus loves you, since Jesus specifically interrupted the stoning of a violator of OT sexual mores and implored the crowd to stop. It’s hardly a stretch to see Jesus likewise imploring a modern crowd to stop its stoning, literal or metaphorical, of gays.
“Gay marriage is the social equivalent of a mutation. Most mutations are deleterious. Why mess with it?”
Democracy, and equal rights for all, is also a mutation. Why mess with the old ways of monarchy and tyrants? Christianity did just fine under those rulers.
Well, we’ve already created this mutant form of government called democracy, with its mutant idea that all should be equal under the law, so that being the case, it’s only natural that we should continue to extend equal rights to all, including the rights of gay couples to marry. In the context of this time and place, it doesn’t seem like an aberration at all, it seems quite normal. It’s an aberration if we compare it to the world of OT politics, a theocratic society governed by kings and despots and priests, with not a hint of democracy or a morality based on equal rights, but that hardly seems to be the basis for social morality in a modern democracy. Does it?
“If all I need God for is love, well, God loves me, so we’re already good. There’s no need for trying to follow Him in the biblical sense. If the bible is just a bunch of cultural suggestions anyway, I’m not even certain what exactly God would want from me to begin with, so why not just try to be nice, and do good from a cultural perspective and hope for the best? Or throw the whole thing out altogether?”
Jesus taught a new form of morality, based on love. Not love the way you seem to think of it, some sort of empty platitude, “yeah, God loves me, it’s all good”. God’s love is so overwhelming, it changes you entirely, if actually received. If you haven’t received God’s love, it’s certainly easy to pretend it has no meaning or value. If God’s love is received, it changes your life, your action, your way of relating to others. It means: love your neighbor unconditionally, if you have two coats, give one to the man who has none, heal the sick, feed the poor, etc. As Jesus himself demonstrated. It means a lot of things, most of them not spelled out, but something you have to discover intelligently as you go, and work out for yourself, in relationship with your neighbors. In other words, it’s love for grown-ups, not kids who have to have a rulebook around at all times.
Of course, being nice is better than being an asshole, but it’s not what loving your neighbor is supposed to be about.
Marriage is a very specifically defined covenant. It involves one member of each sex because both male and female were made in His image. It is limited to two people because Christ was the sole bridegroom of but one Bride (the Church).
It isn’t that two people of the same sex can’t have a covenantal marriage– it’s just that their covenant is very specifically unsanctioned by God. It is inherently unholy. It isn’t the sexual activity– it is the founding premise of the chosen covenant.
God is not pro-democracy or pro-individualism, in point of fact. And far too many Christians get caught up in narcissism, in which they say that God simply consecrates their sins because they really really enjoy those sins and in fact place them above God.
There are certainly heterosexual marriages where the spouses make idols of each other. It is in fact a separate problem within American Christianity. With gay marriage, this is unfortunately the starting point– rejection of both Christian marriage-as-covenant and rejection by extension of the New Covenant in Christ by placing one’s temporal happiness above being foolish for Him.
“The fact that you ask the question in that way indicates that you know it is relevant. You may not like it, but you know it is relevant, and you know why.”
Now that you’ve done my thinking for me, and got it wrong: what I KNOW is that my own opinion is that what the bible says is not relevant.
What I don’t KNOW is why anyone else thinks it is relevant.
In America, last time I checked, the Christian bible has exactly zero authority over the making of laws.
If the bible says something is a “sin”, that has no relevance to the making of a law.
RedPhillips: you say “the prohibitions are clear”. Please provide cites, chapter and verse, for these prohibitions, and we can discuss them. Because while I agree the Bible contains stong prohibitions of certain types of same-sex activity, I don’t necessarily see this a generalized to all people and all relationships, and all circumstances.
