Rob Monti,
Your Favorite MonT-SteR!
Blogs with
MonT-SteR Appeal
Alpha & Omega Min.
Atheism Presupposes Theism
Atheism Sucks!
Christians Behaving Badly
Come Reason Ministries
Facing the Challenge
His Hand is On the Door
Let's Try Freedom
ProLifeBlogs
The Thinklings
World Magazine Blog
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Bible tweets?
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
David Schuster of MSNBC made a number of tweets today (if you don't know what that is, go here) decrying Miss California's stance on gay marriage. In essence, he cited several verses from Leviticus in an attempt to demonstrate that Christians are guilty of cherry picking Biblical prohibitions in order to justify their “bigotry” vis-à-vis homosexuality. The argument goes like this: Christians are happy to ignore all sorts of strange and arcane prohibitions in Leviticus, but they capriciously fixate on the prohibition against homosexuality in Lev. 18:22; if the other prohibitions can be licitly ignored with advantage, there's no good reason to regard Lev. 18:22 as binding either.
This is actually a common argument, and on its face it has the appearance of merit. Unfortunately, it doesn't take into account the various categories of law contained in the Mosaic books. Some directly enumerate universal principles that transcend culture (e.g., the Decalogue in Exodus 20). Others apply these universal principles to Israel's cultural setting; as such, the application cited in the Law is necessarily occasional. In other words, even though the transcendent principle behind certain cultural prohibitions is itself inviolate, we wouldn't expect it to be applied the exact same way in every cultural context. The task for the modern biblical interpreter is to do the legwork necessary to tell the difference and live accordingly.
For example, Schuster cites Lev. 19:27, which “expressly forbids men from getting their hair trimmed.” In our culture, this seems patently absurd. Most men shave daily before they go to work as a simple matter of personal hygiene and professionalism; to suggest that we are offending God by doing so smacks of lunacy. But the men of the cultures surrounding Israel commonly shaved their hair and beards for occultic purposes (this could be inferred from the context, especially given vv. 26 and 28). Thus, Lev. 19:27 isn't an arbitrary and silly prohibition; it is, rather, a culturally-attuned application of the universal, Decalogic proscriptions against idolatry and worshiping other gods.
A couple more statements by Schuster, intermingled with my comments:
- If a narrow read of the bible is the last word on “marriage,” what about bible based condemnations of cosmetic surgery?
It's certainly valid to consider whether or not cosmetic surgery is biblically sanctioned, but does he really mean to suggest that breast implants and homosexuality are morally equivalent? I hope not... - Lev. 19:19 forbids planting two different crops in the same field or wearing two different kinds of thread Penalty? Lev. 24:10-16 death.
Here, Schuster makes a common error by reading these verses sheerly through the lens of modern experience and sensibilities. In order to make sense of the Bible—particularly the OT—we have to make an effort to understand the milieu of the ancient Near East (ANE). In a nutshell, Israel was an agrarian culture utterly dependent on a good harvest for its very survival. If Schuster's going to invoke modernity with respect to Lev 19:19, he might do well to observe that modern farmers judiciously avoid planting corn, wheat, and soybeans together in the same field. Perhaps science and experience have taught us that mingling crops ruins both harvest and subsequent generations of seed. If so, God's prohibition takes into account the fact that such activity in ancient Israel would not only threaten livelihood, but life itself. I don't know about you, but I can understand why a God who cares for His people would tell them in no uncertain terms, “Do NOT do this.”
I daresay, Mr. Schuster, that Lev. 18:22 is no exception.
