Showing posts with label Homosexuality and Bible. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexuality and Bible. Show all posts

February 18, 2016

Evangelical Christian Gay-Straight Alliance Club?


APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, February 18, 2016

Evangelical Christian Gay-Straight Alliance Club?

A couple years ago someone asked me what I think a GSA club should look like at an evangelical Christian university that holds the traditional biblical view that sexual intimacy is properly expressed only in marriage between one man and one woman. Here is my answer (revised slightly).

(Note: I speak on behalf of myself only, not my school.)

First, four clarifications.

Clarification 1. What does the Bible tell us about sex?

The Bible (and Christian church tradition) tells us that sexual behaviour within the marriage relationship between one man and one woman is the way to go and that sexual behaviour outside this is sin.

Here ex-gay Joe Dallas's book is helpful: The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (2007). See too same-sex attracted pastor Sam Allberry's book Is God anti-gay? (2015). See too Rollin Grams and Donald Fortson's Unchanging Witness: The Consistent Christian Teaching on Homosexuality in Scripture and Tradition (2016).

Clarification 2. A three-tier distinction is needed: same-sex attraction, homosexual orientation, and gay identity.

Psychologist Mark Yarhouse in Homosexuality and the Christian (2010) explains: same-sex attraction describes experiences of attraction to the same sex; homosexual orientation describes the experience of persistent, durable, long-term same-sex attraction; gay identity is a prescriptive, socio-cultural expectation that one should embrace the "gay script."

The gay script reads as follows: "Same-sex attractions signal a naturally occurring or 'intended by God' distinction between homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. Same-sex attractions are the way you know who you 'really are' as a person…. Same-sex attractions are at the core of who you are as a person. Same-sex behavior is an extension of that core. Self-actualization (behavior that matches who you 'really are') of your sexual identity is crucial for your fulfillment."

Significantly, this three-tier distinction acknowledges the reality of same-sex attraction and orientation while allowing us to question the alleged truth of the gay script.

Clarification 3. There is an alternative to the gay script: the identity-in-Christ script.

According to Yarhouse, the identity-in-Christ script reads as follows: "Same-sex attraction does not signal a categorical distinction among types of person, but is one of many human experiences that 'are not the way it's supposed to be.' Same-sex attractions may be part of your experience, but they are not the defining element of your identity."

Yarhouse continues: "You can choose to integrate your experiences of attraction to the same sex into a gay identity. On the other hand, you can choose to center your identity around other aspects of your experience, including your biological sex, gender identity, and so on. The most compelling aspect of personhood for the Christian is one's identity in Christ, a central and defining aspect of what it means to be a follower of Jesus."

Clarification 4. We can distinguish between two senses of being "gay": gay1 is to experience same-sex attraction or orientation but not embrace the gay script, whereas gay2 is to experience same-sex attraction or orientation plus embrace the gay script.

End of clarifications.

What do I think about a GSA student club in an evangelical Christian university that holds the traditional biblical view that homo-erotic sex (and other sexual behaviours outside marriage between one man and one woman) is sin?

I think that a gay1-straight alliance club is a good idea, if the club encourages students who have same-sex attractions or orientation to seek the identity-in-Christ script coupled with a respect for Scriptures' view that engaging in same-sex sex (and other sexual behaviours outside marriage between one man and one woman) is sin.

I think that a gay2-straight alliance club is not a good idea, because it contradicts Scripture.

Of course, I could be mistaken in my understanding of Scripture (though I think I'm not).

Mistaken or not, whichever GSA club meets on an evangelical Christian university campus, I think the GSA should encourage generous space for respectful, rigorous, academic discussion/ debate—which includes fair representation of those who disagree.

For careful-thinking, truth-seeking university students, that's a safe place.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

Postscript/ afterthought: I think that respectful, rigorous, academic discussion/ debate might be better located in university forums outside the GSA club (though encouraged by the GSA club). Also, I think the GSA club at an evangelical Christian university should ensure support for those students who have same-sex attractions but, because of their obedience to Scripture, do not act in accordance with (or build their identity on) same-sex attractions. And I think the GSA club at an evangelical Christian university should be sure that the voices of those whose same-sex attractions have disappeared because of the work of the Holy Spirit are also heard. And I think the GSA club at an evangelical Christian university should love and welcome persons who embrace the gay2 identity, but not affirm that identity.