Comrade Dread, I say to you what I said to RedPhillips, with an addition: you say that “the commands given to Christians living under the burden of Rome in that condition of slavery was to live their lives in such a way that they would be a living example of their faith, and be a witness to their masters.” As a matter of fact, I agree. But, I don’t think either of us takes our conviction from the text. Titus 2 9-10 says: “Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to answer back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Saviour.” Nothing in that text compels a condemnation of slavery; in fact, you can argue the reverse, that the author of Titus sees in a submissive slave (submissive to the lawful order of the time and accepting of his or her place in it) a’ “ornamement” to the faith. You and I bring our conviction of the depravity of slavery to the reading of the text. Also, nobody I know of says the Bible contains nothing but “cultural suggestions”, only that our cultural background affects the way we approach the Bible, and thus what we take from it.
funyun: any reading of a biblical metaphor must pass the following test: does it promote love of the Creator, and love of neighbour (Matthew 22 37-40). And likewise, the Bible commands us to express our love of neighbour in terms of practical caring (Luke 10 29-37). So if the rigid application of the metaphors you like (Husband/Christ, Bride/Church) condemns some people to loneliness, to the margins of society, does that really fulfill the law?
Defining marriage sacreligiously is hardly loving, nor a sign of care for the souls of Christians seeking an unholy covenant.
There is a myth that loving others means tolerating sin, and it appears you’re advocating that myth instead of the more difficult and Christ-centered love that sometimes involves rebuke of sins the secular society considers acceptable.
Love in Christ isn’t supposed to be about moulding Christ to fleeting modern notions of sexuality– it is about following the Law of Love. You aren’t loving Christ when you place anything else above that, even a covenant marriage, and yes, even a Godly covenant marriage.
It is not really Christian to tell people their sin is acceptable in the eyes of God because they might have hurt feelings about their sins otherwise. As well say that loving your child means letting them eat candy until they are sick, because they might cry if denied the candy or only permitted a small piece.
God’s love is not about seeking fulfillment in another human– Godly marriage leaves a lot of heterosexuals out, as far as that goes. It is a very holy and very difficult covenant, as is faith and love for Him. Being a Christian isn’t supposed to be about your self-esteem and justifications for preferred sins– it’s entirely and utterly about Christ and the Cross.
funyun,
I see no reason to believe that homosexuality is a sin, any more than combining meat and milk is. I think it is rather obvious that this identification of sin with certain sexual relationships, and not with others, is simple bigotry, which is a sin some of the biblical authors were guilty of themselves. God seems to have clearly made some people homosexual, just as he makes some geese homosexual, and we should stop pretending it’s a sin, simply because of our own personal sense of disgust over other people’s human natures.
You admit that even an ordained heterosexual relationship can be “sin”, and by your definitions, almost all of them are. Then why do we sanctify marriage of any kind at all? Traditional marriage has nothing sacred about it, it was a form of chattel slavery. Do you really think you know what God’s love is about? I would doubt it, just as much as you doubt me.
Well, of course you are free to believe as you like, as I am. But don’t go telling me that I’m condoning sin, when you are condoning the sin of bigotry and homophobia. I’ve known plenty of homosexuals in my lifetime, and they are no more loveless, Godless sinners than anyone else. He who is without sin, cast the first stone.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, More than “Mutual Joyâ€: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus
All this proves is that appeals to scripture, literal or otherwise, are a waste of time. You can argue this stuff til the cows come home and accomplish nothing. Any religious basis for determining if gays should have governmentally sanctioned marriages is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. Believers of all stripes can take this arguement to their churches where it belongs.
conradg, you are committing a naturalistic fallacy to justify support of any sinful intent. I only know what the Word commands in such matters, and those commands have nothing to do with personal disgust, unless you are somehow trying to argue that God is personally disgusted by teh gaye.
My larger point is that marriage is specifically defined and meant to be taken very, very seriously, even if it means many extant marriages are not Godly.
funyun,
I would agree with you if I felt homosexuals had any sinful intent, but I do not. I see them as simply living out their natural sexual orientation as they were created and developed within the natural sphere. I do not believe, as you do, that God considers homosexuality a sin, nor do I believe that any scriptural references that imply such a thing are true reflections of God’s law, but rather reflect man’s imperfect interpretation of God.