Blessings,
Rob
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: apologetics, bible study, Christianity, David Schuster, homosexuality, MSNBC
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
A pro-gay apologists errors
My wife and I have both embarked on a journey of healing with God in recent years. We are grateful to Him for the gentle mercy and kindness He has chosen to shower our lives with during this time. Nevertheless, we have found that the path to wholeness can occasionaly be arduous and harrowing. God's healing touch requires that we acknowledge and face the darkness in our souls, whatever its nature may be. This is no easy task, because wounded people are very adept at running from their own darkness, at covering it with every manner of "medication" in a feeble (and sinful) attempt to deaden the gnawing pain that festers deep within. Owning up to the the fact that we've coddled and hidden from our darkness has been a struggle at times, but neither of us would trade this season we are in for anything. We have come to know God as our loving Father in ways that we had never dreamed. A corresponding freedom comes with this knowledge. When we obediently face the freezing, stinking shroud that smothers the inner life and view it through God's eyes, we open ourselves to the innate subversiveness of His light and freedom. They invade and conquer inner darkness like the small amount of leaven that works all the way through a lump of dough.
As leaders in the church, our own experiences with inner-healing have sensitized us to the rampant brokenness that exists among Christians. We are often wont to probe the writings and methodologies of those who are learned and seasoned in healing ministry in order to augment our own ministry "tool belts." Aware of this, a friend of ours gave us a copy of Leanne Payne's The Broken Image, which details the power of healing prayer to undo woundedness and usher God's redeeming power into damaged souls--particularly in relation to the emotional and spiritual pathologies that contribute to homosexuality. In fact, Ms. Payne's counseling experience has led her to the conclusion that, as disorders of the mind and heart go, homosexuality is surprisingly simple to deal with.
Now, before I proceed, I wish to make a disclaimer. I can tell from Ms. Payne's book that she is among the kindliest of souls, and her passion for ministering wholeness and freedom to others certainly resonates with me. Her success in ministering to practitioners of homosexuality is impressive, heartwarming, and faith-building. I do not, however, agree with her healing methodology in toto. Ms. Payne does not hesitate to employ visualization with her patients, which I view as dangerously subjective in healing ministry situations. Ms. Payne knows full well that anyone working through woundedness encounters profound difficulty in objectively apprehending the truth about their own condition and how God views it. For this reason, I believe it is much safer and healthier to facilitate an environment where God is free to initiate the impartation of objective information--whether it conveys a sense of His love and acceptance or the reason why a victim suffered abuse--by His Spirit. Our relationship with God is necessarily an admixture of His objective activity in our lives and our subjective experience of it. There is far less room for error if we completely trust Him to be the proactive one in a healing ministry context.
Now, with that out of the way, on to the point of this post.
Out of curiosity, I recently went to Amazon.com to see what other readers had to say about Ms. Payne's book, and found the followingpropaganda review:
Having read Ms. Payne's book through at least twice, I can say with certainty that this reviewer grievously mischaracterizes her positions. For example, the reviewer accuses Ms. Payne of relying on the "'old shoe' theory of a maladaptive relationship with the father" to explain the occurrence of homosexuality. This is hopelessly reductionistic. An objective reader would tell you that her explication of causal factors eventuating in same-sex attraction, while including maladaptive relationships with parents, is far more nuanced and complex. My hunch is that the reviewer proceeded from his own prejudice against Christian notions of "reparative therapy" without giving Ms. Payne's book a fair reading.
The reviewer also made one general assertion about Christians that I want to address in some detail:
This means that homosexuality is merely one of many symptoms stemming from unredeemed, human sinfulness. That is not the end of the story, however, because God does not leave us to wallow in our wretched estate. The message of Christianity is that our unredeemed nature is not God's ideal for us. We were originally made in His image and likeness, and His intent is to recover through Jesus Christ what our own sin and the sin of others have so marred and twisted. To the homosexual, Ms. Payne says, "Your broken, sinful self has eventuated in homosexual acts. Your true, liberated, and fulfilled self is to be found in Christ Jesus. Living in Him necessitates that you eschew--by His grace and power--that which is contrary to His nature. In uniting yourself with Him, He in turn works His righteousness and truth in you, so that you can work it out through what you do, think, and say." Or, to put it another way, "You are currently doing what you are, but God wants to make you new so you can live differently."
