The Rev. Dr. Phil Snider’s pro-gay rights performance before the Springfield, Missouri city council became an overnight sensation last month. More than 3 million people have viewed it. And no wonder: it’s brilliant theater.
I trust he won’t object to my describing it that way: it was he who acknowledged he was play-acting. He presented himself at first as a preacher speaking from the Bible in opposition to gay rights. He played that role for a minute or so until he pretended to stumble over the word “segregation.” Then in a superb surprise twist, he revealed that the lines he had been speaking had actually come from white preachers a half-century ago arguing against civil rights for African-Americans.
He played it well. The effect was dramatic. Shouts of “Bravo!” are echoing around the Internet, and understandably so. For supporters of gay rights, his play was just the thing to catch the conscience of conservatives.
Except for one thing: it was built upon emptiness and fiction.
I do not mean to take anything away from his dramatic effectiveness, but there’s something in the technique he employed that so takes the breath away, and so impresses the audience, that it becomes difficult to distinguish the performance from the argument.
And what was that argument? Apparently it was supposed to be something like this: “Racist white preachers used the Bible to support segregation, which was wrong; therefore conservative Christians who use the Bible today to oppose gay rights today are wrong. Future Christians will be as embarrassed over today’s opposition to gay rights as we are now over the racism in our past.”
But racist preachers (whoever they may have been) didn’t get their teachings from the Bible. To the extent they used the Bible to support racist conclusions, they were twisting it beyond recognition. From early in Genesis, through the ministry of Jesus Christ, even all the way to the end in Revelation, the Bible celebrates and supports the value of “all peoples” (ethné in the Greek, meaning tribes, colors, languages, and nations). There is nothing there that supports racial segregation.
If his point, then, was, “Racist preachers used the Bible’s teaching to support segregation, therefore the Bible is wrong,” honesty should have led him to add that these racists were distorting the Bible’s meaning, misinterpreting it badly.
That wouldn’t have had near the same dramatic impact, obviously. In fact this more honest approach wouldn’t have been worth bringing to the council meeting at all, at least not by any supporter of gay “rights.” The conclusion obviously doesn’t follow. That there are evil misinterpretations of the Bible hardly proves that proper interpretations are evil.
But then it might be that Dr. Snider’s intended point was that it’s a mistake to use the Bible at all. Again, though, you can’t show the Bible is wrong by showing that distortions of the Bible are wrong.
Dr. Snider’s theatrics demonstrated nothing but that bad things come of misusing the Bible. It’s a point well taken: his performance has strengthened my commitment as a believing Christian to handle the Bible accurately.
I doubt that’s the resolve Dr. Snider intended to reinforce.
More likely he meant to embarrass the Bible and all who rely on it. If so, he certainly succeed, based on the reaction around the Internet; except that rational reflection reveals he said nothing of substance, other than that it’s wrong to interpret the Bible wrongly. I’m not embarrassed by that. It’s obvious enough, after all, and Christians been saying it for centuries.
The questions surrounding gay rights and marriage are serious ones. Many of us think the Bible speaks importantly to these questions. Many others think we’re wrong as wrong could be. As divisive as these issues are, it’s easy to lose sight of the fact that we’re all fellow human beings on both sides of the issue, and the human thing to do is at least to listen to one another. To shout one side down is disrespectful; to laugh one side down is dehumanizing.
And what did Dr. Snider add to that conversation? Further thoughtlessness, further dehumanizing; cringing among Christians, gleeful laughter among others. For all its dramatic deftness, his contribution only served to deepen the divide that keeps us from working out our differences as human beings.
It was great theater, but it was no help at all.
November 2nd, 2012 | 7:28 am
Any student of church history will know that, in every controversy in the Church, it has been the heretical party that appealed to scripture (and, particularly to the literal sense) and the orthodox party that appealed to ecclesiastical tradition and to the mystical or allegorical sense of scripture. Readers of Newman’s “Arians of the 4th century” will recall his copious illustrations of this.
It is hardly news that, without an authoritative interpreter, the bible is a lesbian rule.
November 2nd, 2012 | 8:34 am
It is fair to say that, with in the Christian Church’s history, arguments were made attempting to show the “inferiority” of certain types of people. These arguments as fallacious as they were/are, convinced the Christian Church to advocate slavery. Of course, now these arguments have no support among decent people. To what extent the Church relied on the Bible, I’ll leave for historians.
November 2nd, 2012 | 8:40 am
Bret, you’re just repeating the fallacy I’ve already identified. If misuse of the Bible has bad outcomes, it does not follow that proper use of the Bible has negative outcomes. Using the Bible to support racism was objectively wrong, because the Bible doesn’t teach racism; quite the opposite, in fact. From such and obvious and clear misinterpretation of the Bible, nothing whatever follows except that it’s foolish to mishandle the Bible so obviously and clearly
November 2nd, 2012 | 8:42 am
Michael PS, I’m going to have to admit to being baffled over what you meant. Maybe for my benefit if not others’ you’d be willing to explain.
November 2nd, 2012 | 10:12 am
Martin Luther King Jr. used the bible to support his movement. Therefore, Civil Rights Acts are wrong.
November 2nd, 2012 | 10:17 am
I was born in 1955 and grew up in Jackson, Mississippi. And I can assure you from personal experience that many of the leading white religious leaders and thinkers of the day, many of whom were learned men and most of whom (I assume) were deeply sincere Christians who professed a love of mankind, argued repeatedly and passionately and in great detail, and with much quoting of the Bible, that the Bible supported the principle of racial segregation and opposed the principle of racial mixing.
Where I think I may differ from Mr. Gibson is his apparent belief that it is perfectly plain what the Bible in fact teaches about matters such as African American civil rights (in the 1950s and 1960s) and gay rights (today). Mr. Gibson seems to think that it is objectively “correct” to view the Bible as opposed to racism and also objectively “correct” to view the Bible as opposed to gay rights (or, if you want to include his scare-quote notion, gay “rights”). I don’t really see it that way. I’m certainly no authority, and don’t believe I have any grounds on which to instruct others in these matters, but for me personally, knowing what the Bible is saying about a contemporary social issue is, in many (though not all) cases, not so clear cut, not so easy to be confident about.
It the Bible against gay “rights”? You tell me.
November 2nd, 2012 | 10:38 am
One may disagree with Tom Gilson on some matters political, but it is hard to on matters biblical. The Bible seems very clear about same-sex sexual activity. It’s hard to read it otherwise, despite valiant attempts by creative thinkers.
November 2nd, 2012 | 10:46 am
The message I get from Rev. Snider is that the people who used the Bible to support segregation (and before that, slavery) were certain they were right. Also, I would point out that some of the towering figures in the history of Christianity were convinced the Bible supported anti-Semitism. (And in truth, it takes some creative exegesis to explain away some of the anti-Semitic passages.) So it seems to me the minimum takeaway from Rev. Snider’s video should be, “I’m using Christianity and the Bible in a strikingly similar way to the way it has been misused before. How can I be certain I am right?”
November 2nd, 2012 | 10:55 am
If there is any confusion about Michael’s use of the expression “lesbian rule”, all you need to know is that it means a flexible yardstick.
November 2nd, 2012 | 11:16 am
The last chapter of “How to Read the Bible” by Dr. James L. Kugel (who was Starr Professor of Hebrew at Harvard until 2003) is entitled, “After such Knowledge …”.
Here Professor Kugel writes: “… Judaism has essentially two canons, the biblical one and the great corpus of writings included under the Oral Torah. … Although these two bodies of writings were and are said to be of equal authority, in practice, the Oral Torah always wins.”
The Oral Torah is not a collection of each person’s private opinion. In fact it does not seem too far off the mark to see the “ancient interpreters” as analogous to the teaching Magisterium of the Church. [I await learned correction.]
A resource for those seriously interested in this question is “Providentissimus Deus” – Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII on the Study of Holy Scripture. Also, Divino Afflante Spiritu” – Encyclical of Pope Pius XII on Promoting Biblical Studies.
November 2nd, 2012 | 12:13 pm
David, I agree with your takeaway, although there comes a point when one has to make a decision based on a very high probability of being right. And we dare not forget that if the Bible speaks at all to some subject, including sexual morality as the relevant case here, it’s impossible to forestall all decision-making until certainty is guaranteed. Not to decide, as the famous saying goes, is to decide.
November 2nd, 2012 | 1:17 pm
david,
how can you be “certain” that you are right regarding anything? by reason, experience, and authority. that’s all you have. that’s all any of us has.
by reason, no one has a “right” to metaphysical impossibilities. two left shoes will never be a “pair,” not in this universe nor in any other one. that’s the way reality is given to us.
in contrast, also by reason, miscegenation is obviously not a metaphysical impossibility.