Now, I do agree with you that sacramental marriage has special meanings, and most marriages have nothing to do with that, heterosexual or homosexual. So I have no problem if you restrict sacramental marriage accordingly. But that means denying the sacrament of marriage to almost everyone, hetero and homosexual alike. But I also respect that the meanings of marriage vary considerably these days, and every religion and sect is free to define it in their own way, and practice it in their own way, and that some will certainly consider homosexual marriages to be within that definition.
However, the legal basis for marriage is not religious or sacramental, and so I see no reason why legal marriage in a democracy should in any way discriminate between heterosexual and homosexual partners. Churches of course do not have to recognize them, just as they don’t have to recognize most marriages that do not observe true sacraments. That is up to the Churches, it’s leadership and parishoners. But the government should not discriminate.
[...] you enjoy such arguments, Daniel Larison here rips into Jon Meacham – for saying we get the general idea of this marriage thing from the Bible, [...]
I’m sorry, but the argument from “our true nature” is really one that educated persons should be embarrassed to make so glibly.
Why are you so certain that gay marriage would be “contrary to our true nature”? I take it you mean, as gay marriage opponents often say, because only a man and a woman can procreate? But this is surely to pick out one of the lowest aspects of our nature — our *animal* nature, after all, not our specifically *human* nature, which we share with animals possessing no soul and incapable of sin or salvation — and prioritizing it over other aspects of our nature, like our capacity to love each other and treat each other justly.
Morality cannot be based on human “nature” in this way — all of human civilization, including mathematics, medicine, the use of money, and yes, *marriage* as a social institution, are ‘artificial’ and in opposition to our true nature, if you persist in defining the latter as what is most basic and least distinctively human about us. Marriage of one man to one woman, for instance (besides not being normative in Old Testament times) is not the most ‘natural’ arrangement if the end is mere animal procreation; rather, it is a human institution that embodies a moral and ethical commitment irreducible to procreation. And that is why respecting everyone’s human nature means you should not deny some people the right to have it, by treating them (and the rest of us) as if we were nothing more than animals. Should women also not be educated, or work, or do anything except produce children, or does that not fall under their true nature (on some basis you would have to explain)?
Morality is morality, not nature; that is why neither the Ten Commandments nor Jesus told us to do what is most natural, they say to do what is right — to treat others equally, with love and respect. Anything less is an insult to our “true nature”.
tedschan: I read the article you linked to. I have neither the time, nor do I think someone else’s comments the right place, to rebut it in detail, although I believe it contains a great many inconsistencies. However, I will address its weakest point: the use of a creation pattern. Every single person, Gagnon tells us, must conform to the pattern of man and woman relationship because the Creator made us men and women. Leave aside the reality that the Creator actually allowed natural variants in human sexuality quite apart from same-sex orientation, Jesus speaks very clearly on the subject of creation patterns in relation to another pattern: the rhythm of work and rest (six days of work and a day of rest). But Jesus makes absolutely clear that practical compassion trumps regard for this creation pattern (Matthew 12 9-14). If Gagnon’s central thesis rests on the idea that all people must adapt to the patterns laid down by the Creator, that idea runs up against Jesus’s emphasis on practical compassion as the basis for morality, from the Good Samaritan to the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25 31-46).
I’m unclear as to what natural variants you are speaking of, and what you mean by ‘natural.’ God allows sin as well. Doesn’t mean that sin is normative. As for the commandment to love taking precedence over certain rules–well, it is the root of all the other commandments, and so can ‘overrule’ them, so to speak. But love cannot make what is wrong right, and love has no meaning apart from the specification it receives from the other commandments. John is quite clear on that.
When it comes to sexuality, the Creator has apparently allowed natural exceptions, which calls into serious question the call for absolute conformity with a natural design.