The reviewer I have cited above would no doubt dispute much of what I have said here. Nevertheless, his original comment is based on an erroneous understanding of Christianity. I suspect that he would still take issue with the notion that homosexuality is rooted ultimately in the sinfulness of humanity. On that count he is arguing not with me, but with thousands of years of inspired holy writ.
Blessings,
Rob Monti
aka The MonT-SteR
My wife and I have both embarked on a journey of healing with God in recent years. We are grateful to Him for the gentle mercy and kindness He has chosen to shower our lives with during this time. Nevertheless, we have found that the path to wholeness can occasionaly be arduous and harrowing. God's healing touch requires that we acknowledge and face the darkness in our souls, whatever its nature may be. This is no easy task, because wounded people are very adept at running from their own darkness, at covering it with every manner of "medication" in a feeble (and sinful) attempt to deaden the gnawing pain that festers deep within. Owning up to the the fact that we've coddled and hidden from our darkness has been a struggle at times, but neither of us would trade this season we are in for anything. We have come to know God as our loving Father in ways that we had never dreamed. A corresponding freedom comes with this knowledge. When we obediently face the freezing, stinking shroud that smothers the inner life and view it through God's eyes, we open ourselves to the innate subversiveness of His light and freedom. They invade and conquer inner darkness like the small amount of leaven that works all the way through a lump of dough.
As leaders in the church, our own experiences with inner-healing have sensitized us to the rampant brokenness that exists among Christians. We are often wont to probe the writings and methodologies of those who are learned and seasoned in healing ministry in order to augment our own ministry "tool belts." Aware of this, a friend of ours gave us a copy of Leanne Payne's The Broken Image, which details the power of healing prayer to undo woundedness and usher God's redeeming power into damaged souls--particularly in relation to the emotional and spiritual pathologies that contribute to homosexuality. In fact, Ms. Payne's counseling experience has led her to the conclusion that, as disorders of the mind and heart go, homosexuality is surprisingly simple to deal with.
Now, before I proceed, I wish to make a disclaimer. I can tell from Ms. Payne's book that she is among the kindliest of souls, and her passion for ministering wholeness and freedom to others certainly resonates with me. Her success in ministering to practitioners of homosexuality is impressive, heartwarming, and faith-building. I do not, however, agree with her healing methodology in toto. Ms. Payne does not hesitate to employ visualization with her patients, which I view as dangerously subjective in healing ministry situations. Ms. Payne knows full well that anyone working through woundedness encounters profound difficulty in objectively apprehending the truth about their own condition and how God views it. For this reason, I believe it is much safer and healthier to facilitate an environment where God is free to initiate the impartation of objective information--whether it conveys a sense of His love and acceptance or the reason why a victim suffered abuse--by His Spirit. Our relationship with God is necessarily an admixture of His objective activity in our lives and our subjective experience of it. There is far less room for error if we completely trust Him to be the proactive one in a healing ministry context.
Now, with that out of the way, on to the point of this post.
Out of curiosity, I recently went to Amazon.com to see what other readers had to say about Ms. Payne's book, and found the following
As a licensed psychotherapist it is disturbing to see that "christian" writers must attempt to vilify homosexuality in the name of "love." Bigotry and lack of scientific evidence wrapped in the Bible is still bigotry. What all believers in "reparative therapy" (disavowed by the APA and the overwhelming majority of mental health professionals) cannot grasp is that behavior does not equal identity. Certainly heterosexuality is not defined only by it's erotic states. This "old shoe" theory of a maladaptive relationship with the father simply doesn't hold water in scientific studies. Also of note, is the "relapse" of the notable names in reparative therapy, (John Paulk among others.) Mainstream mental health professionals (heathens to the likes of Ms. Payne) believe that anyone can temporarily change sexual behavior, bisexuals for example. But behavior change does not equal identity change. Promoting that it does, is the big lie of christian counseling. (...)Payne and her ilk, (dispite growing evidence to the contrary) refuse to even consider the possibility that God created homosexuals. This does not fit into the evangelical rigid black and white thinking. Sadly, the clients I see have been tortured by this "Christian love", and are seeking a real path to heightened self-esteem through acceptance of themselves exactly as they are.Well, my goodness!