November 2nd, 2012 | 1:25 pm
There has never been a dispute about any question of any importance at all in which the Bible (or some analogous religious text, doctrine or oracle) was not invoked by both sides to justify their positions.
November 2nd, 2012 | 1:26 pm
Do you take it then that there is no such thing as an unbiblical answer to a question; that any answer is possible?
November 2nd, 2012 | 2:25 pm
. . . . by reason, no one has a “right” to metaphysical impossibilities
andrew,
The issue at hand where Rev. Snider made his remarks was adding sexual orientation and gender identity to an already existing anti-discrimination statute. I don’t see any problems there with metaphysical impossibilities. You seem to be alluding to same-sex marriage, but Rev. Snider was not.
November 2nd, 2012 | 4:37 pm
david,
touchez. yet the so-called “primary civil rights issue of our time” these days has nothing to do with water fountains, places in buses, and school segregation….
November 2nd, 2012 | 5:59 pm
Contending that the Bible should not be employed to justify opposition to ‘gay marriage’ because the Bible was once used to justify something we now find morally repugnant is as nonsensical as saying we shouldn’t use science to inform our opinions because the science in the form of eugenics was once used to justify eliminating undesirables.
November 2nd, 2012 | 7:01 pm
Contending that the Bible should not be employed to justify opposition to ‘gay marriage’ because the Bible was once used to justify something we now find morally repugnant . . . .
Jack,
That, it seems to me, is clearly not the message. As I said above, the message is more like, “Stop and think! The ‘Christian’ segregationist arguments and some of the ‘Christian’ arguments against anti-discrimination laws for gays sound so much alike that you can’t tell them apart.”
I don’t thing the Rev. Snider is making a case against all Biblical arguments!
And I would like to know exactly what the Bible has to say about anti-discrimination laws. For Catholics, at least, remarriage after divorce is adultery. Yet there are civil laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. Did Catholics oppose them? Should they have? Doesn’t a Catholic hospital or university have a right not to hire someone they believe to be living openly and unashamedly in adultery, having illegitimate children and setting a bad example for all? Why is there so much opposition to laws protecting gay people from discrimination but not adulterers?
November 2nd, 2012 | 7:43 pm
David Blankenhorn: the Bible is quite clear with regard to sexual relations between people of the same sex. If you believe you have found some way to read, for example, Romans 1:27 which permits them, then you are simply a sophist.
I don’t believe the Bible says anything about homosexual desire, and the Catholic Church maintains that such desires are disordered but not sinful per se, inasmuch as they are involuntary.
I agree with your point that how, precisely, this translates into public policy w.r.t. same-sex “marriage” and human rights more generally is a legitimate matter for debate. However I think it is worth noting the basic fact above, again, that is, the Bible is clear that homosexuality is, at best, a disordered state.
It has been said that “error has no rights,” and I would urge you to consider the consequences of enshrining objective error as a fundamental human right. Yes, of course not all errors should be illegal, and certainly homosexuals shouldn’t be persecuted (just like anyone else). A Christian may, and indeed should, promote “gay rights” in the sense that gays are entitled to human rights equally. Please note the distinction made though, between on the one hand protecting the rights of human beings who err, and promoting error as being itself a right.
November 2nd, 2012 | 8:07 pm
David Nickol: “Why is there so much opposition to laws protecting gay people from discrimination but not adulterers?”
I believe it is probably because gays are much more open about being gay and tend to not see any problem with it, while adulterers tend to keep a lower profile. We do not see, for example, “adultery pride” parades, do we? To lead others into sin is a greater sin than to commit a sin yourself.
November 2nd, 2012 | 9:18 pm
I believe it is probably because gays are much more open about being gay and tend to not see any problem with it, while adulterers tend to keep a lower profile.
Patrick,
When I refer to adulterers, I am talking about people who are divorced and remarried. Such adulterers do not need parades. I think it’s safe to say that there are far more divorced and remarried people in the United States than there are gay people. There was very little concern decades ago when Ronald Reagan—a divorced and remarried man whose second wife was pregnant before he married her—ran for the presidency.
November 2nd, 2012 | 10:03 pm
That, it seems to me, is clearly not the message. As I said above, the message is more like, “Stop and think! The ‘Christian’ segregationist arguments and some of the ‘Christian’ arguments against anti-discrimination laws for gays sound so much alike that you can’t tell them apart.”
The claim that they are similar is coming from people who have a political interest in conflating, not in the actual substance of the arguments.
I don’t thing the Rev. Snider is making a case against all Biblical arguments!
Just any argument that runs counter to something he wants to believe.
And I would like to know exactly what the Bible has to say about anti-discrimination laws. For Catholics, at least, remarriage after divorce is adultery. Yet there are civil laws prohibiting discrimination based on marital status. Did Catholics oppose them? Should they have? Doesn’t a Catholic hospital or university have a right not to hire someone they believe to be living openly and unashamedly in adultery, having illegitimate children and setting a bad example for all? Why is there so much opposition to laws protecting gay people from discrimination but not adulterers?
No one is recommending ‘discrimination’ based on the Bible- there are however good reasons to defend the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, some based on Biblical principles, and some based on perfectly reasonable secular arguments.
November 3rd, 2012 | 12:42 am
David, again, I don’t believe it was ever widely proposed that Reagan’s divorce was a good thing. Did Reagan make “divorcee’s rights” a platform in his campaign? Did he run specifically as a divorcee? No.
Every human being is sinful. Some of us fail in the area of marriage, some in sexual attraction, some in over-indulgence in food and drink, or greed, or anger, and so forth. With regard to your question, the difference is that I have never myself once read anyone seriously proposing adultery as an ideal state, or as a human right. Whereas the homosexuals not only persist in their own sin, but seem to be quite adamant about involving others in it, as well. They demand not just tolerance, but approval, as well. That is the difference.
November 3rd, 2012 | 2:25 am
Hi Tom, I see your point. You’re certainly right that a proper reading of the Bible could not lead one to believe that it endorses the notion that some humans are better than others. Similarly, however, a proper reading of the Bible, in my mind, could not lead one to conclude that it bans gay marriages.
Unfortunately, throughout Christian history, there have been those who misinterpreted the Bible. They believed that the latter provided justification for things we know are morally reprehensible, such as discrimination against women, other races, slavery, etc. We know that they completely misinterpreted the Bible. It’s my contention that the Bible, if interpreted correctly, in its full context, (as opposed to taking certain passages, cherry picked) does not ban gay/lesbian marriages.
November 3rd, 2012 | 10:31 am
Left out of the comments were the “rights” taken away from the Mormons, and others. This was, when in the late 1800′s, polygamy was made a crime. This law was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Seems Bigamy is still on the law books.
One might also be careful about looking down on previous generations practices. What will they say about the current culture, when the subject on how 50M of the next generation were butchered.
November 3rd, 2012 | 11:11 am
No one is recommending ‘discrimination’ based on the Bible- there are however good reasons to defend the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, some based on Biblical principles, and some based on perfectly reasonable secular arguments.
Jack,
Let me point out once again that the issue here is not gay marriage. Rev. Snider is in Missouri. The Missouri constitution bans same-sex marriage. The issue Rev. Snider was speaking to was the adding of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to an existing anti-discrimination bill in the city of Springfield covering race, creed, sex, handicap, age, national origin, and ancestry.
November 3rd, 2012 | 11:36 am
Patrick says: “It has been said that “error has no rights,” and I would urge you to consider the consequences of enshrining objective error as a fundamental human right.”
Correct me someone if I’m wrong, but as I recall, the term “error has no rights” was used for many generations by the church to persecute, up to and including by killing them, those persons whose beliefs differred from church teaching, i.e. those persons who failed to recognize “objective truth” and instead embraced in thought an “objective error.”
Many people over many generations have laid down their lives — some voluntarily, some not — as a consequence of this idea and in order to oppose this idea. Many people over many generations, up to and now including many recent church leaders, have poured heart and soul into opposing the practices, and the habits of mind, the epistemelogical stances, that have long been associated with this term, this idea.
Truth is objective, but we can only see it subjectively.
November 3rd, 2012 | 11:47 am
David, again, I don’t believe it was ever widely proposed that Reagan’s divorce was a good thing. Did Reagan make “divorcee’s rights” a platform in his campaign? Did he run specifically as a divorcee? No.