As for “the commandment to love taking precedence over certain rules”, let me reiterate: Jesus makes it pretty clear that practical compassion overrides both ritual matters and the adherence to the kind of creation pattern that Gagnon’s article presents to us as compelling. The Creator rested on the Sabbath, and yet faced with a man on the Sabbath with a withered hand, Jesus heals him. The Creator made us as men and women, so what should we do faced with two men or two women who deeply love each other and want to commit to one another rather than live with a choice between deep loneliness and public scorn. I suggest that Jesus’s example teaches us that we need a better answer than to simply quote the pattern we see in creation.
Those exceptions are also called defects for a reason–it does not call into question God’s design, but is evidence of the Fall. Practical compassion may override ritual matters, but it does not override moral norms.
You call variations or disabilities “evidence of the fall”. Exactly what makes you think yourself qualified to judge the Creator’s work and determine what features of it you will call “good” and which you will call “evidence of the fall” or “defects”? Jesus rejected this viewpoint in John 9 1-3, when he said that the natural variations in our nature do not arise from sin but rather, the Creator makes the glory of Creation visible in them. Jesus also said of ideas that “by their fruits you will know them”, and bigotry and desire to impose “perfection” and uniformity served as the primary test bed and training platform for the Shoah.
As for ritual matters and moral norms: here again we have Jesus’s specific teachings on this: adherence to a creation pattern does not trump the demands of practical compassion. That doesn’t necessarily mean we ought to bless same-sex marriages; it merely means that if you want to argue against blessing them, you have to explain how the implications that :natural law” theologians derive from “male and female he created them” outweigh the lesson drawn in the Torah from “on the seventh day the Creator rested (Exodus 20 8-11). If you take the idea of creation in two kinds as a basis for universal, compulsory heterosexuality, I think Matthew 12 has to give you pause, and if you want to define a “moral norm” which excludes same-sex marriage, you need more evidence than Dr. Gagnon provides.
No–that’s a misreading of John 9:1-3, which plainly says that physical deformities may not be the consequence of personal sin or the sin of one’s parents. It does not contradict the proposition that physical evils and deformities are due to the sin of Adam and Eve. It is also the case that such deformities and so on are evils and not willed by God as such.
We’ll have to disagree about Matthew 12.
John 9 3 “…he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.” That seems pretty clear to me. The idea that people manifest original sin to different degrees has connections to such radical evil that I need at least a direct scriptural warrant for the proposition. Also, let me point out that this proposition pretty much nullifies any hope for an objective theology based on nature or observed reality; if we cannot tell whether what we see and experience comes from “true” nature or from “the fall”, then neither nature nor our experiences prove anything. Worse, “the fall” has corrupted even our reasoning and discernment. I like the doctrine of total depravity as much as anyone, but I take from it the lesson that we must take care in our reasoning, not that we can dismiss everything in nature that contradicts the argument we want to make.
As for Matthew 12, the reasoning also seems pretty clear, so perhaps you could explain the foundation for your disagreement?
Neither fits your interpretation, but I’m not going to go into a prolonged defense of the proper and traditional interpretation of either.
John 9:3 merely states that God permitted physical evil, so that He could draw some good from it. It is an answer to the question, “Why does physical evil happen in the world?” and parallels the treatment of the question in Job. Is it punishment for some sin that I’ve commited? Or my parents committed? Or is there some other reason why it happens? There are some indications within Tradition what life would have been like if the Fall had not taken place. But Scripture and Tradition do not deny that things have natures, nor is it impossible for us to come to know what those natures are, at least with respect to integrity and function, despite what some of the Reformers might have thought about reason.
Incestuous heterosexual marriage is an example of a covenant marriage that is unsanctioned by God, although one can make secular arguments as to why it should be socially acceptable.
There is also the example of pederasts whose victims feel that they are in a loving relationship with the pederast, and that it is only the ‘disgust’ or ‘misunderstanding’ or ‘prejudice’ of society that keeps them from joining in a covenant marriage.
The point being that there are plenty of people who feel their particular sin is acceptable because, well, they are ‘in love’, but those other guys over there, well, that kind of love is ‘wrong’.