Having read Ms. Payne's book through at least twice, I can say with certainty that this reviewer grievously mischaracterizes her positions. For example, the reviewer accuses Ms. Payne of relying on the "'old shoe' theory of a maladaptive relationship with the father" to explain the occurrence of homosexuality. This is hopelessly reductionistic. An objective reader would tell you that her explication of causal factors eventuating in same-sex attraction, while including maladaptive relationships with parents, is far more nuanced and complex. My hunch is that the reviewer proceeded from his own prejudice against Christian notions of "reparative therapy" without giving Ms. Payne's book a fair reading.
The reviewer also made one general assertion about Christians that I want to address in some detail:
What all believers in "reparative therapy" ... cannot grasp is that behavior does not equal identity. Certainly heterosexuality is not defined only by it's [sic] erotic states.First of all, the reviewer is dead wrong about Christianity's failure to draw a bifurcation between behavior and identity. The very notion of salvation by grace through faith (Eph. 2:8)--a core tenet of Christian belief and practice--necessitates that behavior and identity (i.e., the personal aspect of an individual regarded as a persisting entity) remain distinct from one another. If it were true that we are what we do, then our deeds would define us. One who performs good deeds would be able to make a claim upon God for favor and salvation: "I am a doer of good, therefore I am good." The Bible, however, teaches us that (1) we are, by virtue of the universal fall of humanity, evil by nature; (2) as a result, even the good deeds we do are like filthy rags; (3) the pandemic of inner human wickedness, while perhaps masked at best by our good deeds, always belies them before God. Our good deeds can never sponge away the unresolved rebellion against God that every one of us is guilty of. Moreover, our evil deeds are merely consistent with the evil nature that precedes them. We are not what we do. The reverse is true: we do what we are, whether our nature is good or evil. This is the truth behind Philippians 2:12-13:
Work out your salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.For those who are new creations in Christ, the identity is indissolubly bound up with that of Jesus Himself. The challenge is to be in deed what God has made us in nature: righteous.
This means that homosexuality is merely one of many symptoms stemming from unredeemed, human sinfulness. That is not the end of the story, however, because God does not leave us to wallow in our wretched estate. The message of Christianity is that our unredeemed nature is not God's ideal for us. We were originally made in His image and likeness, and His intent is to recover through Jesus Christ what our own sin and the sin of others have so marred and twisted. To the homosexual, Ms. Payne says, "Your broken, sinful self has eventuated in homosexual acts. Your true, liberated, and fulfilled self is to be found in Christ Jesus. Living in Him necessitates that you eschew--by His grace and power--that which is contrary to His nature. In uniting yourself with Him, He in turn works His righteousness and truth in you, so that you can work it out through what you do, think, and say." Or, to put it another way, "You are currently doing what you are, but God wants to make you new so you can live differently."
The reviewer I have cited above would no doubt dispute much of what I have said here. Nevertheless, his original comment is based on an erroneous understanding of Christianity. I suspect that he would still take issue with the notion that homosexuality is rooted ultimately in the sinfulness of humanity. On that count he is arguing not with me, but with thousands of years of inspired holy writ.
Blessings,
Rob Monti
aka The MonT-SteR
Labels: Christianity, homosexuality, inner healing
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
Gay marriage redux
My hometown newspaper, the Cumberland Times-News, has been a hotbed of debate on the issue of gay marriage lately. After reading some of the letters to the editor, I was inspired to write the following. It's not overtly Christian, but it does raise important questions that (I hope) will inspire people to question their presuppositions (particularly as they relate to God and objective morality). I plan to submit this to the Times-News for their consideration. Readers of The MonT-SteR REPORT will be among the first to know if it's printed.