Patrick,
As governor of California in 1970, Ronald Reagan—himself divorced and remarried— signed the first no-fault divorce bill, beginning what many call the no-fault revolution. Within fifteen years, 49 of the 50 states (the exception being New York) had no-fault divorce.
As I have pointed out several times, the Catholic Church considers those who have remarried after divorce to be living in adultery. So Reagan, whose first marriage was to a twice-divorced woman (Jane Wyman), whom he divorced, and later married Nancy Davis (who apparently was already pregnant). So as a candidate for president, Reagan not only had on his resumé the first no-fault divorce law in the country, he was also divorced and remarried. Did he run on a platform of facilitating and destigmatizing divorce? No, but he didn’t have to. It was already part of his record and his personal life.
November 3rd, 2012 | 12:26 pm
The reason that the theater is so effective is because it can hide behind the predominant views of things like love and forgiveness that have been redefined by the zeitgeist. Christians need to understand their own basics.
http://tinyurl.com/y9p4vez
November 3rd, 2012 | 12:48 pm
Patrick –
Said by – ahem – Catholic theologians. If people disagree, they are obviously in error, I assume?
November 3rd, 2012 | 1:04 pm
Ray and David, I assume you have evidence (beyond “as I recall”) that this came from theologians, Catholic or otherwise?
Further:
Do you think error has rights?
Note carefully that the statement was not, (a) “the erroneous have no rights.” The aphorism as it stands is not about taking away rights from people just for having wrong thoughts.
It also wasn’t (b) “that which some people consider erroneous has no rights.” I take it to mean that if something is actually wrong it has no rights. It leaves open the question about how that’s determined, but I’m sure you would agree there are things that can be known to be erroneous.
Maybe it was used in one of those false ways, (a) or (b), in the past. I don’t know. If it was, then that was an error. It was also a past error, and I don’t know how misuse of an aphorism in the past makes it false today. (The point is parallel to the one I made about the Bible in the original post.)
Look at the context in which Patrick wrote it, beginning with, “It has been said that ‘error has no rights, and I would urge you to consider the consequences of enshrining objective error as a fundamental human right…”
Do you disagree with the point he was actually making? That’s considerably more germane than the history of an aphorism.
November 3rd, 2012 | 2:53 pm
Tom Gilson –
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0505798.htm
I don’t think error or truth is the kind of thing that can have rights.
I think people have rights, even to be wrong about things. Even to advocate their error. Even regarding important things. I think people even have the right to do things that are wrong, so long as they are not actively harming others.
Indeed, I think even some harms are allowed.
For example, by not vaccinating their children, some parents are putting not just their children at risk, but the children of others as well. (In one of our son’s preschool classes, there was a child that had undergone a liver transplant. Vaccinating our children protected that child, too.) But I still think they have the right not to vaccinate their kids, however misguided and mal-informed they are. I think Jenny McCarthy has a perfect right to rail against vaccination (and I have the right to call her an ignorant schmuck and explain why).
There are limits. When parents refuse lifesaving medical treatments for their children, we can and should intervene. Once those children are grown, then they can choose to refuse treatment if they like.
Yes, I do. If people have the right to do things like not vaccinate their kids, then they have a right to organize their families in ways that other people consider sub-optimal. So long as they are not actively abusing their kids, they are allowed to make choices that others disagree with.
November 3rd, 2012 | 3:59 pm
This discussion could proceed more coherently if each participant would explain his/her first principles; the perspective from which he/she is arguing. This might render further discussion impossible but would at least clear the air.
One additional thought: Little seems to be gained by reciting errors and sins of past generations. The question is, “What should we do now?” “Why?” and “What is the source of your conviction that this is true?”
November 3rd, 2012 | 5:04 pm
I think that Nichol is right to say that Snider’s point was probably more along the line of questioning those who think the Bible provides a sure guide to practical politics, a trap that Gilson falls into.
It is boorish to accuse others of sophistry, but I agree with Patrick, as I suspect Blankenhorn does, that the Bible is clearly against the practice of homosexuality.
But the question that Snider raises is not about what the Bible means or even what Michael PS would argue is church tradition. The question is what a democratic civil society should do when some of its citizens argue that their civil rights have been denied.
The fact is that few Christians think about homosexuality the way they did 50 or 100 years ago. Few Christians believe that homosexuals should be locked back into the closet.
But Christian conservatives argue nonetheless that the acceptance of homosexuals should end at marriage or civil union without realizing that acceptance is never halfway. You can’t discriminate just a little bit. That’s part of the reason that Snider’s invocation of segregation is so apt. Like Blankenhorn, I grew up in the South with people who believed that they could discriminate against blacks without being racist or prejudiced. They couldn’t, and when some saw their racism reflected in Bull Connor, they rejected the segregation they once believed was sanctioned by both the Bible and tradition.
I don’t know how old Gilson is, but conservatives should always remember that the impulses that make them conservative were the same impulses that animated Jim Crow, the Know Nothings, and those that fought against women’s suffrage, property rights, and the recognition of domestic violence.
It is dangerous for conservatives to fantasize, as Gilson seems to do here, that he would have been opposed to segregation and would have seen it as obviously unbiblical had he grown up in the Jim Crow South. He probably wouldn’t have, and I know my parents well enough to know that I wouldn’t have either.
There’s nothing obvious about how our society should treat homosexuality, and intelligent discussion of the issue is rare.
November 3rd, 2012 | 10:36 pm
It is boorish to accuse others of sophistry, but I agree with Patrick, as I suspect Blankenhorn does, that the Bible is clearly against the practice of homosexuality.
Michael,
To assert that “the Bible is clearly against the practice of homosexuality” assumes an approach to the Bible that it is unreasonable to expect non-Christians to share, and in fact is not all that reasonable to expect a great many modern Christians to share. For those who do not believe that the “Old Testament” (Hebrew Scripture) and the New Testament are one, coherent, inspired work, it doesn’t even make sense to say “the Bible is clearly against” any particular practice. The Bible isn’t for or against anything. It is a collection of ancient writings that does not, as a collection, have a specific point of view.
For those who do accept the Bible as one, coherent, inspired work, an elaborate theory is necessary to explain why Leviticus 20:13 does not justify the death penalty for men who engage in homosexual acts. And another theory is necessary to explain why, for example, Leviticus 20:13 is somehow binding, but Leviticus 19:19 (“Do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread”) may be utterly ignored.
What you are actually saying, when you say that the Bible is clearly against the practice of homosexuality, is that it seems clear to you that other people who have the same fundamental beliefs about what the Bible is and how to interpret it as you do should arrive at the same conclusion as you about what practices the Bible is for and against.
November 4th, 2012 | 6:50 am
What stands out to me in Snider’s speech is his message that the Bible is not to be trusted as a guide to beliefs and behavior. It led Christians astray 50 years ago, and it’s leading people astray now.
Though the Bible is many things, its chief role in Christians’ lives today is just what Snider was aiming at in his speech: guiding beliefs and behavior.
To this my first response, and my first main point, is just what I wrote in the original post: it’s cute theater but horrible logic. With just one exception, there is nothing in the Bible that could even remotely be construed as supporting racism. That one exception is God’s special treatment of the Jews. Even that, however, is clearly revealed upon thorough reading to be about religion and moral practices and not about race.
So even though Snider’s drama succeeds, it succeeds at the expense of rational thought. One generation’s twisting of the Bible demonstrates nothing about the Bible itself. I don’t think anyone commenting here has disputed my first main point.
My second main point is what’s being questioned here: whether the Bible is to be trusted as a guide to beliefs concerning homosexuality. Michael says I fall into a trap of thinking that the Bible is a sure guide to practical politics. I don’t see where I talked about that in those terms, but it’s an intriguing point and I intend to write a blog post on it within a day or so.
David Nickol on the other hand questions whether the Bible’s stance on homosexuality is as clear as I think it is, noting that it requires “an elaborate theory” to explain why some OT passages are binding and others are not. Elaborate theories are considered useful when they account for the facts, but suspect when they are contrived or ad hoc. The theory underlying our interpretation of the Old Testament in the era following Christ’s life, death, and resurrection is neither of these. Its fundamentals are laid out in the teachings of Christ and in the books of Hebrews and Romans, primarily, along with other NT locations. Further, biblical guidelines concerning sexual practice outside of man-woman marriage are clearly reiterated in the NT. Biblical support for sexual morality is not dependent on the OT.
David further says,
That’s a fair and accurate assessment, and I stand by it, at least as far as the current question is concerned (not all biblical conclusions are as clear as this one), and as long as it’s not expressed as a hard universal. I think there are likely to be some who hold to the same view of the Bible and hermeneutics that I do and yet reach different conclusions about homosexual practice; but I think they would be fairly few. I don’t know if David sees some problem in that. I don’t.