Attempting to support same sex marriage as Christian means you have to go there, precisely because those examples above rely on the arguments pro-gay Christian advocates utilise. Which is that if the two people feel love for each other, all the rest shouldn’t matter. In addition to the ‘you don’t understand my particular romantic situation, and if only you did, you’d totally approve and agree with me that God sanctions it!’ argument.
Having a tendency to be tempted a particular way that a majority of people are not tempted in is hardly an argument in favor of God sanctioning gay marriage in the Church. Incest-marriage folks could make a similar argument about their predilection, as could the army of people with ‘natural’ desires that postdate the existence of the modern objects those desires are associated with.
Lest we forget, the very concept of a homosexual identity is extremely recent and would have had many asking if someone was a ‘whore-sexual’ if they were given to excessive whoring, because the idea of identifying as your sexual desires would have seemed like that to them.
Well, if you won’t provide a “prolonged” defence, how about a few cites? And, by the way, the tradition at issue in all of this, the tradition of the Anglicans and Episcopalians, comes out of the reformation, which does provide a role for reason in these matters.
To go into more detail on John 9:3, yes, Jesus answers that the Creator permits differences of ability and powers to make the glory of Creation visible. Contrast this to Jesus’s statement on the origins of evil: “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles.” (Matthew 15:18) Add to these clear statements the fruits of the idea that some people, particularly the disabled, and a closer relationship to “evil” and further from “true nature,” as defined by fallen and depraved men, not the Creator. I have no hesitation in calling these idea very questionable readings of scripture, and radically bad in their consequences.
funyun: Please explain, then, why we do not see bitter battles within the church over interfaith marriages, given Second Corinthians 6 14.
To answer your specific question: we prohibit adult incest (allowing for the various definitions of incest in different cultures) because of the social and genetic consequences, and because a prohibition on incest does not cut a person off from all loving relationships they might have. As for child rape, well, if plain reason and observation does not convince you of its depravity, then go read Mark 9 43. The slippery slope argument simply does not work here.
Well, if you won’t provide a “prolonged†defence, how about a few cites?
What would the point be, if you don’t accept the Tradition and authority of apostolic Christianity? This is ultimately what is at issue.
To go into more detail on John 9:3, yes, Jesus answers that the Creator permits differences of ability and powers to make the glory of Creation visible.
John 9:3 is not talking about how God distributes gifts/talents.
Add to these clear statements the fruits of the idea that some people, particularly the disabled, and a closer relationship to “evil†and further from “true nature,†as defined by fallen and depraved men, not the Creator. I have no hesitation in calling these idea very questionable readings of scripture, and radically bad in their consequences.
This is a bit unclear.
The genetic argument has been disproven with incest, and as well, incestuous couples are happy to argue that they can just use birth control methods like any other couple.
As for the other example, I specifically used the example of a child who feels that he or she is in a romantic relationship with the pederast, who does not feel that they are a victim in any way, but that social mores prohibit the relationship from being consecrated.
It is less a slippery slope argument than demonstrating that you are guilty of the very behaviors I named– claiming a loving relationship is unacceptable because you are not tempted in those directions. The argument for gay marriage is that loving relationships are sanctified by God simply because two people love each other.
There are many other examples I can use of loving relationships that are just not consecrated by God, despite the fact that the people in them really feel that their love is pure and wonderful and won’t people try to understand.
It is precisely because gay marriage isn’t a ’special sin’ or ‘worse sin’ among the sexual sins that these examples are valid. It is just one of numerous sexual temptations in the world, and it is unfortunate that many Church members fixate on it to the exclusion of other sinful covenant relationships. And to the exclusion of encouraging loving and respectful Christian marriages.
tedschan: Actually, in this particular instance, the issue has to do with the authority of scripture. To quote from the original post: “…theologically conservative Episcopalians are claiming that the Bible is the final authority and unchangeable standard of Christian faith and life…” With respect to the importance of a living tradition and discernment, I do believe that those of us who belong to the common Christian tradition, to what C. S. Lewis called “Mere Christianity”, have an obligation to seriously attempt to discern and honestly attempt to follow biblical teachings. But the whole nature of the Bible as a revelation having special authority means that no person, and I would argue at this point that no one tradition. can simply assert their own authority over the meanings of the Bible, In point of fact, at least three, and probably more, Christian sects make a claim to the authority of Apostolic tradition. These sects have significant, even credal differences.