Answer the Questions Gay Marriage Raises with Care
Rogue mayors and presidential politics have renewed the debate about gay marriage with fresh fervor. Impassioned appeals, both pro and con, are made every day; but the shrill rancor of our national debate has drowned out reason. Those who object to gay marriage on religious grounds are frequently marginalized. Proponents of gay marriage, who have undoubtedly received more than their own share of name-calling, gleefully hurl rude epithets like "zealot," "bigot," or "hate-monger" at people of faith who decry homosexuality. On the other hand, many believers hotly (and wrongly) denounce homosexuals as those who practice an incomparably execrable sin -- one that renders them irremediably godless and subversive to home and hearth. A meeting of minds and hearts is impossible in such a poisoned atmosphere.
We need to calm down and consider: this issue is much larger than personal rights and finger pointing. It speaks to fundamental logical and existential questions about the human condition. Namely, what is objectively normal, healthy human behavior? Is there such a thing? If so, how do we determine what "normal" is? If not, what does that mean for us as a society? Do we attempt to invent, define, and impose an artificial standard of normalcy by consensus, or do we abandon the very notion of "normal" and leave us all to our own individual devices and proclivities? Most importantly, are the answers to these questions intrinsic to humanity, or are they transcendent, requiring us to look beyond ourselves for wisdom and guidance?
In their outworking, all ideas inevitably produce tangible, practical consequences. Thus, the manner in which we answer the question "What is normal?" has far reaching implications. From a logical perspective, that we are even considering whether or not gay marriage should be culturally and constitutionally licit means that the very idea of objective normalcy hangs in the balance. If monogamous, heterosexual marriage is not exclusively normal, then where does our idea of normal begin and end? Some psychologists have recently suggested that children might actually benefit from a sexual relationship with a pedophile. Like it or not, these psychologists are using the rubric of "normalcy" to legitimize pedophelia. Once we discard what have been considered normal parameters for human relational and sexual interaction by embracing gay marriage, can we reasonably tell pedophiles, polygamists, and practitioners of bestiality that what they do is abnormal and undeserving of cultural or legal sanction? Moreover, if we reject the traditional understanding of normalcy vis-a-vis marriage, what does that mean for other categories of normalcy? How can we tell what is exclusively normal, moral, and good if we are constantly subjecting these things to inclusive redefinition? What meaning can notions of right and wrong have in such an environment?
America must debate the issue of gay marriage, but in doing so we have already opened Pandora's box. Take care, ladies and gentlemen, how you answer these questions. For my own part, I fear for our nation if we abandon objective -- yes, even transcendent -- normalcy. To do so is to embrace a destructive, imperialistic moral anarchy with debauching tentacles that will reach far beyond the question of gay marriage.
My hometown newspaper, the Cumberland Times-News, has been a hotbed of debate on the issue of gay marriage lately. After reading some of the letters to the editor, I was inspired to write the following. It's not overtly Christian, but it does raise important questions that (I hope) will inspire people to question their presuppositions (particularly as they relate to God and objective morality). I plan to submit this to the Times-News for their consideration. Readers of The MonT-SteR REPORT will be among the first to know if it's printed.
Answer the Questions Gay Marriage Raises with Care
Rogue mayors and presidential politics have renewed the debate about gay marriage with fresh fervor. Impassioned appeals, both pro and con, are made every day; but the shrill rancor of our national debate has drowned out reason. Those who object to gay marriage on religious grounds are frequently marginalized. Proponents of gay marriage, who have undoubtedly received more than their own share of name-calling, gleefully hurl rude epithets like "zealot," "bigot," or "hate-monger" at people of faith who decry homosexuality. On the other hand, many believers hotly (and wrongly) denounce homosexuals as those who practice an incomparably execrable sin -- one that renders them irremediably godless and subversive to home and hearth. A meeting of minds and hearts is impossible in such a poisoned atmosphere.
We need to calm down and consider: this issue is much larger than personal rights and finger pointing. It speaks to fundamental logical and existential questions about the human condition. Namely, what is objectively normal, healthy human behavior? Is there such a thing? If so, how do we determine what "normal" is? If not, what does that mean for us as a society? Do we attempt to invent, define, and impose an artificial standard of normalcy by consensus, or do we abandon the very notion of "normal" and leave us all to our own individual devices and proclivities? Most importantly, are the answers to these questions intrinsic to humanity, or are they transcendent, requiring us to look beyond ourselves for wisdom and guidance?