November 4th, 2012 | 8:45 am
I do believe that the bible condemns homosexual practices. I believe it, because I believe the apostles were what they claimed to be, the bearers of a divine revelation that they entrusted to their successors, who well understood and faithfully expounded it. It seems to me preposterous to suggest that a divine revelation was consistently misunderstood for two millennia, by those for whose instruction it was intended.
Likewise, I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God, on the mere authority of the church. Otherwise, I cannot for the life of me see why I should believe, for example, that the epistles of Paul are inspired and the epistle of Barnabas is not. For that reason, I can regard debates over the authorship of the Pastorals or of 2 Peter as of little more than academic interest.
Finally, I have a clear and simple test for distinguishing which interpreters are orthodox and which are not: be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, the orthodox were and are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.
November 4th, 2012 | 8:49 am
David,
Just because today’s Jews and Christians don’t follow some or even many passages to the letter, doesn’t mean that the Bible’s stance toward homosexuality isn’t clear and consistent. There’s simply nothing in the Bible that can be reasonably construed as being pro-homosexuality. I’ve read some intriguing arguments, but they twist passages out of shape.
While the Bible is clearly against homosexuality, I think Christians should embrace homosexuality and require that it conform to the same ideals as heterosexuality. While my argument is biblical, I treat passages like Leviticus 20:13 just like I do Paul’s arguments against homosexuality. Those passages are trumped by other passages, traditions, and lived practices.
November 4th, 2012 | 9:17 am
Gilson,
“What stands out to me in Snider’s speech is his message that the Bible is not to be trusted as a guide to beliefs and behavior. It led Christians astray 50 years ago, and it’s leading people astray now”
Snider might be saying that, but I doubt it. It’s more likely that he’s saying that some people’s interpretation of the Bible might be leading them astray as previous generations have let their interpretations lead them astray. You could at least acknowledge that Snider’s theater is ambiguous on this point rather than treating it as a given. Snider is, after all, the pastor of Disciple of Christ Church; he is guided by the Bible.
“Though the Bible is many things, its chief role in Christians’ lives today is just what Snider was aiming at in his speech: guiding beliefs and behavior”
I don’t know what faith tradition you come from, but most Christians rely on tradition and practice to guide their interpretation of the Bible.
“With just one exception, there is nothing in the Bible that could even remotely be construed as supporting racism.”
Here, you lock yourself into your time and space. Read more deeply into history, and you’ll see that generations of Christians across various times and places have taken the Bible to support whatever racist logic their society advanced.
“One generation’s twisting of the Bible demonstrates nothing about the Bible itself. I don’t think anyone commenting here has disputed my first main point”
I have disputed your first point, and I think that every generation has found something to twist. More pertinent than the Bible itself are those traditions and practices of biblical interpretation.
“Michael says I fall into a trap of thinking that the Bible is a sure guide to practical politics. I don’t see where I talked about that in those terms, but it’s an intriguing point and I intend to write a blog post on it within a day or so”
You concluded your article by saying that Snider’s comments are “no help at all,” and that’s where practical politics enter. Snider is fighting for anti-discrimination statutes, which is a matter of practical politics and which raises the question of how the law should act on various Christian beliefs about homosexuality. I think Snider’s theater does in fact help clarify the time-bound limitations of some traditions and practices of biblical interpretation. I think he usefully reminds Christians that what they think is obvious might not be so.
Even if you think that Christians should be free to discriminate against homosexuals, then you would still need to make the case that a pluralist democracy should discriminate against some 3% of its population.
November 4th, 2012 | 9:47 am
David asks:
“Why is there so much opposition to laws protecting gay people from discrimination but not adulterers?”
I reject your dishonest, self-serving claim of discrimination. It is a title used to give cover and credibility to an established practice of discrimination upon opponents and even less enthusiastic supporters of the cause.
However to answer your question: One is inherently flawed. The other can be reconciled. Christianity, as you are aware, are big on truths and mercy. A position of denying that can never be true and merciful to that which can be reconciled is consistent with Christianity.
November 4th, 2012 | 9:58 am
It is quite ironic that one can run their clinic or counseling program with “the right to define one’s own concept of existence” yet in the states with SSM, SSCU and anti-”discrimination” laws that one can’t run their clinic or counseling program with the right to define one’s own concept of marriage.
But then again I’m quite sure the adherents of the Intolerant Secularism Synod are working towards forcing pro-life clinics and pro-life counseling programs to accept the patient or consumer’s demand to put the private individuals’ own resources and time towards serving the patient or consumer’s definition of existence without “discrimination”.
November 4th, 2012 | 11:21 am
Tom:
If you are asking me, do I believe as an abstract point of philosophy that something that’s demonstrably and objectively false contains within it something that can be called a “right,” then my answer is, No. To suggest otherwise would seem to me to akin to asserting belief in a kind of magic, as if something that is not a person (an idea, a concept) mysteriously contains within it a quality (a “right”) that nearly everyone, I think, associates with persons, not things or concepts.
Does a poorly constructed bridge, or a car that won’t drive, have “rights” that somehow put them on an ethical par with well-built bridges and cars that drive? Of course not. At this point the conversation becomes pendantic and silly.
But meanwhile, back on earth, the point still remains that, in actual history (as opposed to philosophical speculations), the term “error has no rights” has been indicative of, and associated with, epistemological stances the outcome of which is to persecute people for incorrect belief.
And because I oppose persecuting people for incorrect belief — be it communist-run show-trials in Russia in the 1930s, or the House Un-American Activities Committee persection of communists in the 1940s and 1950s, or many generations of Christian leaders (Catholic and Protestant) persecuting and even killing people who were in “error” in their thinking, I react with shock and anger to that smelly little term, “error has no rights.”
November 4th, 2012 | 11:42 am
David,
Point well taken. In that historical context I agree.
November 4th, 2012 | 11:44 am
Michael,
Do you believe that every conclusion concerning morality that’s drawn from the Bible is locked in time and space, and subject to correction by other biblical interpreters in other times and places?
Note that the question is about how the Bible is understood and interpreted, which is the relevant question in this context.
It does not follow, by the way, that because someone is a pastor in a certain denomination he is guided by the Bible. There are unbelieving pastors and unbelieving denominations, with respect to the Bible. Many of them if asked would cheerfully describe themselves that way.
November 4th, 2012 | 12:08 pm
What stands out to me in Snider’s speech is his message that the Bible is not to be trusted as a guide to beliefs and behavior. It led Christians astray 50 years ago, and it’s leading people astray now.
Tom Gilson,
I disagree that this was Rev. Snider’s point. If you check out the web site of his church, you will find a two-part sermon titled What Does the Bible Really Say About Homosexuality? (And how does it matter for our church?)(Part I, Part II), in which he deals with the issue of the Bible and homosexuality at great length. He does not reject the Bible at all, but makes a thoughtful (if fairly familiar), “liberal” case that the Bible does not condemn loving, responsible homosexual relationships of the kind he has seen pastorally in his ministry. He also bends over backwards to say this is his personal interpretation and that others will disagree.
I think it would be his position that the Bible, interpreted with integrity, may lead people of good will to different interpretations, but it will not lead people astray.
November 4th, 2012 | 2:18 pm
Anyone who has ever worked or lived in an environment where gay activism is in the ascendancy knows that it isn’t only about gay rights. I have worked and now work in a corporate environment where being pro-life is simply unacceptable and where rudeness and humiliation are practiced without restraint. I also live two miles from an aging suburb of Detroit which is now run on the strategies of politicial activism over Constitutional principles. At an antique shop I mentioned the extraordinary efforts made by the late Archbishop John Cardinal O’Connor who opened Catholic hospital wards to sick and dying men during the height of the AIDS epidemic in New York. I also mentioned that Cardinal O’Connor visited these wards once a week and sponge-bathed these men. The response was not one of gratitude but of knee-jerk ideological, strategic offense.
The good reverend knows this. I have little doubt he practices it. The very nature of this stunt — and it was a stunt — reveals that he has total contempt for orthodoxy and the Church. It is no longer about the hostility and violence that gays encountered. It is about power. It will remain about power. And that power is and will be abused. So finesse, intellectualize, fake outrage… whatever. But that is the truth.