In your comment about John 9 3, I partly agree: Jesus does not speak, there, about how the Creator distributes gifts and talents. Rather, He speaks of the moral implications of this distribution, and in one of a huge number of passages where he says the same or similar things, makes the point that the Creator does not distribute physical, or to a great extent spiritual, gifts simply as an indication of favour.
And this brings us to my central argument against expressions such as “physical evil” for differences in bodily ability, and the idea that some of us embody the “fall” to a greater degree than others, and worse, post-lapsarian human judgment, touched by all the depravity and limits of our fallen nature, can judge the difference. Even if Jesus did not have extremely harsh words for those who see in themselves the repositories of the Creator’s favour (Matthew 11 20-24), the last few centuries have seen such monstrous results from those who took it upon themselves to define and judge “lesser” human beings that I can see no place for this thinking in our discussions.
funyun,
Arguing from”perversion” makes no sense without demonstrating that homosexuality is perverse. Pederasty with underage boys is considered legally perverse precisely because all sex with underage people is considered a perversion. It would not matter if the older partner were a man or a woman, the same also regardless of the sex of the underage victim.
But with adult homosexuals no such situation exists, in which one partner is legally incompetent to make sexual choices for themsevles, and is being taken advantage of by an older and more powerful adult. Nor, as in incest, is there any danger of the sexual union producing genetic defects, or of being a cover for child abuse. (Most examples of incestuous couples wishing to wed began their relationship before the age of consent).
We already have legal adult marriages, and nothing is different about homosexual marriages, literally, except the sexes of the partners. There is no argument based on accepting homosexual marrigages that would justify eliminating either incest taboos or pedophilia laws, or anything like polygamy as others might suggest. The only meaning it has for these situations is that if we did eliminate laws against incest marriages, or pedophilia, we could not eliminate them only for heterosexuals, we would also have to life them for homosexuals. That is the only significance legalizing homosexual marriage would have, in that it would not alter the nature of marriage in any way, other than the sexual orientation of its partners.
And homosexual identity is not a recent phenomena, except to the degree that having an “identity” at all is a fairly modern phenomena. Homosexuality is as old as the hills, literally.
If I didn’t make myself clear, the gay marriage argument does NOT rest on the notion that “if the two people feel love for each other, all the rest shouldn’t matter.” Homosexuals deplore pedophilia and incest as much as heterosexuals do, and have no interest in ending those taboos, either legally or morally.
The point is that if two legally self-responsible people feel love for one another, then the law should not discriminate against them based on their sex. If the law does discriminate against certain kinds of marriage, that discrimination should be applied equally to all sexes. Hard to comprehend?
In point of fact, at least three, and probably more, Christian sects make a claim to the authority of Apostolic tradition. These sects have significant, even credal differences.
As far as I know, the Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental Churches do not differ on moral questions pertaining to sexuality.
But the whole nature of the Bible as a revelation having special authority means that no person, and I would argue at this point that no one tradition. can simply assert their own authority over the meanings of the Bible,
That is your understanding of the relationship between Tradition and Scripture. But not that of the apostolic Churches. The Bible does not stand apart of Tradition, but is understood within it.
And this brings us to my central argument against expressions such as “physical evil†for differences in bodily ability, and the idea that some of us embody the “fall†to a greater degree than others, and worse, post-lapsarian human judgment, touched by all the depravity and limits of our fallen nature, can judge the difference. Even if Jesus did not have extremely harsh words for those who see in themselves the repositories of the Creator’s favour (Matthew 11 20-24), the last few centuries have seen such monstrous results from those who took it upon themselves to define and judge “lesser†human beings that I can see no place for this thinking in our discussions.