ADDENDUM

VDB's GSA Q&A

I hope the following questions and answers will show (with good reasons) why I think a gay1-straight alliance club is a good idea and a gay2-straight alliance club isn't a good idea. (Please keep in mind that I believe God loves all people, whether they take the gay1 side or gay2 side. And I love you too!)

 Reminder:

 We can distinguish between two senses of being "gay": gay1 is to experience same-sex attraction or orientation but not embrace the gay script, whereas gay2 is to experience same-sex attraction or orientation plus embrace the gay script.

 According to psychologist Mark Yarhouse, the gay script reads as follows: "Same-sex attractions signal a naturally occurring or 'intended by God' distinction between homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality. Same-sex attractions are the way you know who you 'really are' as a person…. Same-sex attractions are at the core of who you are as a person. Same-sex behavior is an extension of that core. Self-actualization (behavior that matches who you 'really are') of your sexual identity is crucial for your fulfillment."
Also, according to Yarhouse, the identity-in-Christ script reads as follows: "Same-sex attraction does not signal a categorical distinction among types of person, but is one of many human experiences that 'are not the way it's supposed to be.' Same-sex attractions may be part of your experience, but they are not the defining element of your identity.... [Y]ou can choose to center your identity around other aspects of your experience, including your biological sex, gender identity, and so on. The most compelling aspect of personhood for the Christian is one's identity in Christ, a central and defining aspect of what it means to be a follower of Jesus."


1. Aren't people with same-sex attractions or same-sex orientation born that way?

No doubt nature plays a role to varying degrees for different people, but being born with propensities or desires isn't a sufficient condition for acting on those propensities or desires let alone identifying with them.  I may have been born with a propensity to drink to excess and lust after and have sex with women other than my wife, but this doesn't justify my acting in accordance with these propensities. Born that way doesn't mean act that way.

For further reading, see my article Lady Gaga and moral reasoning.


2. Doesn't Jesus tell us to love our neighbour?

Yes, He does. Jesus also tells us that the moral law continues to stand and He even intensifies it. The moral law includes sexual purity (which limits sex to one man and one woman in marriage).

For further reading, see my articles Jesus and homosexuality and The Golden Rule.


3. What would Jesus do?

Jesus would help and stand with the hurt, marginalized, and downtrodden—and He would say go and sin no more.

For further reading, see (again) my articles Jesus and homosexuality and The Golden Rule.


4. What about hospitality—doesn't hospitality require that we accept the pro-gay2 view?

Yes, be hospitable to all. Show kindness to all. But this doesn't mean you must approve of all behaviours or stop making discernments about moral truths. Moral disagreement doesn't equal hate or inhospitality. Hospitality doesn't require the pro-gay2 view nor does it preclude the pro-gay1 view.

Pastor Rick Warren's famous quip comes to mind: “Our culture has accepted two huge lies. The first is that if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you must fear or hate them. The second is that to love someone means you agree with everything they believe or do. Both are nonsense. You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate.”

In other words, you don't have to compromise traditional biblical convictions about marriage and sexuality to show hospitality.

Also, I think that a genuine ethos of hospitality and safety on a university campus includes hearing all the relevant voices—pro and con.  In my experience in university, I’ve been hearing “pro” voices on LGBTQI+ issues but no “con” voices or voices expressing counter-considerations. That’s academic hospitality run amok.

I wonder if some academics think that pastoral hospitality (care, counsel) precludes academic hospitality (inquiry, debate, discussion of opposing views).  I think that the two are not mutually exclusive.


5. Shouldn't we read Scripture through the lens of the Holy Spirit?

Yes, but keep in mind that if a spirit contradicts Scripture it probably isn't the Holy Spirit. Test the spirits.

For further investigation on what Scripture says, see the following books, for starters:


 See too my answers to questions 14-16 (below). 


6. Don't people struggle merely with the social consequences of their same-sex attractions, not their same-sex attractions per se?

Probably many people struggle with the social consequences. But probably many people struggle with having a desire which, if acted upon, they know is wrong—regardless of what other people think. Many people believe homo-erotic behaviour is wrong (according to Scripture, according to tradition, and according to moral intuition/ conscience) and thus struggle with unwanted desires—and need help in their struggle against those desires.

Also, consider the answer to the next question.


7. Isn't the pain and suffering endured by same-sex attracted people due to the church and society's homophobic attitude?