November 4th, 2012 | 3:28 pm
Here’s something I have quoted a few times before from Frank J. Matera’s Romans(Paideia: Commentaries on the New Testament) that I think is extremely sensible and helpful in discussing the Bible (particularly Romans) and homosexuality. I have broken the text into paragraphs and added bullets for readability:
It is clear (to me at least) from reading Romans 1 that Paul is condemning idolatry, not homosexuality, although he is clearly assuming (not asserting) the wrongness of homosexuality. Romans 1 is no more “about” homosexuality than it is about “about” the vices in the following:
Paul is saying that this is what happens when people do not recognize God. He is also talking about the Gentiles as the object of the wrath of God. It is not that the Gentiles just do the things Paul has listed. God has “handed them over” to these things. It is their punishment for not recognizing God.
It would be absurd to say that Paul in any way looks favorably on homosexuality. Clearly he does not. But he is no more condemning homosexuality here than he is condemning envy, boastfulness, murder, or gossip. He is assuming they are wrong, and he is taking it for granted that his readers will be of the same opinion as he is—that everything he is naming is some kind of vice.
Exactly how we, as 21st century readers, are supposed to interpret God handing people over to vice is a question I don’t know the answer to. I think it is an important question for the interpretation of Romans, however. Another question is whether we are obliged to take for granted what Paul takes for granted. And yet another question is whether the behavior Paul is thinking of is similar enough to, say, the behavior of a same-sex married couple striving to be good Christians that—even if we do operate under the very same assumptions of Paul—we would consider that relationship the kind of thing Paul was talking about.
It is interesting to note that many people (I think), if asked what Romans 1 was about, would say it is about homosexuality. But it is not at all difficult to imagine the chapter making essentially the same point without mentioning homosexuality.
November 4th, 2012 | 3:54 pm
Hmmm… then it seems there must be some reason for him mentioning homosexuality, other than just supporting his main point.
Let’s be clear: this is not about condemning persons, or being ungracious toward them, or treating anyone as less than human or as less than ourselves. It’s about which moral choices are justifiable and supportable.
It’s not true, in spite of the sermons Snider gave on the topic, that there is nothing in the Bible about homosexual practice save five scattered verses. The Bible makes strong claims about sexual morality, it makes them authoritatively, and it says that sexual contact is to be confined to within the marriage relationship. Therefore sexual practices between two persons who are not married are always wrong, according to the clear and consistent witness of the Bible.
The Bible is also clear, from the first chapter of Genesis, through the message of Jesus Christ himself, and on through the epistles, that marriage is for man and woman, not for man and man or woman and woman.
Therefore there is no room for moral justification of homosexual practice.
Dr. Snider’s sermons are clear, compassionate, and well spoken, in spite of what I have described here as an error in exegesis (in my considered opinion). That’s a good model of the way we need to carry on our conversations. He invited thoughtfulness, not mockery.
That’s not what he did at the city council meeting. Of course if he had been less dramatic his message wouldn’t have been viewed millions of times. It also wouldn’t have elicited the many, many gleeful “gotcha” comments it did around the Internet.
Reading his sermons I don’t see Snider as a “gotcha” sort of thinker. I have to wonder if he regrets making a presentation that had that unthinking, theatrical effect on so many.
November 4th, 2012 | 4:19 pm
Do you believe that every conclusion concerning morality that’s drawn from the Bible is locked in time and space, and subject to correction by other biblical interpreters in other times and places?
This is a fascinating question, and what it calls to mind for me is the “original intent” of the Ten Commandments. For example, here’s a footnote to Exodus 20:13 (“You shall not kill”) in the New American Bible
So the “original intent” of you shall not kill was not a universal moral principle applying to all men and women. It was a rule in a tribal code not to kill another member of the tribe.
Similarly, according to the Jewish Study Bible, you shall not commit adultery “refers to voluntary sexual relations between a married or engaged woman and a man other than her husband. It did not refer to the extramarital relations of a married man (in polygamous societies a wife might share her husband with other wives and did not have an exclusive right to him).” We of course read this commandment today to condemn adultery as defined in this definition from the Merriam-Webster Unabridged dictionary (online): “voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband.” But the commandment did not condemn a married man having sex with an unmarried woman, a second wife, or a concubine.
The Bible (interpreted in the traditional Christian manner) seems clearly to condemn usury (the lending of money to be repaid with interest)—a practice without which we could not have our modern economy—but does not condemn slavery, which I don’t think any Christian anywhere in the world would try to defend today.
A relatively small point that I find to be quite fascinating is that clearly both the “Old Testament” and the New Testament uphold, in no uncertain terms, a prohibition against eating blood and meat not slaughtered in a kosher manner. See Acts 15:28-29:
John W. Martens has an interesting piece about this on the America web site.
November 4th, 2012 | 4:59 pm
Those are interesting comments, David. I’m still curious whether you believe that every moral conclusion drawn from the Bible is locked in time and space.
November 4th, 2012 | 5:25 pm
The Bible makes strong claims about sexual morality, it makes them authoritatively, and it says that sexual contact is to be confined to within the marriage relationship.
It does not seem to me to be nearly as simple as that. Some of the greatest figures in the Old Testament had multiple wives and/or concubines. While I wouldn’t want to put too much emphasis on it, Onan was struck dead by God for not impregnating his brother’s widow Tamar (even though though having sex with a brother’s wife or widow was considered incest), and Tamar is a heroine for disguising herself as a prostitute and tricking her father-in-law into getting her pregnant. Abraham had had an incestuous marriage (Sarah was his half sister) and had a concubine. I don’t find any suggestion in the Bible that Abraham was doing something wrong here. Lot’s daughters do not seem to be portrayed as doing something wrong when they think Lot is the last man on earth and get him drunk so they may become pregnant by him.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if anything in the Bible is crystal clear, it is Jesus pronouncing marriage indissoluble. He explicitly overrules permission given by Moses to divorce, and instead of coming down on one side of the controversy in first-century Judaism (could a man divorce a wife for any reason, or did it have to be a serious reason), Jesus says a man may not divorce his wife at all. This is something that conservative, Bible-believing Christians take to be an authentic teaching of Jesus, and it is also something liberal Christian scholars (or even non-Christian historians) take to be an authentic teaching of Jesus himself. And yet in many Christian denominations, divorce and remarriage are permitted!
It seems to me that if the indissolubility of marriage is debatable within Christianity despite the clarity of Jesus’s pronouncements in the Gospels, then it takes a considerable amount of chutzpah to accuse of sophistry those who put forward the possibility that homosexuality may not be condemned by the Bible. I think a stronger case can be made for the permissibility of homosexuality than divorce.
November 4th, 2012 | 5:48 pm
I’m still curious whether you believe that every moral conclusion drawn from the Bible is locked in time and space.
Tom Gilson,
I am not sure I understand exactly what the question means. It seems to me quite obvious that different conclusions are often drawn from the Bible in different ages, but also that different groups in the same age may draw different moral conclusions from the Bible. The example I discussed above is the permissibility of divorce. If it were not possible to interpret the Bible in many different ways, there would probably not be 38,000 different Christian denominations! Catholics and Protestants would not have fought wars with one another, burned each other as heretics, and gone entirely different ways on a multitude of different questions if there were one certain way of interpreting the Bible.
I think a great deal of what is called “interpreting the Bible” is looking to the Bible to support a position that is not really in the Bible, and I would say that the segregationists’s use of the Bible is a clear case of that. I think most Christians would probably agree, or I think they should acknowledge, that not everything “Bible-believing” Christians believe is actually found in the Bible. I was raised a Catholic, and though I don’t want to claim to speak for Catholics, it seems to me that the Bible is a product of the Church, not vice versa, and one of the reasons there are churches is that the Bible does not answer every question. And certainly things do change from one age to another (the role of women, for example, or notions about the divine right of kings) that require rethinking and reinterpretation or, in some cases, reversal. The attitude of Christians toward Jews is a good case of something that persisted for almost 2000 years and needed to be abandoned.
November 4th, 2012 | 6:10 pm
I would like to point out again that the issue at hand for Rev. Snider was not same-sex marriage or even the morality of homosexuality. We may find out from reading his sermons about the Bible that he has come to believe that homosexuality is permissible, but that is really a different issue from whether or not “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” should be included in the Springfield, Missouri, anti-discrimination laws. Establishing whether or not homosexuality is moral according to the Bible does not answer the question about what anti-discrimination laws ought to be, even for devout Christians. I think probably most Americans, and most Christians, believe gay people shouldn’t lose their jobs or be denied housing simply because they are gay. The question is not whether gay people who live a certain “lifestyle” are living immorally or not. The question is whether they are unfairly treated in certain public or semi-public (largely economic) transactions.