In their outworking, all ideas inevitably produce tangible, practical consequences. Thus, the manner in which we answer the question "What is normal?" has far reaching implications. From a logical perspective, that we are even considering whether or not gay marriage should be culturally and constitutionally licit means that the very idea of objective normalcy hangs in the balance. If monogamous, heterosexual marriage is not exclusively normal, then where does our idea of normal begin and end? Some psychologists have recently suggested that children might actually benefit from a sexual relationship with a pedophile. Like it or not, these psychologists are using the rubric of "normalcy" to legitimize pedophelia. Once we discard what have been considered normal parameters for human relational and sexual interaction by embracing gay marriage, can we reasonably tell pedophiles, polygamists, and practitioners of bestiality that what they do is abnormal and undeserving of cultural or legal sanction? Moreover, if we reject the traditional understanding of normalcy vis-a-vis marriage, what does that mean for other categories of normalcy? How can we tell what is exclusively normal, moral, and good if we are constantly subjecting these things to inclusive redefinition? What meaning can notions of right and wrong have in such an environment?
America must debate the issue of gay marriage, but in doing so we have already opened Pandora's box. Take care, ladies and gentlemen, how you answer these questions. For my own part, I fear for our nation if we abandon objective -- yes, even transcendent -- normalcy. To do so is to embrace a destructive, imperialistic moral anarchy with debauching tentacles that will reach far beyond the question of gay marriage.
Labels: Christianity, homosexuality, moral relativism, politics
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Rebuttal to Father Morley
Father Rick Morley is to be congratulated. Despite the controversial subject matter of his September 5th letter to the editor ("As With Slavery, Time May Soften Views Against Gay Bishop"), it was both thoughtful in its presentation and irenic in its tone. Fr. Morley's exhortation to "debate the issue of homosexuality and biblical morality" in humility and with "the fear of God" is well taken. Such matters are too important to fall prey to the propagandistic hysteria that exists on both sides of the issue.
While I applaud the spirit of Fr. Morley's letter, I find his analogy between past Christian thought on slavery and modern Christian thought on homosexuality to be fallacious. His argument is basically this:
The problem with this logic occurs on two levels:
I respect Fr. Morley's overarching premise: Just because someone reasons from Scripture, it doesn't make them right. Pro-slavery Christians are a case-in-point example, and Fr. Morley is right to point this out. Nevertheless, his homosexuality analogy breaks down because some who reasoned from Scripture were right on the issue of slavery. If we are correct to reason from Scripture that homosexuality is vice rather than virtue (and I believe the biblical data bear out that we are--but that'll have to wait for another article!) then Fr. Morley's appeal to the passage of time as a "softener" of such views is 1) misguided, and 2) more analogous to Christians who supported slavery than those who opposed it.
1. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 397-398.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Father Rick Morley is to be congratulated. Despite the controversial subject matter of his September 5th letter to the editor ("As With Slavery, Time May Soften Views Against Gay Bishop"), it was both thoughtful in its presentation and irenic in its tone. Fr. Morley's exhortation to "debate the issue of homosexuality and biblical morality" in humility and with "the fear of God" is well taken. Such matters are too important to fall prey to the propagandistic hysteria that exists on both sides of the issue.
While I applaud the spirit of Fr. Morley's letter, I find his analogy between past Christian thought on slavery and modern Christian thought on homosexuality to be fallacious. His argument is basically this:
- Many people of faith once asserted that the American institution of slavery was sanctioned by the teachings of Scripture. This theological grid prompted such people to denounce the Emancipation Proclamation as unbiblical twaddle.
- With time, these segments of American Christianity came to recognize that the Bible could never be construed to countenance the injustice and cruelty of slavery.
- Today, a number of Christians assert that homosexuality should not be embraced and celebrated as normal, healthy human behavior. Their reasoning (similar to their 19th-century counterparts who supported slavery) is based on Scripture. Just as some Christians once rejected the emancipation of slaves on supposedly scriptural reasons, many Christians today reject the ordination of a gay bishop on the same grounds.
- The passage of time may have the same effect on the thinking of modern Christians with respect to homosexuality as it did on 19th-century Christians who were pro-slavery. To wit, biblical sanction of homosexuality may eventually (and rightly?) become the predominant viewpoint within Christendom.
The problem with this logic occurs on two levels:
- Fr. Morley is correct in his assertion that many Christians erroneously believed slavery to be biblically licit. But his emphasis on this fact belies the largely Christian underpinnings of abolitionism in the northern regions of the country.
Thomas Weld, who became a Christian under the preaching of 19th century revivalist Charles Finney, was among the first abolitionists to paint the struggle against slavery as a struggle against sin.1 The Christian community in the North followed suit, and soon pro-slavery pulpiteers in the South had to contend with stinging biblical retorts from their abolitionist counterparts.2 The Golden Rule was the linchpin of Christian abolitionist thought.3 "Treat others," Jesus taught, "in the same way that you wish to be treated." On this basis, abolitionists posed a poignant and damning question: How many southern slaveholders would willingly trade places with their slaves for even one day?4
Armed with this potent argument, abolitionists proceeded to build a cumulative scriptural case against slavery:How, too, would slaveholders answer Exodus 21:16, "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death"? Or Proverbs 22:22, 23, "Rob not the poor...for the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them"? And Jeremiah 22:13, "Woe unto him that buildeth his house by unrighteousness, and his chambers by wrong; that useth his neighbour's service without wages, and giveth him not for his work"? And in the New Testament, James 5:4, "Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth; and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabbaoth."5
Fr. Morley has omitted a significant part of church history from his analogy. Yes, some Christians did justify slavery with the Bible; but plenty of other Christians who also reasoned from the Bible arrived at the opposite (and correct) conclusion. This brings us to the second problem with Fr. Morley's logic. - His analogy does not even attempt to grapple with the inherent veracity or falsehood of either perspective on homosexuality. Note the unfounded assumptions that are implicit in his analogy:
- Those who opposed the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (an incorrect position) are analogous to those who now oppose homosexuality on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is false.
- Those who supported the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (a correct position) are analogous to those who now sanction homosexuality as acceptable on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is correct.
This is the more egregious of Fr. Morley's errors. I have no doubt that he would agree when I say that the right side won the argument on slavery -- he undeniably implies this in his letter. In doing so, however, he admits something important: one of the camps on slavery was objectively and irrevocably wrong. The falsehood of their position was (and is) independent of the passage of time. It was wholly incorrect from its inception, regardless of the temporal nature of the opinions or feelings of those who espoused it.
The same possibility exists for either position on homosexuality--one objectively adheres to ultimate reality, the other does not. In portions of his letter, Fr. Morley seems to be open to the possibility that those who decry homosexuality might have the correct position. His analogy, however, presumes that this view is incorrect. - Those who opposed the emancipation of slaves on scriptural grounds (an incorrect position) are analogous to those who now oppose homosexuality on scriptural grounds. The implication is that the latter perspective on homosexuality is false.
I respect Fr. Morley's overarching premise: Just because someone reasons from Scripture, it doesn't make them right. Pro-slavery Christians are a case-in-point example, and Fr. Morley is right to point this out. Nevertheless, his homosexuality analogy breaks down because some who reasoned from Scripture were right on the issue of slavery. If we are correct to reason from Scripture that homosexuality is vice rather than virtue (and I believe the biblical data bear out that we are--but that'll have to wait for another article!) then Fr. Morley's appeal to the passage of time as a "softener" of such views is 1) misguided, and 2) more analogous to Christians who supported slavery than those who opposed it.
1. Peter Marshall and David Manuel, From Sea to Shining Sea (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 397-398.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Labels: Christianity, Cumberland, homosexuality, moral relativism, politics