Probably some or perhaps much of it is.  But apparently not all of it is. We also should keep in mind that in pro-gay societies, such as the Netherlands, the pain and suffering continues. Much pain and suffering seems closely related to embracing sexual activity/ identity that departs from the clearly apparent physical design of sexual complementarity. Consider the following from physician Miriam Grossman:

Individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual report more problems with mental health too: higher rates of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts. While I'm sure that for some people, societal bias contributes to their distress, the entire onus for these difficulties—emotional and physical—cannot be placed at the feet of a 'heterosexist' society. It's just not intellectually honest.

The Netherlands is probably the world's most open-minded and sexually tolerant country in the world. At the vanguard of homosexual rights for decades, gay marriage was legalized there in 2001, with over 75 percent of the population supporting the bill. A 1998 study examining sexual attitudes in 24 countries asked the question, ‘Is homosexual sex wrong?’ Only 26 percent of U.S. respondents indicated ‘not wrong at all’ or ‘only sometimes wrong’; the corresponding number in the Netherlands was 77 percent.

In light of that country's stance, it is worth noting that, as in the United States, young gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals in the Netherlands report more high risk sexual behaviors, higher rates of infection with HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea, and more mental health problems than their heterosexual counterparts. In these studies, younger age was not protective; even as Dutch society became more accepting of sexual minorities, the health disparities persisted. Clearly, societal bias is not to blame for the disproportionately higher numbers in the homosexual populations in the Netherlands.

(Miriam Grossman, You're Teaching My Child WHAT? A Physician Exposes the Lies of Sex Education and How They Harm Your Child [Washington, DC: Regnery 2009], pp. 142-143. This book has been recommended by Nicholas Cummings, a former president of the American Psychological Association, and Robert George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton University.)

In other words, further research is needed.


8. Aren't you homophobic if you have concerns about same-sex sex?

No, a phobia is an irrational fear or hatred of something. It's possible to have reasonable concerns without being phobic. Moreover, to dismiss someone's reasonable arguments on the grounds that the arguer is allegedly homophobic is to commit the ad hominem fallacy (the mistake in reasoning of attacking the person instead of his/ her argument when doing so is not relevant).

For further reading: The ad hominem fallacy.


9. Are there any reasonable concerns about same-sex sex?

Yes, there are. Consider my article Is promoting same-sex sex wise?  Also, please take time to read carefully my critics' objections and my replies.


10. Are there any reasonable concerns about same-sex marriage?

Yes, there are. Consider my articles Questioning same-sex marriage and Same-sex marriage and Subway sandwiches. Also, please see the suggested videos and readings at the end of the articles.


11. Doesn't science show that homosexuals are biologically and genetically determined to be gay, like black people are biologically and genetically determined to be black, so questioning homosexuality is unjust—as racism is unjust?

No, the black-gay analogy is a faulty analogy. See my article Is being gay like race?


12. What about intersex people?

God loves intersex people. Again: God loves intersex people. So should we. Again: so should we.

In our present discussion, however, keep in mind that we're not talking about intersex people, at least not primarily. The population of intersex people, though very important, is much smaller than the population of same-sex attracted people. Thus, raising the question of intersex people here may serve to muddy the waters of the present discussion.

I find it helpful to keep in mind the broader perspective in the present discussion because it's easy to let the few difficult cases cloud our thinking on the larger number of less difficult cases. Perhaps an analogy with the abortion debate will help.  In discussing the abortion issue many people focus on the few difficult though important cases, i.e., rape, incest, threat of life of the mother, and as a result forget that these difficult cases constitute in fact a very small percentage (5%) of the larger abortion practice—and they forget that their justifications are limited only to the very small percentage, not the larger number of cases.  I think that the same happens when we introduce the topic of intersex people into a discussion of same-sex attracted people.

In our present discussion it’s important to keep in mind (too) that Scriptures reserve sexual intimacy for marriage between one man and one woman. This precludes many persons who are singles—whether by choice or not, whether heterosexually oriented or not. This also precludes persons who are born with sexual desires for children or for animals. This also precludes people who wish to act on their propensities for sexual intimacy with multiple partners. Scripture does not deny anyone the opportunity to enjoy intimate friendships, but Scripture does reserve sexual intimacy between one man and one woman in marriage.