Bible-believing Christians (most of the, at least) would believe that Jews are profoundly mistaken in their beliefs, and would furthermore probably not want to see their children exposed to Jewish ideas that Jesus was not the Messiah, but unlike in times past, I think most Bible-believing Christians would not object to laws saying you can’t deny a Jew a house in a certain neighborhood or a job in a certain industry because that person is Jewish.
November 4th, 2012 | 7:08 pm
One further point. A great deal of the opposition to homosexuality and gay rights comes from people who believe they are defending Biblical morality, and I don’t question their sincerity. I do, however, wonder about their priorities. I don’t think we would even be having discussions about the permissibility of homosexuality if heterosexuals had not already arrogated to themselves the right to ignore Biblical morality when it suited them.
I remember a post by Joe Carter from about a year ago titled (Almost) Everyone’s Doing It in which this was reported:
When Evangelicals are having premarital sex at roughly the same rate as the general population, arguing against gay rights because the Bible says sex must take place only within marriage is a much weaker argument than if Evangelicals were postponing sex until marriage and gay people were pioneering the idea that sex outside of marriage is acceptable. When the out-of-wedlock birth rate is at 41% (73% for blacks, 53% for Latinos, and 29% for whites) and rising, it leaves me scratching my head as to how some people can be so worried that the 4% of the population who are gay are somehow going to have a bad influence on the other 96%! And it also leaves me scratching my head that those who are intensely concerned about homosexuality are generally also intensely concerned about abortion. For those who believe that life begins at conception and that over a million unborn children a year are being murdered, they might well consider concerning themselves more about the sexual behavior of straight people and less about gay people.
I agree with those who believe the decline in marriage and the increase in out-of-wedlock births is a catastrophe for the country, and it seems to me of such magnitude that it dwarfs any concerns one might have about same-sex marriage. And yet it seems to me that for every one articles we read about the decline of marriage, the divorce rate, the rate of out-of wedlock births, or the “hook-up” culture, we read ten articles about homosexuality and same-sex marriage. I understand that gay people have parades and that heterosexuals who want to engage in premarital sex do not. But gay people are only 4% of the population, and those who want to have sex outside of marriage, babies out of wedlock, and no-fault divorce have had such a staggering increase in their numbers in the past several decades that perhaps, even though they don’t have parades, a bit more publicity for the wave they are continuing to ride is in order.
November 4th, 2012 | 8:29 pm
David Nickol, you are a fantastic writer (I had no idea the context of Rev. Snider’s speech and assumed it had something to do with gay marriage.) I appreciate your insights in this case and on the place of biblical injunctions against same-sex sexual activity in the context of other prohibitions and in the context of the ultimate desecration of marriage (divorce and remarriage, which is done with impunity on a daily basis.) Each week in the newspaper (ok, it’s the New York Times), I read about weddings – of the 20 or so in a typical week, only 1 or 2 are same-sex weddings. And of the 18 which are not, roughly 2-3 are second marriages where “the bridegroom’s (or the bride’s) first marriage ended in divorce”.
Do you write elsewhere, or do you contribute exclusively to the First Things blog?
November 4th, 2012 | 9:28 pm
Gilson,
“Do you believe that every conclusion concerning morality that’s drawn from the Bible is locked in time and space, and subject to correction by other biblical interpreters in other times and places?”
Your question assumes that the Bible came first and then interpreters followed. History shows that the Church came first and selected which texts were sacred and how to interpret those texts, which passages would be taken literally, which figuratively, and which would be ignored or seen as outdated.
As David points out in another post, even the command “thou shalt not kill” has changed meaning.
The point that the Bible is less important than the community that interprets it means that it is extraordinarily important to choose the right community. Part of Snider’s point seems to be that it is all too easy to fall into the kind of crowd that uses the Bible to justify segregation and other forms of discrimination.
There are other kinds of community, however, that use the Bible to encourage Christians to embrace social outcasts as brothers and sisters. Those communities accepted blacks and now accept gays.
“It does not follow, by the way, that because someone is a pastor in a certain denomination he is guided by the Bible. There are unbelieving pastors and unbelieving denominations, with respect to the Bible. Many of them if asked would cheerfully describe themselves that way”
Logically, you’re right, of course, that being pastor doesn’t guarantee that you are guided by the Bible, but it’s uncharitable to presume that a pastor isn’t. I’m not sure what you gain by assuming that he does not believe in the truths of the Bible.
“Therefore sexual practices between two persons who are not married are always wrong, according to the clear and consistent witness of the Bible. The Bible is also clear, from the first chapter of Genesis, through the message of Jesus Christ himself, and on through the epistles, that marriage is for man and woman, not for man and man or woman and woman. Therefore there is no room for moral justification of homosexual practice”
I agree with your first statement that sex should occur within marriage. The Bible is (fairly) clear about that.
Your second statement—that marriage is for a man and a woman—is partially true. Marriage was certainly intended for man and woman, but Genesis and Jesus are both clear that the primary purpose of marriage is to unite what has been separated. A person leaves his or her family to seek the other part of his or herself. In 97 cases out of 100, that other part is found in a person of the opposite sex. But there are millions of other people who find the other part in a person of the same sex.
Christians used to tell such people that they were looking in the wrong place, and we used to tell them to learn to seek a member of the opposite sex, but we know more now, and it only makes sense to act on that new knowledge.
The only moral justification for homosexual practice is that it too be confined to marriage.
November 4th, 2012 | 9:33 pm
Combs,
I regret that gay and pro-choice activists are rude to and humiliate their opponents. I hope you recognize, however, that the power ploys you describe are common to every group and Christians are required to rise above them. You are rightly contemptuous of those who mock the kindness of Cardinal O’Connor, but you turn right around and question the motives of Reverend Snider about whom you know nothing. I think we all need to do a better job of respecting and understanding others.
November 4th, 2012 | 9:40 pm
David,
“Another question is whether we are obliged to take for granted what Paul takes for granted. And yet another question is whether the behavior Paul is thinking of is similar enough to, say, the behavior of a same-sex married couple striving to be good Christians that—even if we do operate under the very same assumptions of Paul—we would consider that relationship the kind of thing Paul was talking about”
I think you get to some important questions here. I’d put the question this way. Paul puts homosexuality in the same list that he does adultery and idolatry. Up until the last half century, most Christians viewed homosexuality as like adultery—something that destroyed marriages and something that could be fixed. A man or woman could be turned away from homosexuality just like they could be turned away from adultery and they could lead a normal, healthy married life.
But now that gays are living out in the open and now that it’s clear that many if not most gays cannot be turned back toward normal, heterosexual relationships and now that we see gays living in long, supportive, and monogamous couples, it is harder to treat homosexuality like adultery. You can even see this change in attitude toward homosexuality in the most recent Roman Catechism.
This change means that homosexuality is being increasingly treated like idolatry. There’s nothing morally wrong about idolatry. Idolaters can be perfectly moral people, they merely worship the wrong gods.
It’s inconceivable, however, that Paul thought of homosexuals as he did idolaters, and there’s no reason to think that we should.
“I think probably most Americans, and most Christians, believe gay people shouldn’t lose their jobs or be denied housing simply because they are gay.”
I think you’re right that most Americans want gays to find jobs and housing, but that’s a recent change, and many Christian conservatives want to be able to turn gays away from hotels and wedding services. The problem is that—as we learned during the Jim Crow era—it’s hard to discriminate only halfway. It tends toward all or nothing—slavery or freedom, the closet or freedom.
November 4th, 2012 | 10:19 pm
Michael, you say “Your second statement—that marriage is for a man and a woman—is partially true. Marriage was certainly intended for man and woman, but Genesis and Jesus are both clear that the primary purpose of marriage is to unite what has been separated.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t find that at all clear in Genesis, where along with marriage there was also instituted the command to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth; and where the introduction of Eve to Adam was not a uniting of what was separated—unless you really believe that the woman was ripped bodily out of the man, and marriage amounts to a repair of that breach—but of completing what was incomplete.
I don’t see it in Jesus, either. It certainly doesn’t follow from “what God has joined together….”
I also find it confusing that you think “there’s nothing morally wrong about idolatry.” Have you read Isaiah, Jeremiah, the first of the Ten Commandments?
Again, this raises questions for me as well:
Apparently you take it that the Church’s decisions on the canon were arbitrary, and that its interpretations have never been put to the question of whether they are supportable on good hermeneutical principles. If so you would be wrong on both counts.
I do of course agree that it’s wrong to deny gay people jobs or housing on account of their orientation. But there are limits. I hope you would agree, if it came up, that to expect a Christian minister to do what he believes cannot be done—to expect him to marry two people who cannot by nature be married—would be to violate Christian conscience.