An Orthodox adherent can speak to the use of evil or kakos within the Orthodox theological tradition. It is used in different ways within the Latin theological tradition, and has a long pedigree. One does not have to judge between different degrees of physical evil in order to recognize that there is a defect that should not be present. And I also add that evil is not used univocally of physical evil and moral evil. Again, as far as I know the apostolic Churches make it clear that irrespective of any defects that may be found in our bodies, no one is worth less than another simply because of a physical defect. So to argue that just because some may find some sort of justification for unjust actions based on the presence of defects that we must not have any notion of defect or physical evil just doesn’t follow.
Yes, God’s love and therefore some of his gifts are prior to merit, and He is the cause of His love, not us. But your explanation of John 9:3 is still tenuous, since it is not talking about gifts or favors.
tedschan: I disagree with your argument about tradition for three reasons. First, tradition does not stand on its own; the authority of tradition comes from the Bible. And second, to the extent that tradition shapes our understanding of the Bible, it does so in an ongoing way. The traditional understandings of, say, Titus have changed significantly since William Wilberforce. And third, whatever tradition you belong to, you cannot invoke its authority simply by saying the word “tradition”. A tradition, by definition, has a source, and if you want to invoke the authority of the tradition it makes sense to cite the source. So I ask again: please cite your source for your tradition’s understanding of Matthew 12.
On expressions such as “physical evil” and “defect”, I disagree comprehensively. But I will specifically comment on one matter only, again the matter of authority. On what basis do you or anyone define variations as “defects”? How exactly does that basis relate back to scripture? Please cite your sources here.
Finally, on John 9: does John 9 have nothing to do with gifts or favours? Really? Do you not regard eyesight, mobility, a mind able to reason as gifts from a loving Creator? For I certainly do. So does the Bible; it forms the whole theme of Job, where the Creator makes it clear that we earn nothing, and the Creator dispenses gifts according to holy and eternal wisdom, not our desires or notions of deserving.
I disagree with your argument about tradition for three reasons. First, tradition does not stand on its own; the authority of tradition comes from the Bible. And second, to the extent that tradition shapes our understanding of the Bible, it does so in an ongoing way. The traditional understandings of, say, Titus have changed significantly since William Wilberforce. And third, whatever tradition you belong to, you cannot invoke its authority simply by saying the word “traditionâ€. A tradition, by definition, has a source, and if you want to invoke the authority of the tradition it makes sense to cite the source.
Obviously you would disagree regarding Tradition. The source of Tradition? God. Who has the authority to transmit it? The Apostles and their successors, the bishops.
With respect to Mr. Phillips and other Protestants who are attempting to defend traditional teaching from the authority of scripture alone, I would just point out that this is the logical conclusion of sola scriptura–that people use it to oppose traditional Christian teaching.
So, if it’s all about one’s ‘private’ interpretation of scripture, whether it be sanctioned by the Holy Spirit or some other mode of divine confirmation, there really isn’t a point to discussing the issue any further, is there? If God is going to work via means of human instruments and infused Faith, He is obviously quite foolish to do it in such a way that leaves people in doubt as to what is Divinely Revealed teaching. This is what sola scriptura entails.
Three points:
First, the actual issue underlying this whole post concerns another Apostolic tradition, that of the Anglican Church, which as far as I know (having belonged my whole life) has respect for tradition, but does not elevate it to the status of divine revelation. So Anglicans get to struggle with the messages in the Bible and work to discern the revelation from the Creator that will guide our lives.
This brings me to the second point: traditional Christian teaching has changed over the centuries, and different traditions teach different things, and while I can’t claim to know their position on all aspects of sexual morality, they clearly disagree on many more important aspects of Christian faith and life. So you cannot invoke the authority of tradition as a unitary and unchanging thing. Passing revelation through a large number of fallible and fallen human beings necessarily creates this problem.
Which brings me to the third point. You disagree with my reading of Matthew 12. Fine. You cite your tradition. Fine. How and where did your tradition transmit that information to you? I want a cite. A book, an essay, a sermon, something which will explain your tradition’s understanding of that chapter of Matthew.