Perhaps the following passage from theologian Michael Wittmer will be helpful here:

Brian McLaren [a proponent of same-sex sexual relations] compassionately questions whether this perspective [i.e., the perspective that intimate sexual relations are to be reserved only for one man and one woman in marriage] is helpful in exceptionally difficult cases. His fictional story includes Pat, an intersexual who was born with male and female sexual organs. She felt ostracized and condemned by Christians, many of whom thought her sexual confusion was caused by either disease or disobedience. She said that the Christian mantra to 'love the sinner but hate the sin' struck her 'as ghastly and cruel—as if what we are is a sin.' What would our traditional view say to her?

First, I would ask Pat's forgiveness for the ignorant bigotry she endured from the church, and I would weep with her for her sexual brokenness. But I would remember that her case is the exception, not the rule. Her situation calls for humility and prayer, but it does not change God's ideal [for how sexual intimacy is to be expressed]. We follow God's revealed will in normal situations and humbly pray for guidance and forgiveness for those few cases that are less clear.

Second, I would add that Pat must stop finding her identity in the Fall….

Third, I would remind Pat that her identity is defined by Creation rather than the Fall. She is primarily and essentially the image of God. She is only secondarily and accidentally a (potential) sexual transgressor. I would tell Pat that Jesus loves her exactly as she is….

(Michael Wittmer, Don't Stop Believing: Why Living Like Jesus Is Not Enough, 78-79.)


13. Are there any good resources for people who have unwanted same-sex sexual attractions?

Yes, there are. Here are a few resources, for starters: 

 The following books are helpful too: 


14. Are there any Apologia columns which address the Bible and homosexuality?

Yes, there are. Here is a list: 

 Of course, my Apologia columns are not the last word on these topics. Check out the books and videos to which I provide links.

15. We changed our minds on what the Bible says about women and slaves, so why not change our minds about homosexuality?


Please take a look at Rev. Dr. Brett Cane’s article The Bible and Homosexuality.

On page 8 of this article, Cane asks: “We have changed our minds on what the Bible says before, why not on this issue?”  The idea is that the Bible changed our minds regarding its low view of women and slaves, so the Bible should change our minds regarding homosexual sex.

Cane goes on to answer the question on page 8.  Please read Cane’s answer carefully and understand the notion of Redemptive Movement to which Cane appeals.

Cane’s answer (in brief) is this: The Bible contains seeds to elevate the status of women and slaves, but continues to regard homosexual sex as sin. On the one hand, Scriptures contain seeds that go against surrounding culture with regards to women and slaves, i.e., women and slaves were viewed negatively by surrounding culture, but Scriptures lay a foundation for elevating the status of women and slaves (e.g., Galatians 3:28). On the other hand, homosexual sex was not viewed as negatively by surrounding culture, yet the Scriptures continued to hold (counter-culturally) that homosexual sex is sin (e.g., Romans 1:24-27).  So, according to Cane, the reason that the Bible doesn’t (shouldn’t) change our minds regarding homosexual sex is this: “Unlike slavery and the place of women, there is no ‘redemptive movement’ for approval of homosexual practice in the Bible.”

(Note: This is not to say that persons who engage in homo-erotic practice can't be redeemed—they of course can be redeemed along with the rest of us. Rather, it's to say that homo-erotic practice is sin, like all other sexual practices outside of the marriage covenant between one man and one woman.)


16. But I've viewed Matthew Vines' viral YouTube video and read his recent book—isn't his pro-gay2 biblical revisionist view the way to go?

I believe not. Vines is popular, but not academically sound.

Read Ed Neufeld's critique (Dr. Neufeld is professor of New Testament at Providence Theological Seminary): Homosexuality and Gay Marriage in the Bible: A Response to Matthew Vines.

View Matthew Vines' 42 minute debate with Michael Brown (Brown's PhD is in semitic languages): Can you be gay and Christian?  (See too Brown's follow-up article.)

Read Preston Sprinkle's review of Matthew Vines' book (Sprinkle has a PhD in New Testament): Review of Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian

Read, too, Kirk Durston’s review of Matthew Vines’ book (Durston has a master’s degree in philosophy and a doctorate in biophysics): A Thoughtful Evaluation of Matthew Vines’ God and the Gay Christian

(Note: Matthew Vines is a bright undergraduate student from Harvard University but he otherwise has no academic credentials at all, let alone in the areas about which he speaks.)


17. Shouldn't we stop this debate about what the Bible says about homosexuality and focus instead on what really matters?

If you think the answer is yes, then you clearly don't agree with people who think this debate really matters. That's okay. But such a sidestepping (via dismissal) of the concerns doesn't rationally persuade those of us who think this debate really does matter. Of course, we don't think it's the only debate that matters, because other things really matter too. We can tend to those other things as well. It's not an either-or situation.


18. But isn’t there a low interest among evangelical Christian university students in hearing what most evangelicals have heard most of their life?

Yes, there may be low interest.  But interest is not a reliable criterion of importance and truth.  Moreover, it is my belief that most evangelicals have not heard traditional/ conservative responses to gay-revisionist arguments “most of their life.”  My belief is based on my limited experience, to be sure, but this experience has been without exception in my professional experience of teaching Ethics at a couple evangelical Christian colleges and in my experience of having taught a Sunday school class or two on the topic.  Furthermore, whether students are interested or not, if the traditional/ conservative responses to gay-revisionist arguments are good from the point of view of truth, reason, and evidence, then such responses are important and should be shared with our students.


19. Isn’t diversity among faculty and staff and students on this issue healthy?

I urge caution when we talk about “diversity” (it’s a loaded term).  We should aim for healthy diversity.  Students should hear gay2-revisionist arguments but also scholarly responses to gay2-revisionist arguments.  Students should hear the voices of those who are gay2-affirming but also the gay1 voices of those who resist same-sex (etc.) attractions and/or have been delivered from such attractions. In my experience in university life (as a student and as a professor), students tend only to be presented with gay2-affirming/ revisionist views. I see that as ideological indoctrination.

 (Some might say that my use of "revisionist" is a loaded term, too. Perhaps. By "revisionist" I mean change-or-radically-reinterpret-the-traditional-understanding-of-Scripture.)


20. Isn't ethics just subjective and therefore relative?

No. If you think ethics is just subjective and therefore relative, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Here are some articles for you to read: 

21. Why all this emphasis on rational argumentation and evidence on this topic—why not rely merely on intuition?

Clearly, intuitions (subjective insights into the real) play a role in all our thinking, but when various persons’ intuitions conflict we need to look to careful reasoning based on evidence to arbitrate between conflicting claims to truth. We should do this especially in places that call themselves universities and which purport to seek what's true. It's what makes the university a safe place—safe from indoctrination and ideologues.


22. Why are you speaking out like this?

I’m trying to be a Christ-centered philosopher. I believe truth requires a fair hearing, plus I believe God has called me to speak out. I hope what I’ve written above (and elsewhere) has been done in such a way that shows gentleness and respect to those who disagree with the views I've expressed.

Sincerely,

Hendrik van der Breggen
BA (philosophy), University of Calgary
MA (philosophy), University of Windsor
PhD (philosophy), University of Waterloo

Posted by 10 comments:
Labels: , , , ,

July 24, 2014

Jesus and homosexuality

James Tissot, "The Beatitudes Sermon" (1890)
APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, July 24, 2014

Jesus and homosexuality

I sometimes hear the argument that because Jesus didn't say anything about same-sex sex, same-sex sex is not sin. So Jesus' absence of speech on the topic means approval.

This argument is problematic, however, for several reasons.

First, it's an argument from silence. Good arguments are usually based on positive evidence, not absence of evidence.

Second, the argument falls prey to a reductio ad absurdum: we can concede the view for the sake of assessment, deduce falsehoods/ absurdities, and thereby show the argument fails.

Assume it's true that Jesus' not saying anything about X is sufficient grounds for thinking X is okay. Jesus was silent about incest and bestiality. Therefore, incest and bestiality are okay, too. But, obviously, these are not okay.

Thus, the argument's assumption—that Jesus' silence about same-sex sex is enough to conclude it's not sin—is false.

Third, it's not true that Jesus didn't say anything about homosexual sex. He did, indirectly.

Jesus taught that among the things that defile is porneia, i.e., sexual immorality (Matthew 15:19, Mark 7:21). Porneia is a Greek catch-all term (from which the English "pornography" comes) which, in Jesus' Jewish context, includes any sexual activity outside heterosexual marriage. So Jesus teaches same-sex sex is sin.

Also, Jesus is God the Son who is one with God the Father, and both Father and Son are one with God the Holy Spirit, who spoke through the prophets and the apostles. (God is a trinity, i.e., God is one in essence and consists of three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.)

This means the God-breathed scriptures—Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians, etc.—are from the God who became a human being in Jesus. Significantly, these scriptures teach sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage is sin. So, again, Jesus teaches same-sex sex is sin.

(Keep in mind that Jesus abolishes the Jewish dietary/ ritual purity laws, but not the universal moral law. Jesus also intensifies the moral law to apply to our thoughts as well as actions.)

At this juncture, one might object that, for Jesus, love is enough. Love justifies all.

In response, we should notice that, for Jesus, true love—holy love—is structured by moral law. In holy love Jesus calls us to turn from sin, not embrace it.

Also, the love-is-enough justification justifies too much. Enter another reductio ad absurdum.

If love is sufficient for justifying sexual behaviour (contrary to otherwise clear biblical moral principles), then if I love X it should be okay that I have sex with X. But X could be another's spouse, a relative, a child, or an animal. Love would justify adultery, incest, pedophilia, and bestiality.

True love, then, requires a framework of moral truth.

Therefore, justifying same-sex sex via the argument from Jesus' (alleged) silence is a failure.

For further thought: see Sam Allberry's book Is God anti-gay? (2013), Michael Brown's Can You Be Gay and Christian? (2014), Joe Dallas's The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (2007), and Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (2001).

See too last month's online debate between Michael Brown (pro traditional understanding of scripture) and Matthew Vines (pro gay-revisionist interpretations). [See too Michael Brown's follow-up on this debate: "A 'Gay Christian' Advocate Sinks His Own Ship".]

For help with unwanted same-sex attractions, and for testimonies of same-sex attracted persons who seek holiness via costly discipleship, see Restored Hope Network and Living Out and Courage.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, teaches philosophy and is no stranger to struggles against sinful desires. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

 Further reading in Apologia:
Posted by 2 comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

July 12, 2013

Homosexuality and History

 APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, July 11, 2013

Homosexuality and history

The openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson (recently retired) claims the following in his book God Believes in Love (Knopf, 2012): "homosexuality as a sexual orientation was unknown to the ancient mind." Robinson adds: "The psychological construct of a homosexual orientation was not posited until the late nineteenth century…there was no understanding that such same-gender attraction might be 'in the nature' of a certain minority of people."

Some scholars today even claim that the notion of a sexual orientation separate from sexual behaviour was unknown to writers of the Bible.

I think the above claims are false. Here are my reasons.

Yes, the term "homosexuality" was coined in the late nineteenth century (by a German psychologist), but it very much seems that both the concept (idea) and the reality of homosexual orientation, in contrast with homosexual sexual behaviour, have been around much longer.

The ancient philosopher Plato (c. 429-347 BC) wrote a number of dialogues, some of which deal with same-sex sexual relationships. In Plato's dialogue Symposium it's difficult if not impossible to understand the relationship between the characters Alcibiades and Socrates without making use of the distinction between homosexual orientation and sexual behaviour.

Although Alcibiades' desires are intertwined with a passion to study philosophy with Socrates, it's clear that Alcibiades has same-sex sexual desires for Socrates and has had them since his youth, as he himself acknowledges. And it's clear that Alcibiades' sexual advances—behaviours—are directed to Socrates (and are rejected by Socrates, to Alcibiades' chagrin).

Also in Plato's Symposium the character Aristophanes sets out an account—a creation story—of "original human nature." This story clearly points to the notion of sexual orientation as distinct from same-sex sexual behaviour.

Aristophanes explains that there were three original human beings, each with a different sexual nature: male, female, and a combination of both. But then Zeus (in a response to misbehavior by the original humans) punished the original human beings: he cut each original into two.

Subsequent human beings reflect the original human beings from which they descended by the sexual desires they have: i.e., males who desire males reflect the original man; females who desire females reflect the original woman; males who desire females and vice-versa reflect the original man-woman.

Aristophanes' account of human nature doesn't use the words "sexual orientation" but his description reflects the reality and the concept that homosexual orientations—i.e., strong, persistent, enduring same-sex attractions—existed and were known to exist. Aristophanes' account also reflects the known reality and concept of same-sex sexual behaviour, for his account attempts to explain the origins of this behaviour. (For further reading, see Lysis, Phaedrus, and Symposium: Plato on Homosexuality, translated by Benjamin Jowett [Prometheus, 1991].)

The highly credentialed New Testament scholar Robert Gagnon confirms the above (Gagnon's graduate degrees are from Harvard and Princeton). Gagnon writes: "there is considerable testimony in ancient sources to the belief that same-sex passions, at least in some cases, are congenital" (The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics [Abingdon, 2001], p. 384).

Gagnon mentions Plato's Symposium, but also mentions the ancient philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC): "Aristotelian thought speculated that some males who desired to be penetrated by other males…were so disposed 'by nature'…and others 'from habit'…."  Gagnon mentions other ancient sources as well. (See too Gagnon's criticism of Internet-sensation Mathew Vines on this point in "Theologians Find Vines' 'Homosexuality Is Not a Sin' Thesis Not Persuasive," Christian Post, April 20, 2013.)

Also, according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on homosexuality, "Alexander the Great and the founder of Stoicism, Zeno of Citium, were known for their exclusive interest in boys and other men."

Clearly, there are good reasons for thinking that in ancient times people in fact had—and knew about—enduring sexual predispositions, what we call orientations, which would incline a person to same-sex sexual expression or behavior.

Now, we should ask: Did writers of the Bible know about the concept of sexual orientation as an attribute of the person separate from their sexual behavior?

I think that the answer is Yes. Keeping in mind that the apostle Paul was acquainted with Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, permit me to appeal to the academic authority of the eminent New Testament scholar and historian of ancient history N. T. Wright.

Wright says the following (in an interview on the Bible and homosexuality): "One thing that I do know, as an ancient historian, is that there is nothing in contemporary understanding and experience of homosexual condition and behavior that was unknown in the first century. The idea that in the first century it was all about masters having odd relationships with slaves, or older men with younger men—yeah, sure, that happened—but read Plato's Symposium. They have permanent, faithful, stable male-male partnerships, life-long stuff—Achilles and Patroclus in Homer, all sorts of things."

Wright adds: "Paul in Corinth will not have been unaware, in a world where private life only is for the very rich and the very aristocratic, everyone else does what they do pretty much in public. Paul will have known the full range of stuff, so that the idea that 'Oh, well, in the first century they didn't know, we now with our scientific knowledge [do know]'—that's a little bit of Enlightenment arrogance again actually." (N. T. Wright, "On debate about homosexuality," YouTube interview, 2009.)

Thus, even though ancient philosophers and Bible writers didn't know all we know scientifically about sexual orientation, it's reasonable to think that the ancients and Bible writers did know about homosexual orientation as a human condition, they knew about same-sex sexual behaviour, and they knew the difference between the two.

As Wright goes on to say, this doesn't settle the debate about what the Bible says about homosexual sex—it is to frame the debate.

In so doing, I would add, it wreaks havoc with frames, such as Bishop Robinson's, which misrepresent history.

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is associate professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)

P.S. For further reading:
P.P.S. For stories, questions, and resources on Christianity and same-sex attraction:
Posted by No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

December 06, 2012

Debunking Internet Arguments: Bible and Homosexuality

APOLOGIA
By Hendrik van der Breggen
The Carillon, December 6, 2012

Debunking Internet Arguments: Bible and Homosexuality

On the Internet there is a popular poster with the following caption at the bottom: "PWND: This is what it means." ("PWND" is internet language for owned, dominated, annihilated, or outclassed.) Above the caption is a mock Facebook discussion about the Bible and homosexuality between two persons, Patti and Lacey.

Patti's “biblical” position is PWND—owned, dominated, annihilated, and outclassed—by Lacey's superior argument. Therefore, or so the poster would have us believe, the Bible's view on same-sex relationships should be dismissed.

Today I will set out Patti and Lacey's discussion. At risk of seeming homophobic, I will challenge Lacey's argument. Then, at risk of seeming too sympathetic with homosexuality, I will challenge Patti’s position.

Here is the Facebook discussion.

Patti: "Homosexuality is a sin, Lacey, and it is in black and white in the Bible."

Lacey: "So is not treating your body like a temple. And ladies should have their head covered. And in Deuteronomy, a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin, and she should be executed if she is not. And anyone who commits adultery should be stoned to death. In Mark, divorce is prohibited."

Lacey continues: "I assume for homosexuality, you're referring to Leviticus 18:6: 'You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female. It is an abomination.' A similar verse occurs two chapters later, in Leviticus 20:13: 'A man who sleeps with another man is an abomination and should be executed.'"

Lacey continues: "Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. It also includes prohibitions against round haircuts, tattoos, working on the Sabbath, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, getting your fortune told, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)"

Lacey continues: "I believe in morality, which is doing right regardless of what I am told…not in religion, which is doing what I am told regardless of what is right."

Lacey concludes: "You're welcome to your own interpretation of the Bible and of politics, of course, but for me, I need more than 'the Bible says so' to justify certain things in this world and certainly to judge them."

Thus, or so the caption at the bottom of the Internet poster tells us: PWND—this is what it means. That is to say, Patti’s biblical position has been owned, dominated, annihilated, and outclassed by Lacey’s superior argument.

Here is my challenge to Lacey.

I wonder if instead of PWND (i.e., owned/ dominated/ annihilated/ outclassed) a more accurate description of Lacey's response is that she muddies the waters.

Consider Lacey's reference to the Leviticus passages. Yes, the Leviticus passages do involve a "holiness code" (the purpose of this code was to keep the ancient Israelites consecrated or separated from neighboring non-Israelites).

However, as is not noted by Lacey (but should be noted), there are two dimensions to this code: an ethical-moral dimension and a ritual-ceremonial dimension—i.e., moral law and ceremonial law.

Significantly, the ceremonial law was abolished with Christ's sacrifice, but the moral law wasn't.

Significantly, the moral law included universal proscriptions against murder, theft, and sexual infractions (infractions such as adultery, incest, same-sex intercourse, human-animal sex), whereas the ceremonial law included the ritual cleanliness rules pertinent only to ancient Israel’s proper method of worship (rules such as washing after touching a dead body, not eating pork or shellfish, not engaging in sex during the menstrual period, etc.).

Of course, much more should be argued here. But my point is a modest one: Lacey blurs the distinction between moral law and ceremonial law, thereby causing confusion—i.e., she muddies the waters.

Further muddying of the waters occurs with Lacey's bit about stoning anyone who commits adultery.

Here Lacey ignores the New Testament account of Jesus stopping the stoning of an adulteress, telling the adulteress that she is no longer condemned yet she should leave her life of sin. The point (clearly missed by Lacey) is this: Adultery is still sin, but the penalty of death is removed.

More can be said about Lacey's misunderstanding of the Bible vis-à-vis divorce, head coverings, etc., but space does not permit.

Here is my challenge to Patti.

Patti’s position—that homosexuality itself is a sin—doesn’t seem to be the Bible’s position on homosexuality.

According to the Bible, what is sin is not homosexuality per se, but same-sex sexual activity (whether that activity is physical, as in the case of actual intercourse, or mental, as in the case of indulging in lust). A mere desire or temptation or predisposition to sin isn’t sin.

According to the Bible, what constitutes sexual sin is any sexual activity outside of the good, God-ordained confines of the monogamous heterosexual marriage bond (i.e., sexual activities such as adultery, premarital sex, incest, same-sex intercourse, bestiality).

In other words, same-sex sexual behavior is morally condemned, not same-sex attractions or orientation.

Significantly, and contrary to what Patti’s position would lead us to believe, someone with same-sex attractions is loved by God and he/she can lead a God-honouring life by not giving in to those attractions and acting on them—just as someone with tendencies toward gossip, greed, adultery, or hate is loved by God and can lead a God-honouring life by not giving in to and acting on those tendencies.

To conclude, I wish to draw attention to Lacey's claim about morality: "I believe in morality, which is doing right regardless of what I am told… not in religion, which is doing what I am told regardless of what is right."

I would want to make some qualifications. Surely, if a religion tells its adherents to do X even if X is wrong, then that religion is problematic. But if the religion agrees with Lacey's sentence by encouraging its adherents to seek and live in accordance with whatever is true, excellent, noble, praiseworthy and good, then that would be a better religion. See Philippians 4:8.

Clearly, Patti's view is not PWND by Lacey's argument. Clearly, too, Patti’s alleged biblical view is very apparently not biblical.

From the point of view of logic and truth, the PWND poster is a mess. In fact, it very much appears that logic and truth have just PWND the poster!

P.S. For further inquiry into the topic of the Bible and homosexuality, please see/read the following:

1. Michael Brown, "Leviticus Laws and Homosexuality" (beginner level; 1-minute video).
2. N. T. Wright, "On Debate about Homosexuality" (beginner; 7-minute video).
3. Tim Keller, "Old Testament Law and the Charge of Inconsistency" (beginner; short online article).
4. Brett Cane, "The Bible and Homosexuality" (intermediate; short online article).
5. Joe Dallas, The Gay Gospel? How Pro-Gay Advocates Misread the Bible (intermediate; book).
6. Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament (advanced; book).
7. Robert A. J. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (advanced; book).

P.P.S. Is being gay like race?

(Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is assistant professor of philosophy at Providence University College. The views in this column do not always reflect the views of Providence.)
Posted by 6 comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)