And just out of curiosity, do you have any numbers on how many gays are living in long, supportive, monogamous relationships? Is it the norm? Not according to the information I’ve seen.
November 4th, 2012 | 10:26 pm
David, your question about priorities seems to me to be pointed in a rather skewed direction.
Every church with which I have been involved has made it a very strong point to support faithfulness in marriage and chastity outside of marriage. It has never been a low priority, in my experience. It has only been a less public priority than the gay-rights issue, simply because there has never been a pro-adultery or pro-unchastity lobby making it a public issue.
You say,
I daresay that for every sermon preached on homosexuality and same-sex marriage there are ten preached on marriage and heterosexual morality. For every church/parachurch conference on homosexuality, I would gladly bet there are a hundred for the purpose of strengthening marriage.
I find it odd that the church is taken to task for bringing this issue into public debate. We didn’t put it on the agenda there, but since someone did, it’s entirely appropriate for us to meet them there for the the discussion.
Is there a problem with the church’s practice in heterosexual relationships? Certainly. Does it hurt our credibility on issues like this one? Of course. But not every Christian is guilty as charged; and the church is not required by strategy or by principle to win on one front before having the right to engage on another.
November 4th, 2012 | 10:26 pm
Ah, but homosexuality is still idolatry. As the theology of the body reveals, heterosexual marriages mirror God’s own betrothal to humankind and heterosexual relations mirror Christ’s self-giving sacrifice and one-flesh communion. Indeed, some temple cults of the time were known for engaging in acts of sodomy in their worship to other gods. Today’s acts of sodomy do no less. It may not be conscious. As unconscious as when a atheist looks after the poor or forgives his enemy because his culture has adopted thousands of years of Christian tradition. But it is still an act of idolatry, a material display to undermine the true worship to the true god.
November 4th, 2012 | 11:40 pm
Gilson,
“I’m sorry, but I don’t find that at all clear in Genesis, where along with marriage there was also instituted the command to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth”
You’re thinking of Genesis 1, which is about creation and which contains the commandment to multiply. Genesis 2 is about marriage and why we seek it. Here’s a condensed version:
“Yahweh God said, ‘It is not right that the man should be alone. I shall make him a helper.’ Then, Yahweh God made the man fall into a deep sleep. Yahweh God fashioned the rib he had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man. And the man said: This one at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh! She is to be called Woman, because she was taken from Man. This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and they become one flesh.”
Notice that Genesis 2 doesn’t think of sexuality as primarily concerned with reproduction. Sex is about ending loneliness, finding a helper, and finding the other part of yourself. Genesis even hints at something scandalous about marriage, that it tears us away from the families we were born into.
“the introduction of Eve to Adam was not a uniting of what was separated—unless you really believe that the woman was ripped bodily out of the man, and marriage amounts to a repair of that breach—but of completing what was incomplete”
No, I don’t literally believe the rib story. It’s a just-so story that explains why children leave their families—their own flesh and blood—and transfer their loyalty to some man or woman that is not even related to them. The rib story is Genesis’s way of suggesting that the relation between husband and wife is deeper than any blood relation. The gay couples I admire share the same conviction that their union is as deep as the one I have with my wife and that Adam had with Eve. They believe they were somehow made for each other.
“I don’t see it in Jesus, either.”
In his teaching on divorce, Jesus refers to Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. Genesis 2 explains what marriage is at its deepest level.
“I also find it confusing that you think “there’s nothing morally wrong about idolatry.” Have you read Isaiah, Jeremiah, the first of the Ten Commandments?”
I’m having trouble explaining this point, so perhaps you can help make a distinction that makes sense to you. Idolatry is not so much immoral as it is a mistake. You are worshipping the wrong god, but that mistake doesn’t necessarily mean that you will be immoral and commit adultery, lie, thieve, kill, etc. Idolatry is about failing to recognize the one, true God. That failure will not necessarily hurt you, your family, friends, and community the way that other immoralities do. Does that distinction make more sense?
“Apparently you take it that the Church’s decisions on the canon were arbitrary, and that its interpretations have never been put to the question of whether they are supportable on good hermeneutical principles. If so you would be wrong on both counts”
Why would you assume that I think the Church’s decisions were arbitrary? I’m just stating how it happened, and I think the Roman Church understands that history as I do.
“I do of course agree that it’s wrong to deny gay people jobs or housing on account of their orientation.”
The fact that you say, “of course,” indicates how far you’ve come away from the teaching of most Christians a century ago. My grandparents believed in being polite to gays, but they openly shared their disapproval of gays and didn’t socialize with them. Gays were to be shunned. My parents would socialize with them but would not accept them nor become close. I think they would have had trouble had anyone gay asked for housing or a job, and I think their gay acquaintances knew better than to ask.
“I hope you would agree, if it came up, that to expect a Christian minister to do what he believes cannot be done—to expect him to marry two people who cannot by nature be married—would be to violate Christian conscience”
I wonder why this question of forcing ministers to marry gay couples always comes up. Despite the great strides of feminism, the Roman and Orthodox Churches have been allowed to discriminate against women’s advancement in those churches without restraint. Why would anyone care whether a particular church wants to marry gay couples? The issue is why some churches want to deny the right of civil marriage to all citizens.
“And just out of curiosity, do you have any numbers on how many gays are living in long, supportive, monogamous relationships?”
I belong to a Methodist reconciling congregation where we accept gays and lesbians fully and lovingly. We’re a small congregation that takes its faith seriously. There are few divorces and fewer remarriages. We have a number of gay and lesbian couples that have been together ten, fifteen, and even twenty-five years, some with children and some without. In discipleship groups, on retreats, as well as in informal gatherings, we have strengthened each other’s relationships and parenting. The raw number of gays living this way is far less important than the transforming effect that Christian living has on all couples that live it.
November 4th, 2012 | 11:41 pm
Charles,
“But it is still an act of idolatry, a material display to undermine the true worship to the true god”
I think you’re confusing literal idol worship with something metaphorical, but I’m not inclined to engage someone who begins by accusing people of dishonesty (“I reject your dishonest, self-serving claim of discrimination”) or with name-calling (“the adherents of the Intolerant Secularism Synod”).
I think we’ve had enough of such behavior.
November 5th, 2012 | 1:20 am
In my www searching for the actual origin of the aphorism “error has no rights,” I came across this interesting 2003 interview with Rev. Richard John Neuhaus: http://www.zenit.org/article-8747?l=english
He says:
And that was my point. Persons have rights: to freedom of speech, to privacy, etc. It might be that these rights are correctly invoked to cover cases of error. We could say, for example, that freedom of speech involves the right to say things that are objectively false. Yet we can also maintain that there is no absolute right to err. This is actually a fairly obvious point: for example, universities regularly discriminate on the basis of good grades and test scores.
Objections such as “error is a category (of things) that cannot be said to have rights” are facile and lacking in English reading comprehension. Obviously (well, obvious to me, anyway) it’s not meant to suggest that statements or acts in themselves have or do not have rights (as that is nonsensical); rather, what is meant is that the human enactment of error is not something that should ever be recognized as a right, as such.
Thus we can say, as Christians, that homosexual propaganda should be tolerated because of the right of freedom of speech, but not because of a right to be homosexual. Adultery might be tolerated legally because of a right to privacy, but not because of an inherent right to adultery. Etc.
And so we can see how same-sex “marriage” crosses a certain line from tolerance into active approval. It is no longer that homosexuals are left alone. It becomes, instead, an active approval by the state.
A man has the right to call himself a mathematician and at the same time maintain that 2+2=6. He enjoys the right of freedom of speech, although it could be argued he abuses it to some extent. However, university mathematics departments do not infringe on that right by saying, “No, sorry, that’s wrong, you can’t teach here.” His error is not itself a right, only his ability to speak it.
That is what is meant, I think, by “error has no rights.” I wasn’t able to ever find out its locus classicus — it seems, as far as I can tell, to have originated as a sort of summary of Pope Leo XIII’s “Libertas.”
November 5th, 2012 | 7:26 am
Ah, but homosexuality is still idolatry.
Charles,
It seems to me you want to use idolatry as defined here in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
That would be fine for any number of purposes, but it gets us nowhere in interpreting the first chapter of Romans. The Catechism is not telling us what Paul understood idolatry to be. Paul would not have said that homosexuality was idolatry. He was making a familiar Jewish argument that idolatry was the ultimate cause of all evil.
November 5th, 2012 | 8:30 am
Charles –
Let’s assume you’re right. How are you going to make a law against idolatry – or idolaters – that will pass Constitutional muster?
November 5th, 2012 | 11:14 am
Patrick –
Okay, fine. Now, why should people who are not (your kind of?) Christian agree with you, or – more to the point – be legally compelled to follow the strictures you’ve assented to?
What rights are you willing to concede to us benighted, erroneous non-Christians, exactly?
And the Orthodox Union only certifies food as kosher if it meets their criteria. (David has pointed out Acts 15:28-29 above, note.)
But – universities and religious certification programs are not the government. Should the government mandate that all food be kosher? (Maybe you’d settle for halal, which is a bit less restrictive?)
November 5th, 2012 | 11:28 am
I’ll have to say that even though I sympathize with Patrick’s position in general, I don’t know exactly what he means about having or not having right to be homosexual. I don’t think that he would deny that we all have the right to be sinners; and “being homosexual” isn’t sin anyway, it’s extramarital sex (or the lust associated with it, per Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount) that is the sin.
November 5th, 2012 | 11:30 am
Having said that, I want to add that Ray Ingles’ argument stands or falls on whether opposition to same-sex “marriage” depends on one’s religious beliefs. It doesn’t.
November 5th, 2012 | 12:50 pm
Tom Gilson –
Two points:
1. I didn’t make a full argument here; rather, I asked some questions. If you want something closer to a full argument, see, e.g. here.
2. In practice, it sure seems as though religious belief has a whole lot to do with how people come down on that (and related issues).
November 5th, 2012 | 3:03 pm
Can a compelling case be made against same-sex marriage that does not rely on at least the implicit argument that that marriage between a man and a woman is what God intended? Suppose, for the sake of argument, there is no God. What is the compelling argument against same-sex marriage?
November 5th, 2012 | 3:05 pm
Dostoyevski provided a blanket answer to this question long ago: If there is no God, then everything is permitted.
November 5th, 2012 | 3:11 pm
I don’t think that he would deny that we all have the right to be sinners; and “being homosexual” isn’t sin anyway, it’s extramarital sex (or the lust associated with it, per Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount) that is the sin.
Tom Gilson,
The way I understand the term, an unmarried person cannot have extramarital sex, which is sex outside of a person’s existing marriage (adultery). In jurisdictions where there is no same-sex marriage, or for people who do not recognize same-sex marriage as “real” marriage, I suppose it would make sense to call homosexual sex “nonmarital sex.” When there is no possibility of getting married, I don’t think it makes sense to speak of premarital sex.
. . . . it’s extramarital sex (or the lust associated with it, per Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount) that is the sin.
I think the Catholic Church is on the right track in making a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual behavior. It is not a sin to have a homosexual orientation, and people of both heterosexual or homosexual orientations can commit the sin of lust. It is unjust to assume a person with a homosexual orientation is guilty of lust just because of his or her orientation.
Nondiscrimination laws that include sexual orientation protect gay people and straight people alike. They also protect people who are not gay from being discriminated against by people who mistake them as being gay. They protect people with a homosexual orientation who earnestly wish they did not have such an orientation and who lead perfectly chaste lives.
November 5th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
Dostoyevski provided a blanket answer to this question long ago: If there is no God, then everything is permitted.
Tom Gilson,
If that is indeed the case, and if laws in the United States must have a secular purpose, then it would seem to me there are no good legal arguments against same-sex marriage. If the only reason to prohibit same-sex marriage is that God did not intend for people of the same sex to marry each other, then the opposition to same-sex marriage is religious.
Every so often when someone asserts that being pro-life is a religious position, it is pointed out that Nat Hentoff, culturally Jewish but religiously an atheist, is strongly pro-life. If without God everything is permitted, Nat Hentoff (and other atheists or believers in higher powers other than the Christian God) are just unaware that they hold untenable positions, and consequently ought not to be held up as good examples.
Once again, though, I would like to point out that the issue at hand where Rev. Snider spoke was nondiscrimination, not same-sex marriage or even the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality.
November 5th, 2012 | 3:32 pm
Just one further thought. When the Catholic Church makes its argument that moral truths should be knowable through the use of reason alone, I think they are making the same argument that Paul makes in Romans, and that is not that morality is based on reason, but rather reason even without divine revelation should make God’s existence apparent to all, and with the knowledge of God, reason should be able to arrive at conclusions about morality that are ultimately based on belief in God. So the Catholic Church and Paul are not arguing that moral truths are knowable by reason alone. They are arguing that God and his plans for humanity are knowable by reason alone, and a person should know from reason alone that he or she should be, in effect, religious.
November 5th, 2012 | 3:40 pm
David Nickol,
You suggest that “If the only reason to prohibit same-sex marriage is that God did not intend for people of the same sex to marry each other, then the opposition to same-sex marriage is religious.” That’s not the case; it’s not what the Dostoyevski quote in particular is meant to convey. If there is no God, then there is nothing in the structure of reality that makes anything right or wrong. That’s not dependent on religion—humans’ expression of their search for God, their relationship with God, or whatever you take religion to be. It’s dependent on the way reality is, independent of any human belief, opinion, organization, or institution.
Atheists indeed hold untenable meta-ethical positions. That’s not to say their ethics are wrong, in practice or (on some identifiable level) even in theory. It is rather to say that at some point in the analysis one will find that they are imposing genuine, humanly-knowable ethical principles upon an ontological substrate that cannot support them.
Nevertheless if a Nat Hentoff starts from some other level of analysis and reaches conclusions we agree with, we can agree with such a person.
And once again, I would like to point at that the issue at hand in my view of Dr. Snider’s presentation was his distortion of Scripture and of scriptural hermeneutics to make his point.
November 5th, 2012 | 3:40 pm
Tom Gilson –
With all due respect to the famous Russian author, perhaps he overstated things a tad.
If nothing else, few people claim that Dostoyevski was God, or divinely inspired. And thus it might be imaginable that some might think it possible to disagree with a quote of his, however pithy.
Besides, we don’t have to go as far as denying God. What if someone has a different conception of what God wants? There do exist churches willing to solemnize gay marriages today. Why should their religious freedom be oppressed?
November 5th, 2012 | 3:42 pm
Well, of course, Ray. David asked a question, and I gave an answer that I believe was not only pithy but also accurate. The case could be argued, but it would take us far afield.
November 5th, 2012 | 7:07 pm
Thanks for the suggestions. However, as any scholar of Neuhaus knows, intolerant secularists are known for setting biased standards and inherently self-serving definitions to limit debate. They do so to paint themselves as the rational ones without having to rationalize or justify the definitions or standards. It is necessary to call out the intolerant secularist on their power grab to allow a debate on equal terms.
November 6th, 2012 | 5:23 am
David Nichol asks
“Can a compelling case be made against same-sex marriage that does not rely on at least the implicit argument that that marriage between a man and a woman is what God intended?”
Yes. Mandatory civil marriage was a product of the French Revolution. It was introduced on 9 November 1791, by the same assembly that had just turned ten million landless peasants into heritable proprietors. Neither that law, nor the Code of 1804 defined marriage, but Article 312 “The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father” has been treated as a functional definition by jurists, including the three most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925) and Gaudemet (1908-2001), long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated.
No-one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler and less intrusive means have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of parenthood coincide.
In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples in the following year.
The argument is (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation, enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation.
November 6th, 2012 | 8:26 am
Michael PS –
Well, two out of three ain’t bad: http://www.thurmanarnold.com/Practice-Areas/Family-Law-Statutes-Page/Family-Code-section-7646-Time-to-Challenge-Pater.aspx“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a judgment establishing paternity may be set aside or vacated upon a motion by the previously established mother of a child, the previously established father of a child, the child, or the legal representative of any of these persons if genetic testing indicates that the previously established father of a child is not the biological father of the child.”
November 6th, 2012 | 8:32 am
Tom Gilson –
Let me know when you’re prepared to actually argue the case, I’ll be glad to tackle it with you. (I do suggest you check the links I gave before you do so, though.)
November 6th, 2012 | 9:10 am
If you’re a regular visitor you’ll know if I bring it up for discussion it here, or you could find where I’ve already done so at my Thinking Christian blog. I’ve interacted with Harris’s ideas at length.
November 6th, 2012 | 11:58 am
Tom Gilson – Sadly, not anywhere I could comment or critique. “Comments close automatically on articles more than 120 days old.” Oh, well.
November 11th, 2012 | 6:11 pm
[...] what exactly was his point? This article at First Things that describes his speech as “brilliant theatre in service of a distortion” raises some very valid questions. I do not mean to take anything away from his dramatic [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact