Robert Gagnon's Answers to Emails on the
Bible and Homosexuality I
__________________________________________________________
Index
I get a
lot of email correspondence. I can only provide a small sample here. Here is
a list of the email subjects with dates. For text, scroll down below.
They are in order of date, most recent first.
6/18/10: From
parents with a homosexual son
3/31/10: On Biology,
Analogies, Jesus, and Love
12/11/09: Debate
with a self-affirming "secular humanist"
12/3/09: A note of
thanks
11/18/09:
Questions from a student
regarding the issue's importance and the authority of Scripture
11/6/09: A Response
to my "Back to the Oppressive Future" article
11/5-6/09: Questions
about the inconsistency of opposing "gay marriage" while
supporting homosexual "domestic partnership" and "sexual
orientation" laws
10/28/09: Problems
with Andrew Marin's Love Is an Orientation
10/11/09: Does a
person have to read ALL my writings?
8/4/09:
To a self-identified
Christian who thinks that I am being hypocritical if I do not
equally strongly oppose "hate crime" protections for religion
7/8/09: To a
self-identified "gay Christian" who is unhappy with my work
4/1/09: To someone
who uses my work to explain why we shouldn't listen to Scripture
2/24/09: On Stacy
Johnson and John Stott
2/4/09: Responding
to Spong's arguments
1/25/09: Did Jesus
violate Gen 1:27 and 2:24?
1/23/09: Question
about conducting remarriages
1/23/09:
Correspondence with an evangelical scholar at an
evangelical seminary about Obama's homosexualist political
agenda
1/20/09: Lost on my website?
1/13/09:
Response to an evangelical leader supportive of "gay rights" on
the Crystal Dixon case
1/08/09: On Sin, salvation, and human merit
1/2/09: Response to
a critic about the focus of my work
12/13/08: Material
on women's ordination and homosexuality
12/9/08: Should the
government support homosexual unions?
5/9/08:
Response to a skeptical
evangelical leader who wants to know whom I have "'delivered'
from homosexual orientations"
4/18/08:
What about no reproduction
in heaven and the existence of "complementary" homosexual
unions?
4/16/08: A question
from a seminary student about the exploitation argument
2/12/08: A
disgruntled supporter of "inclusivity" who wants me removed from
PTS
9/5/07: A testimony
from a pastor who has dealt with bisexual urges
9/5/07: Is
heterosexual cohabitation grounds for denying church membership?
6/15/07: Did Jesus Change the Law's Stance on Capital
Sentencing?
5/8/07: Hate Mail from an Angry Left-of-Center Pastor with
a "Wonderful" Pastoral Manner
4/26/07: A question about eternal security and sexual
immorality
4/25/07: Do you think I would still go to heaven when I
die if I am in a lesbian relationship?
4/8/07: Jack Rogers and Analogies
3/31/07: A person with
homosexual desire asks: How does one decide which commands of
God in Scripture to follow?
3/10/07: Where have I
spoken about why women's ordination is a bad analogy for
accepting homosexual practice?
3/10/07: Email from a
father whose teenage son has "come out," on my "Two Views" book
2/2/07: Why Meeting
Nice "Gay" and Lesbian Persons Should Not Lead to Approval of
Homosexual Practice
1/18/07: Jesus,
eunuchs, and the allegation of a 'gay Jesus'
10/17/03 (revisited
12/26/06): A heartfelt email from a woman with same-sex
attractions
12/20/06: Where do I
stand on registered homosexual partnerships?
12/04/06: Do I operate
with a notion of mind/body dualism or "physicalism"?
12/04/06: How did I
get so involved in the topic of homosexuality?
12/04/06: What's a
Layperson to Do?
11/17-25/06:
Correspondence with a student at Eastern University promoting a
"noncontextual perspective and "trusting my own judgment"
11/22/06: Response to
a person who thinks that my non-biblical arguments are not
strong
11/14/06: Question
about books or resources for counseling persons with same-sex
attractions
11/14/06: Differences
of opinion about the relevance of menstrual law and whether the
Law is abrogated in Christ
11/2/06: Questions
about Jack Rogers's claim that 1 Cor 6:9 does not speak against
committed homosexual unions
10/27/06: Can one make
a reasoned case against homosexual practice without citing
Scripture?
10/16/06: Requests for
clarifications on my positions regarding Gen 2, the meaning of
unnatural, and the relevance of Dutch gay marriage
10/16/06: Questions about genetic
influence and moral relevance
__________________________________________________________
Text
From parents with a homosexual son
From:
Richard ___________
Sent: Friday, June
18, 2010 9:31 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: a new
50-minute video presentation
Thank you so much for e-mailing [news of this online] video [at
http://sugarplum.clickstreamtv.net/sp/0.9.13/cst/_/6ff33915/?p=103101].
Is there any way to purchase a copy of it? Friends of our would
like very much to see it too. We really are grateful for all you
study and work on this subject. Our son is living in a homosexual
relationship and it just breaks our hearts. He attends a
[mainline] church that has a lesbian pastor. and of course he
thinks that's ok. He knows how we feel about it but refuses to
have any conversation about it. We covet your prayers. We have
your books around and Christian articles too. We trust God will
get through to him. He is [over 40] yrs. old--calls several times
a day and keeps close contact with us, for which we are very
thankful. Thank you again--we learn a lot from you. God continue
to bless you. Rev. Richard and _________ __________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 10:24 PM
To: Richard _____________
Subject: RE: a new 50-minute video presentation
Dear
Richard and ________,
I
appreciate your kind words. I’m not sure if the video can be
purchased; but the person who could either answer your question or
direct you to someone that could is:
Miss
Jamie Gruber [jgruber.ruthinstitute@gmail.com]
Executive Director
Ruth Institute (a project of The National Organization for
Marriage)
O/F: 760-295-9278
My
heart goes out to you regarding your son. He is only a year
younger than I am. It sounds like you are doing everything that
you can to love your son, including pointing him in the right
direction, praying for him, and maintaining contact with him.
Blessings,
Rob
On Biology, Analogies, Jesus, and Love
From: Dianna M Leamy, Louisville
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 5:13 PM
To:
Robert Gagnon
Subject:
Greetings Dr. Agnon [sic],
I
just read your 2004 article about homosexuality being a
contradiction of terms. I felt compelled to write to you because I
am stunned by the predjudice you displayed in your article. I do
hope that since the article was written in 2004 your views have
changed. There has been so much research done to indicate the
biological components of homosexuality that I can't see how that can
be ignored. Of course, there are so many passages in the bible
regarding so many things that we as Christians now consider to be
obselete (diet, women as servants, slavery, etc.). I think that
within the next 100 years the bigotry against homosexuals will be
viewed in the same negative light as slavery in America.
I
pray everyday that all Christians will embrace homosexuals and treat
them with the same deserved dignity and respect as any other human.
I sincerely believe that Jesus, in all his glory would stand hand in
hand with gays as he did with the outcasts of his day.
If
your views haven't changed since 2004, I urge you to reconsider your
position, and instead of preaching prejudice, preach love and
acceptance. My husband and I work very hard to teach our children
the importance of acceptance, and I can't help but think you would
do the same.
Peace,
Dianna
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 2:31 PM
To: 'Dianna M Leamy'
Subject: RE:
Hi Dianna,
The problem lies in your
premise or rather in several of your premises.
Regardless of the
biological component to homosexual development (and I certainly do
believe there are congenital contributing factors to some homosexual
development) it is morally indefensible to argue for acceptance on
the basis of biology. All behavior can be attributed at some level
to brain structures and processes, i.e., biologically caused. Your
premise (if homosexuality is biologically wired--by the way the
mechanism is not deterministic--homosexual behavior must be
accepted) is just bad logic. By your argument society should
sanction committed polyamorous behavior on the part of men because
men are wired for polysexual expression (having 8-10 times the main
sex hormone testosterone than do women). But, obviously, biology
does not equate with morality. Most human impulses are for things
that God expressly forbids us to do. That's why Jesus defines
discipleship as taking up your cross, denying yourself, and losing
your life. That's why Paul talks about being crucified with Christ
and no longer living but rather having Christ live in one instead.
That's why he defines sin as an innate impulse, passed on by an
ancestor, working through the members of the human body, and never
entirely within human control. Another thing: No commandment of God
is predicated on the eradication of innate desires to do otherwise.
Your analogies to the
Bible's view on homosexual practice (slavery, diet, women's roles)
are all bad analogies, for various reasons. One thing about
analogical reasoning: It's done dishonestly if one prefers remote
analogies over distant analogies. The best analogies are those that
have the most substantive points of correspondence with the thing
being compared. Your choice of analogies have far fewer points of
correspondence to the Bible's stance on homosexual practice than the
analogies to adult-committed forms of incest and polyamory.
A third bad premise on
your part is that Jesus would adopt a positive view of homosexual
unions were he here in the flesh today. Jesus clearly regarded God's
creation of "male and female" as a complementary sexual pair as the
foundation for limiting the number of persons in a sexual bond to
two persons whether at any one time (no polygamy) or serially (no
revolving door of divorce and remarriage), as it was for the Qumran
Essenes (at least as regards polygamy). There are half a dozen other
arguments that one could make to underscore that, historically
speaking, the premise that Jesus ever had even the slightest
openness to committed homosexual unions is untenable. And your
argument about reaching out to outcasts doesn't work because Jesus
reached out to tax collectors in order to recover them for the
kingdom of God, not to have them continue in the exploitative
economic practices that led to Jesus' outreach to them in the first
place. The same thing applies to his outreach to sexual sinners,
whose behavior put them at high risk of exclusion from God's coming
kingdom. Jesus reached out to both groups in a concerted effort to
redirect their behavior, not to confirm their behavior. By analogy
to your reasoning, polygamists and adult-consensual participants are
even bigger outcasts so we should be accepting their relationships.
Indeed, anyone who did anything that society didn't approve of, even
things which society should continue to reject, would fall within
the domain of your argument since you fail to factor in whether a
person's outcast status is a product of bad behavior or good
behavior.
Love is not the same
thing as tolerance. Love sometimes includes discipline and rebuke
(something with which you apparently must believe since you attempt
here to rebuke me, I presume out of love). Love includes saying no
to things that injure one's relationship to God and to others. You
have a very truncated view of love, from what I can see, when you
apply it to the issue of homosexual practice.
Although your
correspondence has the tenor of a rebuke of me ("I am stunned by the
prejudice you displayed in your article") you should really direct
your rebuke to your unreflective response to the issue of homosexual
practice. Let me recommend that you read my work more widely than
you apparently have to date. I recommend for starters the
following:
“What the Evidence Really Says about Scripture
and Homosexual Practice: Five Issues” (Mar. 14, 2009; 7 pgs.;
online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf).
“Why Homosexual Behavior Is More like
Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender: A Reasoned and
Reasonable Case for Secular Society” (May 22, 2009; 7 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf).
“How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to
Scripture and Does Scripture’s Indictment Apply to Committed
Homosexual Unions?” (Jan. 2007, Dec. 2007; 11 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexHowBadIsIt.pdf; html:
http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm)
And a longer piece:
“Why the Disagreement over the Biblical
Witness on Homosexual Practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni,
What God Has Joined Together?” Reformed Review 59 (2005):
19-130 (online:
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf).
[Table of Contents at:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoReformedReviewTableCont.pdf]
From these you can move
on to my 500-page first book, or start with my 50-page essay in my
second book.
Blessings,
Dr. Robert Gagnon
Debate with a self-affirming "secular
humanist"
From:
W O'Donnell
Sent: Friday, December
11, 2009 12:01 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Flawed
premise
Dr
Gannon [sic],
I was a New Testment student at the Jesuit University at St. Louis
- Saint Louis University. After finishing my work there, I did my
graduate studies at the Catholic Theological Union at Chicago, and was
an
exchange student at
the Harvard Divinity School, as a student of Elizabeth Schussler
Fiorenza, focusing my studies on the hermenutics of suspician.
After finishing my studies there, I returned to Saint Louis University
to study science in biology and molecular virology. I am now an
agnostic, secular humanist who holds an M.A. in Bblical Theology and a
Ph.D in molecular virology.
I did my work in the ancient languages, under the auspices of Donald
Senior, Carolyn Osiek, Barbara Bowe, Carrol Stulhmeuller, and Leslie
Hoppe.
I have read your book on homosexuality, which is to dipute such
notable scholars as Dr. Robins Scroggs, Walter Wink, Elizabeth
Fiorenza, along with their academic and philosophical discursives.
The Old Testament and the New Testment are dead documents. They only
hold a theological and ancient cultural context which no longer
applies to the modern world.
You realize, of couse, that at that period in time Everthing was God.
If the ground shook, if someone woke up with a sore throat, they did
not realize that they were under siege of a virus or a bacteria. They
thought that they were being punished by a vengeful god.
The context of the Old Testament, and Robin Scrogg's genious knowlege
of the Apostle Paul, along with his knowlege of the Pederastic Model,
the arsenokoati and the pornoi is brilliantly extolled in his book.
The man was a scholar of excellence.
You can not apply the Old Testament to the modern world. We are
smarter now, and we even know how the universe works.
I can not believe that some one such as you, who calls himself a
scholar, allows 2000 years of cultural evolution to make other human
beings feel justifed in precipitating hate.
To use Elizabeth Fiorenza's word in her book "In Memory of Her" "This
success cannot be justified theologically, since it cannot claim the
authority of Jesus for its Christian praxis."
William O'Donnell
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, December 11, 2009 11:40 AM
To: 'W O'Donnell'
Subject: RE: Flawed premise
William,
The name is
Gagnon, not Gannon.
The
credentials do not impress. I did my academic work at Dartmouth College,
Harvard Div School, and Princeton Seminary. So what? The question is one
of strength of argument, which I see little of here.
Scroggs’s
work is now obsolete. I debated him at Centre College in 2002 and had no
trouble showing the unsustainable character of his argument. I have
shown in my work that committed homoerotic relationships were known in
antiquity (as most classicists can tell you). Moreover, Paul’s clear
appeal to the creation texts, his use of a nature argument based on
male-female complementarity, his emphasis on the mutuality of the acts,
and his indictment of lesbianism also indicate that a non-exploitative
homosexual unions would (of course) have been rejected by him, and by
Jesus who predicated his view on the essential ‘twoness’ of a sexual
union on the essential twoness of the sexes, “male and female” (Gen
1:27) or “man” and “woman” (Gen 2:24). There are more than a half dozen
other arguments that show, historically, that Jesus would have
categorically opposed homoerotic behavior, as did all other Jews of the
period. Thus, to claim that maintaining a male-female prerequisite for
sexual relations (like a non-incest requirement or a limitation to two
persons concurrently) “cannot
claim the authority of Jesus for its Christian praxis“
is illogical.
Your
argument about “hate” is as absurd as arguing that not allowing a person
with a polysexual orientation to get a marriage license for 3 or more
sexual partners concurrently is hateful; or contending that refusal to
grant a marriage license to an adult-committed incestuous bond is
hateful. Or perhaps your science education tells you that these forms of
behavior, so long as they are adult-committed, are now acceptable? As
regards the science, the disproportionately high rates of harm
associated with homosexual practice (harm that, incidentally, differs
for male homosexuality and female homosexuality in ways that correspond
to male-female differences) are in large measure attributable to the
extremes of a given sex not being moderated, nor gaps filled, in
same-sex erotic pairings, not in the first instance due to societal
"homophobia."
I recommend
that you begin reading my arguments. Please start with the literature
cited below.
Blessings,
Robert
Gagnon
“How
Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to Scripture and Does Scripture’s
Indictment Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?” (Jan. 2007, Dec. 2007;
11 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexHowBadIsIt.pdf).
html:
http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm
“A Book Not to Be Embraced: A
Critical Review Essay on Stacy Johnson’s A Time to Embrace” [Part 1: the
Scottish Journal of Theology article [Scottish Journal of
Theology 62.1 (Feb. 2009): 61-80] (Mar. 2008; 16 pgs.; online:
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf).
html:
http://robgagnon.net/Critical%20Review%20of%20Stacy%20Johnson's%20Time%20to%20Embrace.htm
. Also:
“Part II: Sodom, Leviticus, and More on Jesus and Paul”
(March 2008; 19 pgs.; online:
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasonsCritique.pdf).
html:
http://robgagnon.net/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasonsCritique.htm .
Also: “Part III:
Science, Nature, History, and Logic” (Mar. 2008; 16 pgs.; online:
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasons3.pdf).
html:
http://robgagnon.net/homosexStacyJohnsonMoreReasons3.htm
“More than ‘Mutual Joy’: Lisa
Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus” (Dec. 2008; 26
pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdf).
html:
http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm
“What the Evidence
Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five
Issues” (Mar. 14, 2009; 7 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf).
“Why Homosexual Behavior Is
More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender: A
Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society” (May 22, 2009; 7 pgs.;
online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf).
From:
W O'Donnell
Sent: Fri 12/11/2009 9:40 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: Flawed premise
Forgive
me, Dr. Gagnon - it was a typo.
I found your opening statement amusing, as it was not truly my intention
to outdo you academically in Theology - I am a now a scientist, who
happens to hold a large theological and scriptural background, critical
historical methodology (I adore Helmut Koester).
Although I do not have the Ivy League background such as you, I am
still quite proud of my Jesuit education, and to have able to study with
some of the most renowned scripture scholars in the U.S. Many of my
teachers hold Th.Ds from the Ivy League Tradition. You comment, however
it was motivated, seems like it was meant to show that my education is
lesser than yours. I hope your classroom students do not suffer from
your arrogance.
After reviewing several articles on the internet, your critical response
of Robin Scroggs work (with whom I did study for a semester in Chicago0,
and your critical rebuttal to Walter Winks disagreement of your academic
scholarship in scripture, I believe that I have discovered the
motivation behind your scholarship. You are a fundamentalist.
I know that you are correct about the Jewish tradition finding
homosexuality an abomination - why would two women or two men hold a
loving, sexual relationship when they could be no children?
Nationalistic pride and religious pride and arrogance must mean the
Jewish people to go on! Long live the race! We must increase our
numbers to continue our narrow minded nationalism!
At the same time you brought forth perfect "unity" of the male/female
relationship. All the parts fit! The sex cannot be any other way. I
have news for your - heterosexual relationships perform all the the same
"unatural," kinky" acts that your seem to think homosexuals consistantly
engage in. There is a lot more to sexuality than your books
discuss. Have you rented a homosexual porn lately?
I have no interest in denying your academic premise that homoerotic
behavior was not a repulsive idea to the Jews, but there is more to
human sexuality than you think or are willing to admit. Some of them may
have been self-hating homosexuals. Christianity, however, developed
with the Greco-Roman influence, each culture desparately clinging to the
past and unwilling to get rid of their ancient cultures.
It is believed by Christians that Jesus know exactly who he was and how
he expected the world to behave. It this issue were truly important he
had no reason not to voice everything that he needed to say. Perhaps he
understood the human condition more than any man alive, and this was
just simply not an issue.
Your statement as follows is absurd: "
Paul’s
clear appeal to the creation texts, his use of a nature argument based
on male-female complementarity, his emphasis on the mutuality of the
acts, and his indictment of lesbianism also indicate that a
non-exploitative homosexual unions would (of course) have been rejected
by him, and by Jesus who predicated his view on the essential ‘twoness’
of a sexual union on the essential twoness of the sexes, “male and
female” (Gen 1:27) or “man” and “woman” (Gen 2:24).
Perhaps your are not giving Jesus his academic
credentials. Do you think Jesus never considered that gay people have no
choice. Or this must be another flawed premise of yours. However, I am
an atheist, so I do not know how your work would benefit a loving
Christian.
I am glad that I don't need to concern myself with it, but this
correspondence has been fun! Thank you!
William
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 12:10 PM
To: W O'Donnell
Subject: RE: Flawed premise
William,
Owing to time considerations I will keep
this brief.
1. Your "suffer from your arrogance"
comment is a clear case of projection, since arrogance saturates your
two correspondences to me. My mention of my own credentials was only to
show you that your lengthy description of your credentials was of no
import to me. What mattered, I noted, was what arguments you had, which
were very little. To paraphrase the apostle Paul, if you want to boast
of your credentials (as you say: "I am quite proud") I can boast more,
but that would be absurd since what counts is the case that one can
make.
2. As for my motivation being that of a
fundamentalist, it is evident once more that you are confused. Since I
use the full array of historical-critical tools and am not an
inerrantist, as anyone who has read my work carefully knows, I would not
come under the banner of a fundamentalist, though you appear to have the
makings of a fundamentalist atheist of sorts in your unreasoned
convictions. A male-female prerequisite for sexual relations is by every
measure a core value of biblical ethics (pervasive, absolute, strongly
held, counter-culturally held, the basis for other ethical standards
like monogamy and anti-incest laws).
3. To restrict ancient Israel's
opposition to homosexual practice to an inability to procreate is like
restricting opposition to adult-consensual incest only in cases where
procreation is a possibility. Procreation issues are the symptom of the
root problem: too much formal or structural identity between the
participants, not enough complementary otherness. The high birth-defects
that arise in incestuous procreation arises from the fact that there is
too much kinship identity among the parents; the latter is the real
problem, the former the symptom. Even when procreation does not occur,
the problem with the incest (even of an adult-consensual sort) remains.
Likewise, the inability of two persons of the same sex to procreate is
the symptom of the root problem of too much formal identity, here on the
level of gender.
4. Whatever sex acts heterosexuals or
homosexuals perform, the fact remains that a man's sexual "other half,"
complement, or counterpart is a woman and vice versa. You seem to miss
this point completely. It is partly anatomy, but also physiology and
psychology. Man and woman differ in ways that moderate the extremes of,
and fill in the gaps of, the other sex. Homoerotic pairings, lacking a
true sexual complement, do not generally produce the same result. In
addition, there is something problematic about being erotically aroused
by the very body parts and gender essence of one's own sex; in effect,
sexual narcissism, but also sexual self-deception and self-dishonor
because it treats one's gender or sex as only half intact: two
half-males uniting to form a single whole male, two half-females uniting
to form a single whole female. The logic of a heterosexual union makes
sense, for what is lacking in essential maleness (so far as gender is
concerned) is essential femaleness and vice versa. The two halves of the
sexual spectrum unite to form a single sexual whole, where each party
desires what one is not in terms of sex or gender rather than what one
already is and has.
5. You have completely missed my point
about Jesus so please reread what I said and the material I referred you
to, so that you may at least understand what I have said. The issue of
choice as regards the mere feeling of impulses is irrelevant to the
question of ascertaining morality since all behavior, at some level, can
be traced to differences in brain structure and process. Most men are
"polysexual" but that doesn't validate polyamory for society (at least
we don't yet issue marriage licenses for 3 or more persons). Pedophiles
have as little choice as homosexual persons in their impulses but that
doesn't validate the behavior in question. People may not be responsible
for what they feel but they are responsible for what they do with what
they feel. Same-sex erotic unions are structurally incompatible
irrespective of choice as regards the mere experience of an impulse.
Most sinful impulses, in fact, are innate; the innateness doesn't make
it any less sinful. That is why Jesus demanded of disciples that they
take up their cross, deny themselves, and lose their lives. That's why
he could compare men who renounce sexual relations for the sake of the
kingdom of God to "born eunuchs."
Much more could be said but I have to
gauge the value of spending the extra time, given the law of diminishing
returns.
Blessings,
Robert Gagnon
From:
W O'Donnell
Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2009 1:01 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: Flawed premise
Your science is incorrect.
Incest can produce correct individuals who are fully capable of loving
and being loved. The damage to these humans come from the projected
images of people like you!
There is no such thing
as evil, and no one is beset by sin. Human failure is a philosophy that
has beset thinkers for the better part of 10 centuries. Sin is a
construct of humans.
There is nothing about you that is academic. You are a hack.
William
[Note to readers:
William's endorsement of incest, denial of the existence of evil and
sin, and angry ad hominem attacks unaccompanied by reasoned
argumentation need no response.]
From:
W O'Donnell [mailto:wjodonnell@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2010 10:25 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: Flawed premise
It
would be fun to download your laptop files.
You
are a total fag - and spend your life thinking about male penetration.
Log
that, B____. [expletive]
A note
of thanks
From: K.
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 1:16 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Thank you for writing the Book "The Bible and Homosexual
Practice"
Shalom Dr.
Gagnon:
I just
want to write and tell you how grateful I am for the book you wrote.
1. It told
me the truth of God.
2.
It conveyed the love, mercy, grace, and hope of God to restore me to the
true me that God intended.
3. It sets
me free from the lies of the media and false scientific reports.
4. Most
importantly, it strengthened me to leave forever my lesbian life
behind.
I am
currently studying _________________ at _______________ Seminary at
_________________.
I pray
that one day I will be able to glorify God also in sexual redemption
ministry in Asia.
God bless
you and your family.
Sincerely,
K.
Questions from a student regarding the issue's importance and the
authority of Scripture
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:08 AM
To: Patrick
Subject: RE: Questions from a college student concerning
homosexuality and the Bible.
Dear
Patrick,
I am going
to refer you to material that I have in print or on the web. See
comments below. Blessings on your research.
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 8:38 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Questions from a college student concerning
homosexuality and the Bible.
Dear Dr.
Gagnon,
I am a senior at ____________, a small __________ liberal arts college
just south of __________. I am currently taking a class entitled
"___________________". I am in the process now of writing a research
essay on the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. I just recently
finished your book Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views. I find
both your and Dan Via's analysis and interpretation of the Bible to be
quite fascinating. One question I cannot help but ask my self is why
homosexuality is such a "hot topic" in Biblical debate?
RG: In
addition to the articles that I cite below see:
“More than ‘Mutual
Joy’: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus” (Dec.
2008; 26 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexNewsweekMillerResp.pdf).
html:
http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm
Another
question that we have been addressing through out the course of the
semester is the authority of the Bible in today's world. If possible, I
was wondering - given your scholarship in the area, if you would be able
to answer a few questions of mine to aid me in the writing of my essay.
1. Why, in your opinion, do you believe homosexuality and the Bible is
such a popular topic? What makes it stand out against other prohibitions
in the Bible?
See:
“How Bad Is
Homosexual Practice According to Scripture and Does Scripture’s
Indictment Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?” (Jan. 2007, Dec. 2007;
11 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexHowBadIsIt.pdf).
html:
http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm
“Why
Homosexual Behavior Is More like Consensual Incest and Polyamory than
Race or Gender: A Reasoned and Reasonable Case for Secular Society” (May
22, 2009; 7 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf).
2. Why does it seem that some texts have more authority than others? Why
is it that same sex relationships are prohibited so strongly but others
like mixing garments are not?
See:
Robert A. J. Gagnon, “Case Not Made: A
Response to Prof. John Thorp’s ‘Making the Case’ for Blessing Homosexual
Unions in the Anglican Church of Canada” (June 2007; 30 pgs.; online:
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexThorpCanadaResp.pdf;
reprinted as “A Faithful Church: The Bible and Same-Sex Sex” in God,
Gays and the Church (eds. L. Nolland, C. Sugden, and S. Finch;
London: Latimer Trust, 2008), 107-38. See pp. 4-7 in the online article.
“What the Evidence
Really Says about Scripture and Homosexual Practice: Five
Issues” (Mar. 14, 2009; 7 pgs.; online:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf).
3. What sparked your interest in the study of homosexuality and the
Bible? Why do you feel the need to write on the topic?
See my
first book:
The Bible
and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics,
31-37.
4. What authority does/should the Bible have today? How do we deal with
the context in which it was written and bring it into today's society?
Is the Bible a complete authoritative power?
A
Response to My "Back
to the Oppressive Future" Article
From:
[Bowdoin Female Student]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 9:20 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Reply from a Bowdoin Student
Dear Dr.
Gagnon,
I was not able to attend your recent
talk at Bowdoin,
but have seen the reflections piece you wrote about the experience, and
I just had a few things to say in response. First of all let me say
that I identify as a Christian, and attended [a Christian high school],
where I recieved a lot of theological education; I definitely understand
where you are coming from in the piece you read. That being said, I
just wanted to present a more positive image of the place of gender and
sexuality education at Bowdoin College, and express what I have learend
as a Christian woman for being there.
Before I went to Bowdoin, I didn't have a whole lot of
contact with people identifying as homosexuals, being in a relatively
conservative environment. Once I choose to go to Bowdoin, a New England
liberal arts college, that certainly changed. At first I was somewhat
conflicted in how to respond to homosexuality in such a liberal
environment, but the impression I did get from Bowdoin was not that I
couldn't express my moral ambiguity (which I had held before entering
Bowdoin, being somewhat liberal by nature), I actually did express this
on a few occasions, it was that to say something hurtful offensive, such
as using offensive slurs relating to homosexuality, was unacceptable. I
feel that this does fall within the strictures of Free Speech, as I was
able to express my views as long as my language was not offensive or
threatening (and I do believe that using slurs as insults can be
threatening) was unacceptable. I think this kind of language is
unacceptable for Christians anyways, regardless of what the law or
campus policies say, and from reading your article I am confident you
agree with me here.
I was also soon to have my own experience with hateful
language. [She then goes to relate an incident where she called
students to account for homosexual slurs and classist rhetoric, and was
verbally attacked for doing so.] I was deeply shocked and hurt by
all of the backlash, and the support I recieved from Allen DeLong, Kate
Stern (director of the Queer Trans Resource Center) and David Collings
(Professor of Gay and Lesbians Studies) was an incredible source of
comfort for me in that situation, honestly words can't even express what
it meant to me. [... This was] an encouragement to respect fellow
students, which for me does not conflict with Christian values.
So I will finish off my long-winded email by answering
the question "How does being at Bowdoin affect my beliefs about the
morality of sexuality?" I don't identify as homosexual, so I don't
think I am an authoritative voice; after all I have plenty of my own
sins. What I have learned at Bowdoin is that there are many wonderful,
loving people who identify as homosexuals and it is my job to love and
respect them, and God's job to judge them. Thank you for your time, and
I hope I have been able to present a more positive picture of Bowdoin
than your initial impressions.
Sincerely,
[Bowdoin student]
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 5:27 PM
To: [Bowdoin Student]
Subject: RE: Reply from a Bowdoin Student
Dear
__________,
Thank you
for your informative note. I appreciate what you went through.
I can see
why you would receive support from DeLong et al.; you were criticizing
homosexual slurs and they would certainly want to support that
criticism.
However,
this example does not show how DeLong et al. would react in an exemplary
way to persons who state that homosexual practice per se is immoral and
make the statement in loving concern for the fate of those who engage in
such behavior. I have seen firsthand how DeLong et al. would react to
such statements and it is not pretty.
You say: “What
I have learned at Bowdoin is that there are many wonderful, loving
people who identify as homosexuals and it is my job to love and respect
them, and God's job to judge them.”
I don’t
doubt that there are persons who engage in homosexual acts who in other
respects are nice. We all compartmentalize our lives. [I know someone
who] counseled pedophiles in a maximum security male prison for years
and she said that, apart from prison garb, you couldn’t tell them from
any other nice person. They included Sunday School teachers, etc. Now
I’m not saying that homosexual practice is as bad as pedophilia. I’m
just pointing out if even pedophiles can, in other respects, be
nice people, why would I think that there are no nice persons who engage
in homosexual practice? I don’t believe that persons who live out of
same-sex attractions howl at the moon as though “moral werewolves.” But
neither do I think that niceness in other areas validates the homosexual
behavior. The same would apply to nice persons who engage in
adult-committed polyamory or incest.
When you
say that it is your job to love and respect persons who engage in
homosexual practice and God’s job to judge them, you overlook several
points. First, love includes reproof, as Jesus himself established and
as the context for the “love your neighbor as yourself” command in Lev
19:18 makes clear. One can’t reprove without making moral judgments.
Second, you yourself make judgments on all sorts of issues. When you
criticized those who uttered homosexual slurs and classist language you
made moral judgments. You didn’t just say: It’s my job to love them and
God’s job to judge them, as if you had to live in a world of moral
relativism. Third, God (and his emissaries, including Jesus) has
declared, quite clearly throughout the pages of Scripture that
homosexual practice is wrong, as is incest and (in the NT) polygyny
(multiple wives) and adultery and many other offenses. So we can’t
pretend that God has withheld revealing this judgment until the Day of
Judgment. Remember Paul’s frustrated comment when dealing with the
Corinthian church’s tolerance of the incestuous man? “Is it not those
inside the church that you are to judge?” The answer to that question is
not “no,” but “yes.” Fourth, one of the “jobs” of God’s people is to
warn people not to engage in behavior that puts them at risk of not
inheriting an eternal relationship with God. If you had a child (I don’t
know whether you do or don’t) and your child was about to touch a hot
stove, you wouldn’t as a parent say, “It’s not up to me to tell my child
that touching a hot stove is harmful; it is up to me to love and respect
my child.” If you did, state social services would take your child away
from you. By the same token, it is our obligation as believers to expose
the lie perpetrated by those promoting homosexual behavior that this is
all in God’s will and that those who oppose this view are a bunch of
hateful, ignorant bigots.
These are
some reflections that I have about your email, which I appreciate
receiving from you.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
Questions about the inconsistency
of opposing "gay marriage" while supporting homosexual "domestic
partnership" and "sexual orientation" laws
The
next two sets of correspondence deal with my online article, "An
Open Letter to the Leaders of Stand for Marriage Maine" (Nov. 4,
2009).
From:
N_______________
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2009 8:26 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: Comment on the
Maine Gay
Marriage Vote
Dear Dr.
Gagnon,
Thank you for the updates on your efforts in Maine and the
controversies at Bowdoin. We praise the Lord that, at least for now,
the forces of morality and order seemed to have prevailed over the
movement for sexual anarchy. I admire your courage in taking your
arguments to any forum, no matter how hostile.
I had a couple of questions for you, that I have been pondering since
your visit here to ____________.
1. The first has to do with your post below, about giving up the
long-term battle by allowing for civil unions and other same-sex
benefits short of marriage. I have long pondered this question, and
have wondered whether this might be akin to the Bible having rules
regulating slavery as an institution. You and I would agree that the
Bible in no way endorsed slavery, or viewed it as a positive
institution. Rather, God through the Bible apparently saw that slavery
was one of those institutions that, due to sin and fallen human nature,
would persist for long periods of human history. In his mercy, he
passed laws mitigating and minimizing the suffering caused by this
institution.
Similarly, I have wondered if we should not allow for laws that
minimize the human suffering and difficulties posed by same-sex
relationships. Whatever the state of the law, there will be people who
choose to live together in same-sex unions, some in committed, long-term
relationships. Should we really opposed the notion that these “couples”
should not be able to visit each other in hospital, or be able to pass
their property under the law, or perhaps even share health insurance and
benefits? It seems that allowing this would minimize the suffering
caused by an otherwise wrong institution, much as in the case of
slavery. I would draw the line at allowing adoption by such couples, as
a primary civil reason for me in not allowing gay marriage is the impact
on children by not having male and female role models, and being raised
in seriously compromised moral environments. But other benefits, such
as health-care, insurance, hospital visitation, and testamentary
benefits seem to me not to threaten others, and neither does it seem to
create the same kind of moral endorsement of the behavior as would
extending the recognition of marriage. Any thoughts on this? Even God
himself gave laws to regulate polyamory, in passing laws regulating
polygamy, e.g., cannot marry sisters, etc.
2. I found your presentations truly Biblically-based and
grace-filled, and was deeply blessed by them. Your presentation about
the “re-union” of the male and the female to rejoin the original,
undifferentiated Adam, which was both male and female, was a unique and
original thought that I had not previously encountered. I think you
make a compelling case that the “two-ness” principle is absolutely
limited to male and female. I was somewhat surprised, though, that you
did not take the next step and talk about the basing of this twoness not
merely in the undifferentiated Adam, but one step further back to the
image of God itself. This seems to me to be the ultimate foundation of
the importance of the complementary twoness, not something inherent in
humanity, but inherent in God, the full image of God being expressed in
the combination of male and female. As Gen. 1:27 says, “God created man
in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He
created them.” The text teaches that the image of God is made up of the
male and female. Thus, for us to combine the male and the male, or the
female and female, is to deface the image of God, to create an image of
God in purely feminine or masculine, which is incomplete, and ultimately
idolatrous and blasphemous, as we are creating God in our incomplete
image, rather than in the complementary image that He has revealed
Himself to be. Thus, the homosexual claims do not just undercut God’s
plan for man, but undercut God’s own revelations about who He is, and
the main image that He uses (apart from Christ, I suppose) to reveal His
makeup and characteristics to the world. Perhaps these ideas are more
fully developed in your 4 hour presentation, as I know we gave you very
limited time here at ___________, but I do view this as quite
fundamental to the theological side of the discussion, and wanted to get
your thoughts on it.
Blessings in your continued efforts and ministries. You made a truly
significant and positive impact on our campus.
Your friend,
N_______________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:30 PM
To: N______________
Subject: RE: Comment on the
Maine Gay
Marriage Vote
Hi
N_________,
On your
questions:
-
I
don’t think that we can pass the kinds of laws that you mention
without making gay marriage a fait accompli. You would like to stop
shy of adoption; I don’t think that in practice it works that way.
Note too that domestic partnership laws do not allow for multiple,
concurrent domestic partners (polyamory) or close-kin partners
(incest). Why should homosexual domestic partnerships be privileged
over adult-committed polyamorous or incestuous unions? It should
rather be the reverse since homosexual practice is a more foundational
violation of the male-female prerequisite. And yet I meet few
proponents of domestic partner benefits for same-sex unions that would
like to expand the law to include polyamory and incest. Why the
reluctance? Because they know that such laws send a clear signal that
the sexual relationship in question has at least a second-tier
validity. I don’t think the analogy of OT accommodation to polygamy
works well inasmuch as the analogy goes in the opposite direction from
the point of comparison: Scripture moves from some allowance as
regards polygamy to (in the NT) no allowance (to a lesser, but
similar, extent the same point can be made about slavery). You are
suggesting we move, as regards homosexual practice, in the opposite
direction: from no allowance to some limited allowance or at least
accommodation. Moreover, the supposition of extending some benefits to
homosexual relationships underestimates the degree to which such
relationships are offensive to God and are repulsively contrary to
nature. Homosexual relationships are far worse than polyamory, worse
even than adultery (isn’t it unfair not to allow health benefits and
inheritance laws to extend to one’s mistress?), and comparable to, or
more likely worse than, the worst forms of adult-incest (e.g., a man
and his mother). The state should not in any way want to be
accommodating to homosexual unions. It should do everything it can in
terms of persuasion (short of violence and incarceration, of course)
to discourage such unions. Accommodation as regards property rights
and health-care legislation sends a highly mixed message on the
question of societal endorsement. It is also unfair to other
relationships. After all, I have a couple of very close male friends.
Why shouldn’t my health insurance extend to them, or to an unemployed
adult sibling? As regards hospital visits, I think hospitals should
allow every patient the right to a designate any persons of his or her
choosing, up to a maximum number, to receive full visitation rights.
But when same-sex “domestic partners” alone are singled out for
marriage-like benefits it again sends the wrong message. As regards
property rights, a person, I believe, can will their property to
anyone. The only question is whether special tax breaks given to
family members will apply. The state gives certain special inheritance
rights to families because it wants to encourage the institutions of
marriage and family. Opening up such benefits to homosexual
relationships sends the bad message that we want to encourage such
sexual unions. The bottom line: every vote for domestic partnership
benefits for homosexual unions is a vote for gay marriage to come
within 10-20 years. To underscore this point see the following
article: Thomas M. Messner, "ENDA and the Path to Same-Sex Marriage"
at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/religion/bg2317.cfm.
-
Here
is what I have written about Gen 1:27 in a recent piece:
Genesis 1:27 brings into close
connection “the image of God” and creation of humans as “male and
female”: “in the image of God he (God) created [the human]; male and
female he created them.” The language of Gen 1:27 suggests two points of
importance. First, though animals too participate in sexual
differentiation and pairing, human sexual differentiation and pairing is
uniquely integrated into God’s image. This makes it possible for
humans to enhance or to efface that image through their sexual behavior.
The alternative is to argue, falsely, that one’s sexuality is wholly
disconnected from God’s image, thereby making it possible for one to
engage in every kind of sexual misbehavior, including adultery,
bestiality, and pedophilia, without doing any harm to the imprint of
God’s image. Secondly, a male-female sexual pairing manifests the
fullness of the imprint of God’s image on the sexual dimension of human
life. While male and female each bear the stamp of God’s image on their
sexuality and have independent integrity as such, they do so as
“angular” and complementary expressions of that image. Since male
and female combined constitute the totality of the sexual spectrum it is
axiomatic that the union of male and female establishes a sexual
whole. This wholeness exists even in the absence of procreation. It
is certainly the case that the narrator of Genesis 1 in his historical
context did not regard an infertile male-female union as the equivalent
of a same-sex sexual union. [bold added]
I think
that this is at least similar to the position that you put forward.
Please see also what I have to say in The Bible and Homosexual
Practice, 57-59.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
Tim
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 11:19 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: Comment on the
Maine
Gay Marriage Vote
Excuse me, I don't understand. Are you
saying that those who led and helped in the effort to overturn the gay
marriage bill somehow surrendered the foundation of their own
position? I have friends in Portland who certainly did everything
they could in this effort, and I cannot imagine them compromising the
Biblical foundation of their position.
Tim
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 2:58 PM
To: Tim
Subject: RE: Comment on the
Maine
Gay Marriage Vote
Hi Tim,
I am not
questioning anyone’s intent or effort. I am saying that any Christian
who, in the course of working to defeat the “gay marriage” bill,
provided endorsement for homosexual “domestic partnership” benefits
and “sexual orientation” laws, sowed the seeds of ultimate defeat for
efforts to get rid of “gay marriage.” Imagine if I worked tirelessly
to stop state endorsement of polygamy or incestuous marriage but then
expressed support for “domestic partnership” benefits for sexual
unions involving 3 or more persons concurrently or involving close kin
and, further, promoted laws that established such unions as “civil
rights” and opposition to such unions as “prejudice.” Would I not have
undermined my position against polygamy and incestuous marriage? Of
course. The same thing happened as regards homosexual unions when
Stand for Marriage Maine put out a commercial and took public
positions supporting homosexual domestic partnerships and “sexual
orientation” “civil rights” laws. One cannot say simultaneously, at
least not in a consistent manner, both that “gay marriage” is wrong
and that homosexual unions should be treated as marriages are
treated.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
Tim
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2009 4:05 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: Comment on the
Maine
Gay Marriage Vote
Thank you for replying.
I was not
aware that "Stand for Marriage Maine put out
a commercial and took public positions supporting homosexual domestic
partnerships and “sexual orientation” “civil rights” laws."
Not knowing that, I did not understand your
comment. Now I do. Again, thank you for the explanation.
Tim
Problems with Andrew Marin's Love Is an Orientation
From:
GH
Sent: Wed 10/28/2009 1:10 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Love is an Orientation
Dear Dr. Gagnon,
I was at the Exodus conference and heard you at the
general session. Because of other commitments, I was unable to attend
one of your workshops. But I’m intrigued by the idea that you can prove
the Bible says homosexuality is always wrong. I believe that myself, but
I’m in the process of reading the book, Love is an Orientation by
Andrew Marin. Marin moved into the Boystown district of Chicago and
ministers to the gay community. His stance is that if they’re gay and
monogamous and Christian, they’re going to heaven. That wasn’t his
original premise, but he seems to have adapted to their way of thinking.
Some have told him that God had brought them out of a gay lifestyle, and
he agrees with that as well. His main theme is if a person is growing in
their relationship with Christ – let Him tell them what to do with their
sexuality.
Then he goes into pro-gay theology in chapter 7. He’s
trying to build a bridge between conservative Christianity and the gay
community, but he adapts their theology. So, I think he’s perhaps
confused. He makes points about Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, I
Corinthians and I Timothy that I haven’t heard before, and I can see how
convincing they became to him in his understanding of this community.
If you review this book (or, perhaps you already have),
I’d like to see your rebuttal to his arguments. One big reason I’m
asking is because my son, who came out of a gay lifestyle some years
ago, is a proponent of this way of thinking, and I’m concerned he’s be
deceived. He sent me this book to read, and I want to have some solid
answers when I respond to what it’s all about.
Thanks for considering this possibility. If you’re at the
next Exodus conference, I’ll be sure to attend your sessions. By the
way, I would like to be included on your mailing list.
God bless you,
GH
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:24 PM
To: GH
Subject: RE: Love is an Orientation
Dear
G________,
I have not read Marin's
book but have heard enough to indicate to me that he doesn't know what
he is talking about. At some point I will need to respond but at present
I have other obligations.
You may want to start by reading this
online piece by me:
“What the Evidence
Really
Says about Scripture and Homosexual
Practice: Five Issues” (Mar. 14, 2009; 7 pgs.; online:
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf).
"Let God tell them what
to do with their sexuality"? If this is Marin's position he is way off.
There is no other form of egregious sexual immorality that the Church
has pledged not to bring up to church members engaged in it. Homosexual
practice is viewed in Scripture, early Judaism, and Christianity as
severe as, or more so, adult-consensual incest and adultery. Should we
say nothing to believers engaged in such behavior. That certainly wasn't
Paul's approach. Read 1 Cor 5 on the case of the incestuous man.
Marin says that a person
who is in a committed monogamous homosexual union and is "growing in
Christ" will go to heaven? By definition, if they are in such a union
they are not, in the main, growing in Christ. Again, by Marin's
rationale, Paul should have assured the Corinthians that the incestuous
man would be going to heaven as long as he kept the relationship with
his stepmother committed and monogamous and kept growing in other areas
of his life. Instead, he indicated that such person, along with "men who
lie with a male" and "adulterers," will not inherit the kingdom of God
(1 Cor 6:9). Why should I believe Marin, who obviously doesn't know his
Scripture well, and not Paul the apostle to the Gentiles who has the
lion's share of texts within the canon of New Testament Scripture?
Remember that John the
Baptist got beheaded for criticizing Herod Antipas for violating incest
law by having his brother's wife. So John must have really been laying
on the criticism.
Paul's remarks in Rom
1:24-27 certainly do include committed homosexual relationships. This is
clear enough from the echo to Gen 1:26-27, the nature argument based on
male-female complementarity that he uses, the indictment of lesbianism
in 1:26, the reference to reciprocal affections in 1:27, the fact that
committed homosexual relationships were known in the ancient world (even
semi-official marriages and yet some Greco-Roman moralists as well as
the rabbis and the Church Fathers could condemn even these as contrary
to nature and indecent), and the fact that the offender group "men who
lie with a male" is a term formulated from the absolute Levitical
prohibitions (i.e., which were interpreted absolutely in early Judaism).
Hope this helps for now.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
Does a
person have to read ALL my writings?
From:
Pam
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 4:23 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: reading your emails
Dear Dr. Gagnon-- did you ever reread your email
responses and notice how often you respond by telling the
questioner/writer that they are not serious students of scripture, are
wasting your time unless they read your opinion papers, or implying
that no one "gets it" but you?
It seems to me that ANYONE who disagrees with you let
alone Jack Rogers is misled, has flawed reasoning, has poor
scholarship, or just don't have "ears to hear" as the ones who agree
with you. I am mystified by this from a so called scholar who is the
only one who knows all the answers in the Bible on homosexuality.
Do you mean that you are not interested in discussing the
subject unless someone has read all of your writings on the subject?
Sincerely, Pam ___________ Presbyterian Church
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 9:51 PM
To: 'Pam
Subject: RE: reading your emails
Dear Pam,
It is not a question of
anyone disagreeing with me being wrong simply by virtue of disagreeing
with me. It is a matter of persons making claims that cannot be
substantiated by the historical, literary, and scientific evidence and
not having invested the time to read what the evidence is. Since frankly
I have laid that evidence out as thoroughly as anyone in the world
(certainly as regards the biblical evidence) and have made the strongest
case for retaining the biblical male-female prerequisite for sexual
relations, it is necessary to point readers to what I have written. A
person does not have to read every word that I have written; but a
person should take the time to read relatively short pieces that
summarize the evidence, at
the
very least.
As for
being “not interested in discussing the subject unless someone has read
all of [my] writings,” if you explored what I have to say you
would see that I have spent more time “discussing the subject” with
inquirers than anyone else, to my knowledge. It seems to me that
you would want to make this criticism of everyone else before making it
of me. Whom do you know who has spent more time in discussing the
subject with people who raise questions online? And if you can’t name me
anyone why are you complaining about my alleged lack? And why should I
“reinvent the wheel” every time a new correspondent raises the same old
complaints that I have already dealt with in other places on numerous
occasions? And even taking these instances into consideration, I still
have many more responses that lay out some of the arguments and
positions than anyone else.
As for Jack
Rogers, he is a very poor scholar on this issue, as I have showed in
about 60 pages of online material. Undoubtedly you will complain if I
ask you: Have you ever bothered to read any of these critiques of
Rogers? Do you not think if you are going to formulate a negative
conclusion about me or my work (as you appear to have prematurely done)
that you have any sort of obligation to read greater portions of what I
have written than you have already apparently read?
Instead of
posing the ad hominem criticisms that you present in your email to me,
make your case as to what you think that I have erred in claiming with
regard to the issue. And be sure to read and digest the arguments that I
have made on the specific point before you have made your specific
criticism. You don’t have to read everything but you should read
something, anything, substantial to the subject. If you have the better
argument and better evidence to support your position I should think
that this is all the case that you actually need to show that I am in
error. But if you lack the arguments and evidence, failing to address my
arguments and evidence, then what are you complaining about? Should you
not rather complain about your own refusal to do your homework well?
Sincerely,
Robert
Gagnon
From:
'Pam
Sent: Monday, October
12, 2009 12:36 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: reading
your emails
Dear Dr. Gagnon-- your email reply
contains some of the best examples of what I am talking about. You
simply cannot refrain from these tactics: 1) No one has done as
much as you , as many times, in as many ways, or as thoroughly as
you; the writer holding a diverse opinion is always a poor scholar;
and defensive posturing.
You have incorrectly assumed that I
have not read MANY of your opinions on this subject and, in fact,
have emailed you before only to be told to not take up your time
until I had read your online papers. As I am teaching Romans this
month, I am studying as many scholars as I can on the subject found
in Romans 1 like Walter Wink, James Allison, Jack Rogers, and you so
far. I am presenting both sides of the issue through these authors
and then wiill let them generate a discussion.
I am not complaining (which is a
funny word to use here) about your opinion or scholarship as much as
I am put off from reading much more of your critical responses to
persons holding another position from your own. I feel they are
often full of ad hominem attacks, picky critiques like in your
response to Walter Wink substituting the word "the" for "a", ( see,
I do read ) and your lack of openness to another's ideas or
scholarship on the topic.
It might surprise you to know that
there are some of us out here who have not made up our minds about
what Romans 1 is saying ie. should we take the proof text approach
or the entire approach of looking at Jesus' whole ministry and
teachings on the subject.
Thanks for getting back to me so
soon and for taking my comments seriously. I am still here trying
to learn the TRUTH and still trying to fathom the love of Jesus
Christ for sinners. Peace, Pam
PS-- Weren't you a bit
premature in accusing me of not doing my homework? Why would my email
have led you to assume that? It is exactly those kinds of comments
that make people cringe.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 12:06 PM
To: 'Pam
Subject: RE: reading your emails
Dear Pam,
There are
no “tactics” here; only your stereotypes of me.
Having
published over a thousand pages on the subject, to say nothing of
numerous additional online materials, my claim that no one has
researched the issue or published as much on it, certainly from the
perspective that I am adopting, is an empirical fact, not a boast. I was
merely explaining to you why I suggest that people read substantial
portions of my work before they draw premature conclusions about my
views or about the issue generally.
Not every
writer on the opposing side is a poor scholar. This is another
mischaracterization on your part. For example, Bernadette Brooten and
Martti Nissinen are good scholars on the other side of the issue, though
I explain in detail why I think some of their conclusions are incorrect.
Walter Wink, Jack Rogers, and James Allison, however, are not good
scholars on this issue. To be a good scholar one has to know the
literature on both sides of the issue well, represent the information
and opposing scholars accurately, deal with the most significant
arguments against one’s own position, and know well the historical and
literary context for the texts being dealt with. These scholars (unlike
Brooten and Nissinen, for example) do not pass muster on these counts.
My
critiques are full of ad hominem attacks? Have you read what these
scholars have said about my work? I accurately present and address all
their main arguments. Wink and especially Rogers have certainly not done
that with respect to my work.
My
critiques are hardly “picky,” as you put it. In the example you give,
there is a big difference between saying that judgment was the
main emphasis of Jesus’ teaching and saying that it was a
main emphasis of his teaching. The former is patently false
(obviously the main point in Jesus coming was to save the world, not
judge it; else why come since the world was already headed for
judgment?), the latter true (contrary to Wink; judgment motifs factor
prominently in a fourth of all of Jesus’ sayings, excluding Matthew
where the figure is twice that; obviously then not the main
element but certainly a main one). You are the only person whom I
have met who has told me that this difference is “picky.” If by changing
a single word in a sentence one turns the statement from a true
statement into a false statement, obviously that change is not “picky.”
Do you have
any other examples of “picky” critiques? You say that my work is “full
of ad hominem attacks [and] picky critiques.” If it is “full” of such
things you should have no problem in naming a half dozen other examples.
By the way, putting out in the open that someone like Rogers or Wink has
misrepresented my work and calling it what it is does not constitute an
“ad hominem attack.” If someone has done the thing that one is being
charged with, it is not an ad hominem to show that the person has in
fact done such a thing. You should blame the person who has
misrepresented a position or ignored key accessible evidence, not the
person who merely points this out.
Defensive
posturing? Well, have you looked over your own emails? You
mischaracterized my work and I disagreed, as I should, with your
mischaracterizations. You seem to have taken offense at many things that
I have said. How am I being defensive and you not? You are defending
yourself, clearly, in this email. Why is this acceptable when you do it
but not acceptable when I do it?
You should
be aware of the way that you come across to me, which is someone who
puts forth one presumptive or cutting remark after another. “It
might surprise you to know that there are some of us out here who have
not made up our minds about what Romans 1 is saying….” That, frankly, is
a condescending kind of statement. It might surprise you to know that I
am well aware of the point; otherwise, why would I write to persuade
others?
Your two-way characterization (“should we
take the proof text approach or the entire approach of looking at
Jesus' whole ministry and teachings on the subject”) suggests that I
take the former, which is another unfair characterization. There is
nothing in the teaching of Jesus that contradicts his affirmation of a
male-female prerequisite or his call of sinners to repentance. Love
includes dissuading others from engaging in behavior that puts them at
high risk vis-à-vis entrance into God’s kingdom. I have both
examined in detail the most pertinent specific texts and
addressed the broader theologies and socio-historical milieus to which
these texts belong. That is not prooftexting. My complaint about Rogers
and Wink is that they have not looked carefully at the meaning of texts
within these broader contexts, not that they are looking at these
broader contexts.
I am glad
that you still searching for the truth. When you present alternate views
on the issue of homosexual practice I trust that you will give at least
equal attention to the views supporting a male-female prerequisite for
sexual relations as to those rejecting it. For example, assigning
material from Allison, Rogers, Wink, and myself would not be fair unless
the amount of the material that you assign from me is comparable to the
total amount assigned to those arguing for radical revision of the
biblical text.
Thank you
for reminding me that you wrote to me earlier, though you did it in your
characteristic caustic way: “in
fact, have emailed you before only to be told to not take up your time
until I had read your online papers.” Anyone reading your
characterization would assume that I brushed you off in a line or two. I
have copied the correspondence below. It is easy to see from even a
cursory examination of the correspondence that I actually wrote you two
very substantial emails and concluded:
“I have spent
much time responding to you. And now I would ask you that you read
fully and carefully the material that I have referred to in this email
before contacting me again. There is no point in me repeating what I
have already addressed. And you have assured me that you like to get
things from ‘the horse's mouth.’ Thank you.”
Nothing
wrong with that. I can’t spoon-feed every single argument that I have
already made many times. In order to get other work done, it is quite
reasonable to refer you and others to where I have dealt with a
particular issue in more detail. What I don’t want is the common
occurrence of someone continuing to debate with me and make all sorts of
claims to me without taking the time to first read what I have said on
the subject so that he/she can dialogue in an informed manner. I didn’t
tell you not to come back to me. I said: I’ve already devoted
substantial time to your emails; now I ask you to read the following
materials so that you can engage my arguments and then get back to me.
Why you find this approach of mine to be problematic is a mystery.
It is also
clear by the tenor of your email that you sent to me back in 2008,
confirmed by your more recent emails, that you have a caustic tongue and
attitude towards me and do not have as much of an open mind as you
pretend to have, the very thing that you claim that I lack. At the same
time, an “open mind” is not an empty head. If the evidence leads
strongly in a given direction then an open mind moves toward a
conviction about the issue; still open to handling new arguments but not
open in the sense of forestalling a conviction that one is ready to
believe, present to others, and defend.
You say that you have read “MANY” of my
“opinions” on the subject. What have you read carefully, may I ask? You
are mad, claiming: “Weren't you a bit premature in accusing me of not
doing my homework? Why would my email have led you to assume that? It
is exactly those kinds of comments that make people cringe.” Since I
already explained to you in the last email why I regard your comments as
showing poor knowledge of my work (check out your own emails to me,
which typically begin with a series of false accusations), there is
nothing more that I can say to that point that will convince you if you
are not already convinced by what I said. The “premature” remarks lie in
your false allegations of my work, not in my conclusions.
You claim
that you want to know the truth. And you seem to want me to discuss more
what my views are. So see what you can do to have me over to give
presentations at your church. Even better, get Rogers and me to make our
cases to each other in the same room at the same time, or whomever else
you would like to see interact with me on the issues. But you may find
it hard to get someone to present the issue in interaction with me
because Rogers et al. are afraid to do so, knowing that they have no
responses to the evidence that I present. They can only make their case
by distorting or (the more usual tactic) ignoring what I have said. But
in a presentation in the same room, where direct interaction cannot be
avoided, they know that they cannot get away with making the claims that
they do. For example, Rogers has twice claimed in his book that I
nowhere demonstrate that Paul would be opposed to committed homosexual
unions, that I simply assert it without supporting evidence. I can give
you 6 or 7 strong arguments why we know that Paul (and Jesus) would have
been opposed even to committed homosexual unions, not a one of which
Rogers has dealt with in his work. My arguments are steeped in
historical and literary evidence of the period. Rogers cannot refute the
arguments (at least he has not to date); he can only ignore or distort
them.
If you
bring me up, you can ask me all the questions that you want, till your
heart is content. I trust that you are not scared to do so in an open
forum. From the little contact I have had with your pastor, I respect
her (assuming I have the correct church in mind).
Sincerely,
Robert
Gagnon
[See Feb.
12, 2008 correspondence below for the previous correspondence with Pam
referred to above.]
To a
self-identified Christian who thinks that I am being hypocritical if I
do not equally strongly oppose "hate crime" protections for religion
From:
Todd O'Bryan
Sent: Sat 8/1/2009 1:16 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Your quote
Professor Gagnon,
"The attempt of recent "hate crime" legislation to place "sexual
orientation" and "gender identity" alongside race and gender is
logically misguided and dangerous. A much closer analogy is one
between homosexual practice on the one hand and consensual
(adult-committed) incest and polyamory on the other." -Robert Gagnon
I'm not going to attempt to address the meat of your quote, since our
assumptions about sexual orientation and gender identity are so
distinct as to make any conversation almost incomprehensible on both
sides.
However, I would like to point out that, in addition to race and
gender, most hate crime legislation also protects people from being
singled out based on the religion they practice. Based on your beliefs
about homosexuality, this long-standing aspect of hate crime
legislation would seem to be the closest analogue to sexual
orientation and gender identity.
There is no one anywhere who would argue that "religious orientation"
or "religious identity" is anything other than a choice, and most
people are absolutely convinced that people who choose different
religions are in error, both morally and ethically. I suppose one
could argue that religious choice is a matter of pre-destination, but
then any arguments you might make as a theologian have no power to
move the unelected into the category of the elect or vice versa, so
you could spend your time more profitably feeding the poor or at least
not wasting so many trees on useless rhetoric.
In spite of the complete absence of any evidence that there's a
genetic predisposition for a particular denomination, we as a society
believe that one should have the right to practice one's religion
without fear of discrimination. In addition, when people commit crimes
that exhibit religious antipathy, we hold them to a higher level of
accountability.
Surely, based on your assumptions, you can't believe that hate crime
protections for Muslims, Hindus, or practitioners of Voodoo are more
logical or compelling than those for gays, lesbians, or transgendered
persons. You seem to argue that homosexual behavior represents
rebellion against the natural order ordained by the Creator, but
surely the worshiping of other gods is just as offensive to the
jealous God we both affirm.
So, I urge you to pursue the eradication of hate crime protections for
practitioners of false religions just as adamantly as you pursue its
eradication for sexual minorities. Not to do so would be to brand
yourself an opportunist and a hypocrite. It would be like arguing
vociferously against same-sex marriage without as vociferously
condemning divorce and remarriage in the heterosexual world.
Yours in Christ,
Todd O'Bryan
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:19 AM
To: Todd O'Bryan
Subject: RE: Your quote
Todd,
I don't agree with the
case you made, and neither would you if you used proper analogical
reasoning.
By your own logic,
persons should find hate-crime legislation regarding religious beliefs
as (or more) offensive than hate-crime legislation for persons who
engage in incest, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, and pedophilia
because "surely the worshiping of other gods is just as offensive to the
jealous God we both affirm." Is that really what you want to argue?
Think about it. Do you see some merit in civil society distinguishing
between beliefs that people have about who the true God is on the one
hand and forms of behavior on the other hand?
Take the situation with
Mormons in the late 19th century. Christians strongly disagreed with the
Mormon view of God and dozens of God-related beliefs; but recognized the
necessity of tolerance of religious beliefs in the sphere of civil
society while drawing the line on not allowing polygamy. Having "sexual
orientation" legislation that would provide special state protections of
those engaged in polygamy, protections that would lead down the road to
eradicating state endorsement of the twoness of a marital bond, is far
more problematic in a civil or state context than special protection for
Mormon beliefs.
Another example: Should
employers be able to take into consideration, negatively, a man's
marriage to two or more wives concurrently or a man's marriage to his
mother or sister or a man's repetitive infidelity to his wife, when
considering "white collar" promotion for at least some types of jobs? I
think "yes" (and I presume you, if reasonable, would think the same).
Yet I don't think that a Mormon who is monogamous (and, of course, the
LDS Mormon church has officially rejected polygamy for over a century)
but holds beliefs about Christ and God and eschatology that I find
highly problematic should have career advancement inhibited on the
grounds of such belief. The state has more of a stake in not providing
incentives for immoral behaviors as opposed to wrong religious beliefs.
Equally unconvincing is your
attempt to compare "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" with
religion rather than race, ethnicity, and sex. I have made the case as
to why adult-committed homosexual unions have their closest analogues in
adult-committed incest and polyamory. See http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf.
You certainly have provided no reasoned basis for thinking otherwise
(nor has anyone else). Five of the six protected categories of the bill
have to do with innate conditions; religion is the only category that
does not. In addition, it is supporters of homosexual practice and
transgenderism who are all the time making comparisons with race and
sex, not religion. Why is that important? Because these are the persons
that are going to implement enforcement of this bill and others like it.
When they start comparing "homophobia" (a bad term: is there an
incest-phobia? or a polyphobia?) to racism, then the measures taken to
stamp out the negative attitudes toward homosexual practice become more
aggressive. I think that reasonable people tend to regard racist views
as more virulent for the governance of society than strong disagreements
about religious beliefs.
Your statement that
"Based on your beliefs about homosexuality, this long-standing aspect of
hate crime legislation [i.e. the protection of religion] would seem to be the closest analogue to sexual
orientation and gender identity" doesn't hold. First, it presumes
falsely that I believe that same-sex attraction itself, not just the
construction of a "gay" identity, is something freely chosen (another
indication that you know very little about my views). Second, it ignores
the main point of my comparison with incest and polyamory: sexual desire
and intercourse with persons who are structurally or bodily discordant
in relation to oneself, a consideration that transcends the question of
choice and sexual desires. As I have argued in the article cited above
and many other places, absolute opposition to incest and polyamory is
itself derivative of absolute opposition to homosexual practice (or,
positively put, a two-sexes prerequisite for sexual relations). An
adult-committed sexual relationship with someone who is too much of an
embodied "same" on the level of kinship is a much closer analogue to an
adult-committed sexual relationship with someone who is too much of an
embodied "same" on the level of sex or gender than is an alleged analogy
to religious beliefs. Likewise the fact that the essential twoness
of the sexual bond (i.e. that there should be no more than two persons
in a sexual union at any one time) is based on the duality or twoness of
the sexes, "male and female" as a complementary sexual pair (so Jesus),
makes polyamory a much closer analogue to homosexual practice than
religious beliefs (which are not a sexual impulse for discordant sexual
activity, or even an impulse at all).
For the record I don't
think there should be "hate crime" laws for anything, including race and
religion (and I say this as someone who is in a racially mixed marriage
and has racially mixed children). I think that there should be laws that
prosecute people for engaging in violent acts against others, not laws
that add additional criminal penalties for what people believe. We see
some problems that have already developed in Europe and Canada over
hate-crime statutes for religion. I certainly do not approve of the
notion that my view of Jesus as the Way is a "prejudice." On the whole,
though, hate-crime religious statutes haven't proved as problematic in
the civil sphere (there are various reasons for this) as hate-crime laws
for "sexual orientation" and "gender identity."
The fact that you use
the divorce analogy shows you have little awareness of my discussion of
this subject. You might as well say that it is hypocritical to allow
some divorce-remarriage while having absolute strictures against
adult-committed incest or polyamory. Put simply, divorce-remarriage has
always been considered in the Christian tradition (and logically so) as
a lesser offense than incest, polyamory, and adultery, with homosexual
practice worse than all of these. You can't move logically from
permissiveness in a lesser offense to permissiveness in a greater
offense.
I do encourage you to
read what I write more carefully and also to read a much larger sampling
of what I have written on the subject.
Sincerely,
Rob
To a
self-identified "gay Christian" who is unhappy with my work
[A
person by the name of Stephen Worthington wrote me, expressing
disagreement with my stance. I spliced into his remarks my own
comments, prefaced with "RG."]
From: Robert
Gagnon
Sent: Wed 7/8/2009 6:08 PM
To: Stephen Worthington
Subject: RE: A few notes on your views.
Dear Stephen,
Comments
interspersed below.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Stephen Worthington
Sent: Wednesday,
July 08, 2009 2:51 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: A few
notes on your views.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to read this, as
I have taken the time to read your views.
I am a gay Christian myself, or rather I am a
Christian who is gay as my relationship with Jesus Christ is first
and foremost in my life. I have, as yet, not had a relationship
with anyone, and I am still a virgin, and wish to remain that way
until I am in a committed, lifetime relationship. I am not alone
in this, and there are many, many gay Christians who are also
waiting for the right person to come along before they make bigger
choices about their sex lives.
I am not going to mention any of the theology
that you have been debating; not because I am not familiar with it
(because I am), but because, from the nature of your responses to
those who have written to you previously, I can see that any
theological debate would be entirely useless. I have reached my
own conclusions about my sexuality, through praying deeply to God,
and listening many sides of a complex argument, before reaching an
informed decision. What disturbs me most, is the vast number of
people that have written polite, friendly e-mails to you, only to
have you aggressively attack them with your response. That is not
the nature of a loving Christian, and that point most certainly IS
biblical!
RG:
Please cite specific examples where I have responded to polite,
friendly emails with unchristian responses. I am not aware of any.
A rigorous critique of an argument does not count as an
unchristian response. Indeed, my responses are rather mild
compared to some of the responses that I read about from Jesus,
Paul, or others in the pages of Scripture giving.
Also, every time you go on the counter-attack,
you continually bring the words “incest” and “multiple-partner”
relationships into practically every discussion you have about why
homosexual relationships are not justified.
RG: The
analogies to adult-committed incest and polyamory are very
pertinent because, for various reasons that I have pointed out,
they bear the most points of close correspondence with
adult-committed homosexual unions of any analogy of which I am
aware.
This clearly shows how few homosexuals you have
actually met. I know of countless gay men and women who want
nothing except a committed, monogamous relationship with someone
they love and can grow old with. I count myself among their
number.
RG: No,
your observation shows that you haven’t read or comprehended my
argument. I have, of course, met homosexual persons in “committed”
sexual relationships. My point is: So what? Homosexual intercourse
is not indicted in Scripture in the first instance because it
cannot be conducted in the context of mutual commitment between
adults. It is indicted on formal grounds that the participants are
not appropriate sexual complements. Moreover, the analogy that I
am making is not with adult-child incest or with promiscuous
sexual behavior. I am making an analogy with incestuous
relationships between consensual and caring monogamous adults and
with polyamorous relationships that similarly are conducted by
consenting, caring adults in lifelong (non-promiscuous)
bonds. To apply your argument, your problem with analogies from
incest and polyamory is that you simply haven’t met enough persons
engaged in committed relationships of these sorts. Presumably, if
you could meet some adults in committed incestuous or polyamorous
relationships you would change your view that these are such bad
behaviors. I, on the other hand, would not change my views about
incest and polyamory and homosexual practice even if I knew of
persons in adult-committed relationships for each group (and I do
know of such persons) because the formal, structural, or embodied
prerequisites for appropriate sexual unions have not been met.
Also, why do you use the word incest? Again,
this alludes to some sort of extreme perversion. I think perhaps
it might be an idea for you to go out and actually meet some gay
people, because you clearly have only statistics to go by, and
going entirely by qualitative data is a flawed approach for any
kind of study, if it is not backed up by a good body of quantative
data.
RG: Why
do you regard incest as “some sort of extreme perversion” but not
homosexual practice? There is nothing intrinsic about incest that
precludes it being engaged in by loving, committed, and consenting
adults. But incest is an “extreme perversion” irrespective of
whether it can be conducted in the context of love and commitment
because it is sexual intercourse between persons who, on a
structural level, are too alike, here on the level of kinship. Is
this not the same problem with homosexual practice? Too much
structural or embodied sameness on the part of the participants,
not enough complementary otherness? You will say: But incestuous
and polyamorous relationships are always harmful. Not true.
Disproportionately high rates of measurable harm, to be sure. But
not intrinsic measurable harm. It’s the same with homosexual
practice. You just need to meet people in adult-committed
incestuous and polyamorous unions to wipe away your incest-phobia
and polyphobia.
You say that statistics show that homosexuals
generally have more sexual partners than heterosexuals. Yes, ok,
that is true. However, it is also true to say that children
brought up in rough, crime-riddled neighbourhoods are more likely
to fall into a life of crime themselves. It does not mean that
these children are inherently more wicked, but that they are
simply responding to the environment in which they have been
brought up in. Similarly, the vast majority of representations of
gay people by the media show the “culture” that has grown up in
and around the gay scene, which is generally full of promiscuous
gay people, who are out for a “good” time. I find this as equally
distressing as you do, but what alternative is ever shown to them?
From an early age, education, both at home, and academically,
conditions every child to be heterosexual, so that when a child
grows up and realises that they are gay, they suddenly have
nothing that they feel applies to them. They don’t fit in. So what
do they naturally do? They go out on the scene, as this is the
only representation of their community that they have ever heard
about. Nobody has taught them that, just because they are
attracted to the same sex, doesn’t mean they can’t still have the
stable relationship that they are encouraged to work towards.
RG:
Again, your remarks indicate that you have not read carefully or
at all what I have written on this point. I would think that if
you were going to take me to task (I presume that you do not
understand your criticisms of me as unchristian but seem in
contradictory manner to characterize my criticisms of arguments
like yours as unchristian) you would at least read carefully what
I have written. You attribute the significantly higher instances
of promiscuity among homosexual males to cultural homophobia. And
yet you don’t explain why it is that homosexual females fare far
better in the department of monogamy than do homosexual males. Are
you not aware that men have much higher rates of testosterone than
do women and that this has a significant impact on male sexuality
such that, if you put two men together in a sexual union, you
don’t exactly get a recipe for monogamy? Yes, there are male
homosexual unions that “beat the odds.” But that no more validates
a homosexual union than does monogamy, commitment, and precautions
against procreation validate an incestuous union. High rates of
nonmonogamous behavior among homosexual males is not itself the
root problem but merely the symptom of the root problem. The root
problem is too much structural identity or sameness between the
participants. The beauty of a two-sexes union is that the extremes
of a given sex are moderated and gaps filled because the union is
between two true sexual complements or counterparts. Sexually
speaking, the true sexual complement or counterpart to a male is
not another male but a female. A man erotically attracted to other
males and not to women is sexually aroused by intrinsic maleness,
that is, but what he already is in essence. It is as if he regards
his maleness as only half-intact, needing structural
supplementation by joining with another male: two half-males
uniting to form a single full male. Such acts dishonor the man
that God has made him to be, a whole male who lacks on the sexual
spectrum essential femaleness not essential maleness. The same
points can, of course, be made about lesbianism. This is why Paul
specifically uses the language of "dishonoring" in his critique of
homosexual practice in Rom 1:24-27.
I will give you a fact. I did not choose to be
gay. No doubt you believe that it is society that has pressured me
into being the way I am, or an over-bearing mother or some other
such nonsense. I can tell you categorically however, whether you
choose to believe me or not, that I was born this way and can’t do
a thing about it. As I have already told you, I have never had a
relationship of any kind with anyone, so the idea that I “chose”
to be gay to satisfy some perversion also does not hold water.
RG:
Once more your remarks indicate that you have little awareness of
my work. I believe causation factors for homosexuality are
multifactorial. These may include indirect congenital influences,
postnatal biological influences, macro- and microcultural
influences from one’s environment, and personal psychological
predispositions. Incremental choices can be part of it but these
choices are often indirect, blind choices that involve responses
to socio-cultural stimuli that may, down the end of a long road,
lead to greater or lesser likelihood of homosexual identification.
In general, choice appears to be a bit more significant for
homosexual females than homosexual males. But obviously many
people with same-sex attractions, perhaps the majority, do not
“manufacture” homosexual desire. They didn’t just wake up one
morning and say, “Gee, I think that I will be homosexual.” But
that is not the same as saying that culture exerts absolutely no
influence on any homosexual development. Moreover, whether an
individual chooses an impulse or not is not a moral argument. All
of us are loaded are sinful impulses that we did not ask to
experience. The fact that an impulse is involuntary does not
disqualify the impulse from being sinful or immoral. Indeed, Paul
defines sin in Romans 7 as an innate impulse passed on by an
ancestor, running through the members of the human body, and never
entirely within human control.
RG:
Persons with polysexual urges (almost all men) and even persons
with pedosexual desires do not generally manufacture these
desires. So what? A person may not be responsible for the mere
experience of impulses to do what God proscribes. They are,
however, responsible for what they do with what they feel. A man
has a polysexual orientation, that is, experiences sexual desires
for more than one woman (or man) concurrently. He didn’t ask to
have that impulse; he simply does. What then? Should he identify
himself as a “polysexual” and then seek to live out of that
orientation with the fewest negative side-effects, engaging in
concurrent sexual unions but only in the context of long-term,
adult-committed relationships? According to your logic,
apparently, the answer would be yes. After all, he didn’t choose
to be polysexual. And as long as you cannot prove intrinsic
measurable harm to all polyamorous relationships (and you can’t)
you could have no rational objection. But Jesus would have an
objection. For he reasoned in Mark 10 (par. Matt 19) that the
number of persons in a sexual union, whether serial or concurrent,
should be limited to two. And he arrived at the number two not
from thin air but from the fact that God made us “male and female”
(Gen 1:27); that is, he derived the essential twoness of a sexual
bond from the twoness of the sexes that comprise the bond. That
means, in turn, that for him a male-female, two-sexes prerequisite
for a sexual union was foundational for limiting the number of
persons in a sexual union to two. And yet you, contrary to Jesus’
teaching, have gotten rid of that foundation.
God created me this way, and he also loves me.
RG: God
certainly loves you but it by no means follows that God “created
you this way,” i.e. to have same-sex attractions as his perfect
will, any more than that he created men to be (and identify
themselves as) polysexuals. All of us are born with numerous
impulses that God wants us to deny (I’m sure that if you take a
moment you can think of dozens). That’s why Jesus tells us to take
up our cross, deny ourselves, and lose our lifes—not because we
are born basically good but because we are born basically evil.
This may scandalize you but it happens to be core Christian
teaching.
God loves everyone; that is one of the basic
fundamental absolutes about God that no true Christian can deny.
Now, the question would therefore arise that if God created me
gay, and if God is a loving God, how do these two match up? Quite
simply, they can’t. Why would God create me to only be able to
fall in love with those who it would be a sin for me to enter into
a relationship with? That doesn’t seem a very loving thing to do.
Of course, you are no doubt now arguing that I have got the wrong
end of the stick, and that my argument holds water up to a point,
except that it actually proves that God therefore didn’t create me
gay. Well, here I have to refer to science, which has proved time
and time again over the last few decades that sexuality is not
chosen. Yes, there are people who “dabble” with something that is
against their nature, be it straight people “trying out” gay sex,
or vice versa, and I believe that this is indeed damaging. But for
those of us who have are genuinely, naturally, and God-created
homosexuals, I can only say that the only reason many of us are
still lost and unable to commit to a long-term relationship
(again, I stress that this is not the case for me personally), it
is because we haven’t been given any support by those who should
be loving us as we are; most particularly the church. I am certain
that, given the “correct” information, many gay people would come
to follow Christ and change their views entirely on what
constitutes a good relationship, but while the church continues to
condemn and ignore, the gay community will continue to act
recklessly as if nobody cares about it, because essentially that
is the case.
RG: My
arguments above address your faulty premises in this paragraph. As
even two homosex-affirming scientists have acknowledged: “no
clear conclusions about the morality of a behavior can be made
from the mere fact of biological causation, because all behavior
is biologically caused…. A client who…expends considerable mental
energy contemplating the origins of sexual orientation is focusing
on the wrong issue, in our opinion”
(Brian Mustanski
[Indiana University] and J. Michael Bailey [Northwestern
University], “A therapist’s guide to the genetics of human sexual
orientation,” Sexual and
Relationship Therapy 18:4 [Nov. 2003]).
Nature is not merely whatever
biological urges someone feels but involves something broader;
namely, whether these impulses are consistent with a more holistic
picture of embodied structures. To give an example that I'm sure
even you would agree with, a pedophile's urges are not "natural"
even if the impulses are involuntary and have a biological
component, because an adult-child union violates certain formal or
structural correspondences that go into making a sexual union
natural.
RG: By the way, no command of God
in Scripture is predicated on people first being able to lose all
innate urges to violate the command in question. You seem to
believe that if a person has strong innate urges to do something
Scripture strongly, pervasively, absolutely, and counterculturally
forbids then the prohibition must be rejected. Your reasoning is
backwards: the prohibition is needed precisely because there
exists a body of persons who experience strong urges to do
otherwise than God wills. I don't tell my young daughters not to
take illegal drugs because, at present, they have absolutely no
desire to do so. Were they ever to acquire such a desire, then a
prohibition would be needed. The existence of the desire, however
innate or involuntary, is not a grounds for removing the
prohibition but rather a grounds for formulating it explicitly.
Lastly, in response to your criticism of the
excellent, and well thought-out book by Jack Rogers…
RG: If you think that
Rogers’ book is “excellent” and “well thought-out” then you have
not examined the issue with any reasonable care. Rogers’ work is
loaded with logical fallacies, inaccuracies about the ancient
world and, most importantly, inaccuracies about Scripture. I have
laid this out at length in online articles. Start at
http://www.robgagnon.net/JackRogersBookReviewed.htm and read
the next three instalments. It is clear to me that you have not
read these, at least not for comprehension.
…
may I say that
actually, the points he makes about the bible being used to
justify other forms of oppression in times past is entirely valid,
and in fact it is evident from the ferocious way you respond to
your critics that the only reason you see a difference between
these examples and homosexuality, is that it is so engrained in
your being that you must condemn homosexual relationships that you
simply do not want to accept us.
RG: The
analogies that Rogers’ draws to slavery and women’s roles, common
to other homosexualist interpreters, are poorly conceived. I have
already dealt with this at length in an online article (http://www.robgagnon.net/RogersUseAnalogies.htm).
My suggestion to you is to read this. Your ad hominem conclusion
about my motives are absurd and are likely reflective of the
biases in your own reasoning (i.e. mere projections on your
part). The arguments from Rogers that you adopt are simply very
bad arguments. Rogers (and you) eschews closer analogues in favor
of more distant analogues because the close analogues won’t get
him to where he wants to go. If someone argued that Jesus or Paul
was in favour of polyamory, incest, or pedophilia, I would make
equally strong (you use the word “ferocious”) arguments. Would
that mean that I had simply decided to condemn polyamory, incest,
or pedophilia a priori without any serious consideration of the
arguments, as you seem to do? Obviously not.
I myself have wrestled with both sides of the
argument and have had times of believing both as well, so I can
genuinely say that my views now are not one-sided and that I have
never considered that I might be wrong. Forgive me if this is not
the case, but it appears you are yet to do this. Perhaps a little
less stubbornness and a bit more love would not go amiss.
RG: Do
you not catch the irony of your remarks? You start the email by
accusing me of unchristian rhetoric and then proceed to engage in
just such rhetoric yourself by making these types of ad hominem
charges. So you have thought more deeply about the pros and cons
of the issue than I have? So if I had less stubbornness and more
love (like you, I suppose) I would come to a different conclusion?
Amazing stuff. I think that it is an empirical fact, based on the
amount of research that I have had published and the poor quality
of your argumentation, that I have thought far more deeply about
virtually every aspect of the issue of homosexual practice, pro
and con, than you have. I have always been willing to change any
of my views if an analysis of Scripture (in its historical
context, I might add), philosophic reasoning, or science leads in
other directions. I just haven’t heard a good case to believe
otherwise. That includes what little argument you have put
forward. To compare the degree of thought that you have put into
this issue with the amount that I have put into it and then use
that allegedly unfavourable comparison as a basis for dismissing
out of hand my arguments is, frankly, about as silly as silly can
be. It’s convenient for you, I suppose, to attribute my positions
to a bad disposition rather than to the evidence at hand. But
unless you have strong arguments to refute the arguments that I
make, you are simply underscoring your own biases and inadequate
reasoning and projecting these things onto me.
I pray that God will show you more compassion
and love towards your gay brothers and sisters in the future,
RG:
Your prayers are self-serving and based on your own flawed logic
and poor reading of Scripture. The remark is, frankly, arrogant on
your part. I do have love and compassion for persons with same-sex
attractions. It is precisely for that reason that I oppose the
kind of homosexualist agenda that you, Rogers, and others espouse.
You have simply made up your mind, with little rational basis for
doing so, that God wants you to live out of your same-sex
attractions and that thereby anyone who speaks out against that
agenda must by definition be unloving. If you think love
necessitates support for biological urges that run up against the
clear and consistent witness of Jesus and the Scriptures (not to
mention nature and science, properly understood), you have a very
distorted understanding of love. Let Augustine be your guide here:
“Do not
imagine that . . . you then love your neighbor when you do not
rebuke him. This is not love, but mere feebleness. Let love be
fervent to correct, to amend. . . . Love not in the person his
error, but the person; for the person God made, the error the
person himself made.” Or read Lev 19:17-18.
RG: You want to
engage in behavior that puts you at high risk of not inheriting
the kingdom of God. This is the clear and unanimous witness of
Scripture. I would have to hate you to want to promote to you that
behavior. You are acting like a misguided teenager who screams to
a parent: “You don’t love me unless you let me do what I want to
do.” In saying these things, obviously, I do not hate you but
rather love you. Let’s be honest with ourselves shall we? You have
done a great deal to model smug arrogance and precious little to
model Christian love. Again, I say this not out of hate for you
but rather in earnest love to wake you up from your obvious
self-deceptions. God loves you and for that reason you need to
“sober up” morally and come to your senses, as Paul told the
Corinthians, part of whose problem had to do with tolerating a
case of adult consensual incest in their midst. God's message to
you is that you do not have a live a life controlled by this
sinful sexual attraction to members of the same sex. God doesn't
promise to rid you completely of these impulses (or any sinful
impulses). But God does promise to empower you not to succumb to
these impulses if you put your heart's desire in him. It requires
a death to self for the one who died for you. It isn't easy but
the payoff (looking like Jesus, inheriting eternal life) is huge.
In Christ OUR Lord,
Stephen Worthington
RG: If
Christ is truly your Lord, then value the male-female prerequisite
for marriage that he valued so highly (Mark 10; Matt 19).
Otherwise it is empty rhetoric. You have got a big gap in your
sexual thinking that is not under Christ’s lordship.
Blessings,
Dr.
Robert Gagnon
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 10:24 PM
To: Stephen Worthington
Subject: RE: A few notes on your views.
Stephen,
An addendum. You state at the
beginning that you have "taken the time to read" my views. It is
apparent to me, repeatedly, that you have either not read my views
or did not comprehend them. If you had read or comprehended them,
you could not have made a number of the assertions that you made
in your email to me.
Please read carefully at least the
following two short pieces:
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf
Make sure that you understand my
points before coming back with any response. I felt in responding
to you that I had to repeat points that you would or should have
known had you read and comprehended my work.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From: Stephen Worthington
Sent: Thursday, July 09, 2009 5:52 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: A few notes on your views.
Dear Dr Gagnon,
My apologies for my 'outburst' e-mail. I have recently been
feeling unwell and this certainly inflamed my temper.
It appears, as you correctly pointed out, that I was not as
familiar with your writing as you state, so again, my apologies. I
have read the information that you sent me with interest, as of
course no debate can be fair if we are unwilling to listen to
other points of view, as I am afraid I may well have been guilty
of with my previous e-mail.
I
am not going to write a lengthy e-mail, largely due to time
constraints placed upon me. I think it will probably be best to
terminate our lines of communication here, as I would not wish us
to get into a debate that is clearly not going to sway either of
us to a different way of thinking. This would only cause anger and
resentment and I do not wish that upon either of us as Christian
brothers.
I
sincerely wish you joy and happiness as you continue your walk
with the Lord,
All the best,
Stephen Worthington
To
someone who uses my work to explain why we shouldn't listen to
Scripture
From:
Elizabeth R
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:47 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: scriptural authority
Hello Dr. Gagnon,
After hearing you speak last year I’ve come to read your work and I
think your exegesis is solid and I draw the same conclusions. I am a
seminarian and Christian educator in a PC(USA) congregation and I have
become so frustrated with professors and authors trying to make Paul
conform to their presuppositions. However, I and many others utilize
your work for an entirely different project: while you and I agree
about what the bible says, we disagree about why it matters. The fact
remains that, and I imagine you acknowledge this at least to some
extent, your work is alienating and functions in a manner completely
counter productive to evangelism. I want homosexuals and straight
supporters to be a part of the church. So in an effort to keep the
church I care so deeply for alive I try to teach lay people that it is
okay to disagree with the bible’s claims, and to engage the idea that
Paul could be just wrong. Your work aids me in an effort to work
towards teaching a anti-foundationalist perspective in the church,
because I think this whole project of trying to make scripture agree
with us just doesn't hold water and I think your exegesis proves that.
Promoting a post-foundationalist church has been helpful in growing
healthy congregations which attract people who are comfortable to rely
on the uncertainty of faith rather than the absolute authority of
scripture. So, I am very curious to know how you would respond to the
fact that your work aids in this project.
Peace be with you,
Liz
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:09 PM
To: 'Elizabeth R'
Subject: RE: scriptural authority
Dear
Liz,
This
ranks as one of the most bizarre emails that I have ever received.
It is
nice to hear that you agree that Scripture cannot be made serviceable
to homosexualist views. That is at least something, I suppose.
But you
want to grow “healthy” congregations that ignore core values in
Scripture’s sexual ethics. Bizarre indeed. It is not just Paul that
you have to deal with; it’s Jesus too, who clearly regarded a
male-female requirement in marriage as foundational for all sexual
ethics (see, for starters, my recent article at
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexScripReallySays.doc.pdf).
So you
think that you are going to grow a healthy church, under the authority
of our Lord Jesus Christ, by endorsing what Christ himself would have
regarded (and does regard) as a foundational violation of sexual
ethics? Why don’t you just dispense with the name of Jesus or just
come right out and say that you would like to grow a church of Jesus
Christ in which “Jesus Christ” is nothing more than a cipher for
whatever it is that you want to believe and do, irrespective of what
the real Jesus wants you to say and do? Better yet, just dispense with
the name of Jesus Christ entirely since it is evident that it is not
his assembly that you are creating but rather the assembly made in
Liz’s image. Why don’t you just call it, “The Church of Liz”?
Given
your reasoning, you would stand with the Corinthians who tolerated a
case of adult-consensual incest since you wouldn’t want to alienate
someone who has fallen in love with a blood-related or affine close
kin, would you? Apparently you would be willing to dispense with a
monogamy requirement if a person who claimed to have a polysexual
orientation wanted to join the church but wouldn’t join unless you
said that you were willing to embrace him as a “sexual minority” who
had a valid desire for multiple, concurrent sexual partners in a
committed relationship. Or on these issues, adult-committed incest and
polyamory, have you decided that to “rely on the uncertainty of faith
rather than the absolute authority of Scripture” is not such a good
policy after all? And are you unaware that Scripture’s opposition to
each of these is predicated on, or analogically connected to, a
two-sexes prerequisite for valid sexual activity? So how can
“uncertainty of faith” be good for the foundation but not for the
behaviors predicated on the foundation? Just where does your
“uncertainty of faith” end and your “certainty of faith” kick in? At
the lordship of Jesus Christ? And how do you know who this Lord is
apart from the revealed word in Scripture?
The fact
that you admit that Scripture is clearly and strongly affirming of a
male-female requirement for sexual relations only makes you doubly
accountable before God for knowingly violating the witness not only of
nature but also of the revealed word of God. “Promoting a
post-foundational church” is an absurdity for anyone who confesses
Christ as Savior and Lord since it is in the pages of Scripture that
you are going to find out what Jesus wants and doesn’t want, an image
that often conflicts with your desires and preconceived notions (mine
too).
If you
know my work at all, you know that I make the case not on the basis of
some inerrancy stance (I am not an inerrantist) but rather on the
basis of core values in Scripture, values that are pervasively held,
absolutely held, strongly held, and counterculturally held. Your
support of homosexual unions is a violation of one such core value
within sexual ethics, as bad or worse than affirming consensual and
committed sexual relationships between a man and his mother or a woman
and her brother. Or, again, are you unwilling to have “uncertainty of faith” in
these areas of adult-committed incest?
The issue
isn’t how I feel about this bizarre use of my work but rather how you
are going to explain to your Creator and Redeemer why you thought it
advisable to dishonor him. You are like an ice skating instructor
telling your young pupils that it is okay to go out and skate on thin
ice because nothing bad will happen and, anyway, it is better to live
with “the uncertainty of faith” than the certainty of absolute rules.
I don’t think the parents of these children would appreciate such
instruction; and I don’t think God will have any greater appreciation
for your utter disregard of a value that is foundational to the
revealed text of Scripture. But then I can only advise you as to a
proper course of conduct. You think you know better than Jesus; that
is your choice. I advise you to pull back from such nonsense.
Blessings,
Dr.
Robert Gagnon
[P.S.
Were you writing this an April Fool's joke? Within the tragedy is a
bit of comedy.]
[Note to readers: the email from Liz
is genuine; I think that she is sincere but the date does give pause.]
On
Stacy Johnson and John Stott
From:
Charles ______________
Sent: Tuesday, February
24, 2009 1:05 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: John Stott
Dear Dr.
Gagnon:
Thank you
very much for your scholarly work on the subject of biblical
Christianity and homosexual practice. A retired minister I know has
changed his opposition to homosexual union based on Stacy Johnson’s
treatment of the pertinent biblical texts. His error has been bolstered
the claim that John Stott has changed his opposition to modern
homosexual practice. I have been unsuccessful in finding an article or
news story that mentions Stott’s defection. Are you aware of this
change? Even if Stott has changed his position, I am unmoved because of
what Scripture plainly teaches. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Yours with Christ,
Charles
Rev. Charles _____________
Senior Pastor
From:
Robert Gagnon [mailto:rgagnon@pts.edu]
Sent: Tuesday,
February 24, 2009 2:23 PM
To: Charles
____________
Subject: RE: John
Stott
Dear Charles,
The retired minister in
question is badly informed on several counts.
Johnson does cite
‘even John R. W.
Stott, the conservative British evangelical preacher’ as acknowledging
that ‘the biblical prohibitions by themselves say nothing about such
partnerships’ (p. 50, 264 n. 17).
Stott is simply wrong on
this point. However, even Stott goes on to argue that the creation
texts do imply an absolute opposition to homosexual practice. So
unless Stott has changed his position since he wrote his little book
on the subject he does believe that Scripture opposes homosexual
practice absolutely.
Second, Johnson has
little awareness of the ancient evidence on committed homosexual
relationships. We do in fact know that committed homosexual
relationships could be conceptualized in the Greco-Roman world and
were known to exist. In fact, some Greco-Roman moralists concede the
point while still condemning the behavior as unnatural. So it is
absurd to argue that Paul, coming from a cultural milieu that is more
strongly and consistently opposed to homosexual practice, would not
have maintained a similar view.
Third, Johnson, while
zealous to quote an evangelical preacher on the subject of committed
relationships allegedly being unknown, is assiduous in avoiding the
numerous acknowledgements by scholars (not just preachers) in the
field who, though supportive of homosexual unions, admit that
Scripture’s prohibitions take in all forms of homosexual
relationships, both exploitative and “committed.”
If this retired minister
is interested in really investigating the matter carefully, he should
read my rebuttals of Johnson’s work starting with:
“A Book Not to Be Embraced: A Critical Review Essay on Stacy Johnson’s
A Time to Embrace” [Part 1: the
Scottish Journal of Theology article] (Mar. 2008; 16 pgs.;
online:
http://robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf).
html:
http://robgagnon.net/Critical%20Review%20of%20Stacy%20Johnson's%20Time%20to%20Embrace.htm
This review shows just
how poorly done Johnson’s book is.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
Charles _______________
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:35 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: John Stott
Dear Rob:
Bless you for your prompt and very helpful response. I
believe the gentleman I mentioned is open to instruction. I hope that
with God’s help and clear thinking from scholars like you, he can be
won back to historic orthodox Christianity on this matter. Thank you
very much for your response.
Yours
with Christ,
Charles
Responding to Spong's arguments
From:
Jeff
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 7:09 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: The Church and Homosexuality
Dr. Gagnon – I was at the Presbytery meeting
in ____________ and heard your talk and the Q/A after dinner. Your
words challenged me and for that I am thankful. Although we clearly do
not share the same views on homosexuality, I am interested in
understanding those whose positions vary from mine particularly on this
subject because it seems to be one that is once again driving the
church apart – as did slavery, ordination of women, divinity of Christ,
et. al. I believe that God wants us to be one and that as we are – in
constant debate while seeming to ignore Jesus’ command to love God, love
one another and follow Him – is not part of the plan for furthering the
Kingdom. But, there again, maybe it is and this is part of the pain of
growth and ongoing deepening toward that oneness that God seeks for us.
I just do not know.
The article below from - Bishop Spong -
speaks to me in ways that you did not. Because he is starting with a
different hierarchy - experience not scripture seems to be #1 with him
– the two of you will probably not have much if any common ground. I
would, however, be pleased if you could comment on it so I could
continue my quest to understand those of you who share different
opinions and experiences from myself. Thank you and blessings to you –
Jeff
Spong:
"It is
not fair to expect secular journalists to be biblical scholars, nor
should it be anticipated that they would spend the necessary time to
research the issue. It is for that reason that they tend to accept
uncritically the oft-repeated Evangelical Protestant and Conservative
Roman Catholic definitions that the Bible is anti-gay. If these people
were honest, they would have to admit that the Bible is also pro-slavery
and anti-women.
"There is also a widely
accepted mentality that if the Bible is opposed, the idea must be wrong.
That is little more than nonsensical fundamentalism. The rise of
democracy was contrary to the "clear teaching of the Bible," as the
debate over the forced signing of the Magna Carta by King John of
England in 1215 revealed. The Bible was quoted to prove that Galileo was
wrong; that Darwin was wrong; that Freud was wrong; that allowing women
to be educated, to vote, to enter the professions and to be ordained was
wrong. So the fact that the Bible is quoted to prove that homosexuality
is evil and to be condemned is hardly a strong argument, given the
history of how many times the Bible has been wrong. I believe that most
bishops know this but the Episcopal Church has some fundamentalist
bishops and a few who are "fellow travelers" with fundamentalists.
"The Bible was written
between the years 1000 B.C.E. and 135 C.E. Our knowledge of almost
everything has increased exponentially since that time. It is the height
of ignorance to continue using the Bible as an encyclopedia of knowledge
to keep dying prejudices intact. The media seems to cooperate in
perpetuating that long ago abandoned biblical attitude.
"That is not surprising
since the religious people keep quoting it to justify their continued
state of unenlightenment. That attitude is hardly worthy of the time it
takes to engage it. I do not debate with members of the flat earth
society either. Prejudices all die. The first sign that death is
imminent comes when the prejudice is debated publicly. The tragedy is
that church leaders back the wrong side of the conflict, which is
happening today from the Pope to the Archbishop of Canterbury to the
current crop of Evangelical leaders. That too will pass and the debate
on homosexuality will be just one more embarrassment in Christian
history."
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:04 PM
To: Jeff
Subject: RE: The Church and Homosexuality
Dear Jeff,
Sorry for
the delay in responding. Things have been busy.
On the
unity of the church I would recommend that you view it more as a
christological phenomenon than a sociological one. True unity cannot be
established on the basis of condoning sexual behavior that Jesus and the
entire apostolic witness regarded as abhorrent, for that would result in
the church severing itself from the Christ in whom alone unity may be
found (see Ephesians 4-5 for this; note my comments at
http://www.robgagnon.net/TaskForcePrelimReport.htm). Love of God and
neighbor requires that the church clearly reject such behavior, inasmuch
as the position that endorses homosexual practice deceives persons who
are engaged in the practice into thinking that nothing bad will happen
as a result of their behavior (when Scripture indicates otherwise). You
wouldn’t think that parents encouraging their children to touch a hot
stove are loving them, would you? Why, then, would you think that
promoting a form of sexual behavior that, according to Scripture, puts
people at risk of not inheriting God’s kingdom is loving?
The proper
analogues are not the issues of slavery and women in ministry, as you
mention, by adult-committed incest and adult-committed multiple-partner
unions, as I noted in my talk. Presumably you wouldn’t think that the
church shouldn’t hold the line on non-incestuous and monogamous bonds.
This issue is even more foundational since the degree of too much
non-complementary structural sameness is more keenly felt in same-sex
partnerships than it is in close kin relationships and since too Jesus
predicated his view on marital twoness on the foundational twoness of
the sexual pair, male and female.
I find the
remarks by Spong below not well thought through. I already made the case
before your presbytery as to why the Bible’s stance on homosexual
practice is different from its stance on slavery and women’s roles
(remember how I noted the Bible’s critical edge toward slavery and its
affirming texts toward women and how the countercultural dynamic leaned
in the direction of liberation of slaves and women but decidedly in
favor of a male-female prerequisite for sexual relations?). There are
certainly democratic elements in Paul’s understanding of the church in 1
Cor 12 and elsewhere (per Spong’s democracy remarks), that is, a
democratizing effect in pouring out of the Spirit on all who believe.
We have
advanced in some knowledge but I have already addressed at your
presbytery that, as regards claims to new knowledge about homosexuality
that would radically alter the position of the writers of Scripture on
the subject, neither the concept of committed homosexual unions nor a
recognition of congenital factors in some homosexual development
constitutes radical new knowledge in relation to some ancient
worldviews. I noted in my discussion how the scriptural indictment
(certainly in Paul) is clearly not limited to exploitative homoerotic
relationships or applicable only to those without an orientation. So
what is this new revelatory knowledge that would justify a 180 degree
about-face on this issue in relation to the view of Jesus and apostolic
witness to him?
Does not
the fact that Jesus predicated marital twoness on the fact that God
“made us male and female,” a complementary sexual pair, not concern you?
Have we come to the point in the PCUSA where, no matter how strongly
Jesus and the united witness of Scripture’s authors hold to a moral
view, we think that we are entitled to do otherwise? And why stint
yourself and not go further and accept adult-committed, non-exploitative
versions of polyamory and incest, since your view on homosexual practice
is predicated entirely on whether the participants are adults who love
each other and cares little for their formal or embodied compatibility?
I recommend
to you to read a fuller presentation of my views at
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf
(which includes discussion not only of Scripture but also philosophy and
science) and
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf (with
parts 2 and 3 as well). If you are really interested in exploring a
different perspective this is the way to go. Then contact me again with
your further questions after you have read these.
Blessings
to you,
Rob
From:
Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:21 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: The Church and Homosexuality
Rob – thanks for your very complete and
challenging response. I will read the suggested articles – thanks again
- Jeff
__________________________________________________________
Did
Jesus violate Genesis 1:27 and 2:24?
From:
Harry _______
Sent: Sat 1/24/2009 6:22 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Homophobia
Dr Gagnon:
I found your presentation last Wednesday night in ______ far from
convincing.
You built your work on a false and faltering foundation. The same party
in Babyon wrote "man and woman he created them" who also had sponsored
"if a man lay with another man, they should both be killed," namely the
priests who survived the destruction of Jerusalem. They were hardly
neutral observers of the sexual situation.
Besides, the climax of the of the creation story was not the marriage of
man and woman. It was the sabbath rest that was henceforth enjoined on
the Jewish people. If you were a Jew in Babylon, you did four things:
circumcised your children, kept the sabbath, performed sacrifices even
though the temple had been destroyed, and obeyed the food laws. Who
practiced those was a Jew. These four rituals defined Judaism in the
exile and well into time of Jesus.
Your lavish illustrations only supported the idea that widespread
ancient cultures as well as our current one were and are basically
homophobic.
Even your illustration of Jesus on heterosexuality as the norm for
sexual relations is spurious. Jesus goes on to say, "A man shall leave
his father and mother and be joined to his wife." This proscription goes
back to those days in Israel when this actually happened, But Jesus' own
family did not obey that command: Mary left her own family and went with
Joseph to enroll in his. Not even Jesus kept this commandment: to the
best of our knowledge, he was never "joined to (a)
wife."
The only real foundation for biblical interpetation is the love of God
in creation, later incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ.
In his love, committed heterosexual love is anchored. No committed
heterosexual couple perfectly fulfills it but all try to model it.
In his love, committed homosexual love is anchored.
No committed homosexual couple perfectly fulfills it but all try to
model it.
The Rev Dr Harry ______________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2009 11:20 PM
To: Harry _______
Subject: RE: Homophobia
Rev.
__________,
Thank you for your comments. Here is my response.
You reject the authority of Gen 1:27 even though Jesus
lifted up this statement as central for defining acceptable sexual
ethics and yet you call Jesus Lord? Jesus regards it as foundational,
and thus its violation as abhorrent, but you know better, dismissing it
as the product of some "homophobic" Jewish priests in exile in Babylon.
Stunning.
Jesus qualified over-reads of the Sabbath and Paul did
not regard observance of a particular holy day as essential. They did,
however, both regard sexual purity, including a male-female requirement
for sexual relations, as absolutely vital. In fact, few Jews in the
Second Temple period believed that Gentile failure to observe the
Sabbath was as immoral an act as engaging in homosexual practice (or
incest, for that matter).
Your argument that Jesus himself did not keep Gen 1:27
and 2:24, the very texts that Jesus lifted up as normative (with
proscriptive implications) for sexual ethics, is misguided. Why would
Jesus lift them up and draw a rigorous sexual ethic from them if he
didn't regard them as vaild? First, the statement about "leaving one's
father and mother and being joined to one's woman/wife" is not a
statement about literal leaving; it's a statement about transferring
primary allegiances from one's parent to one's own household and making
one's wife more of a kin than even one's own parents. It matters little
whether the husband goes to the wife's house/family or the wife to the
husband's house/family (as examples in Yahwistic narrative make clear).
Second, Jesus' rightly recognized that Gen 1:27 and 2:24
were not commands that compelled every last Jewish man to marry; there
is absolutely no indication that he viewed himself as in violation of
these commands (contra your erroneous presumption). When he spoke about
some making themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, that is,
abstaining from marriage and thus from any sexual relations so as to
give undivided attention to the proclamation of the kingdom in dangerous
situations, he did so with the understanding that Gen 1:27 and 2:24 were
not absolute commands to get married but general commands. However, he
did understand these texts as giving absolute prerequisites for
acceptable sexual relations (i.e. marriage) if sexual relations were to
be had. And he clearly predicated the twoness of a sexual bond on the
two primary sexes that God created for sexual pairing, a fact that I
noted was demonstrated by a parallel use of Gen 1:27 in the Qumran
community. Jesus understood (and Paul followed him in this) that there
is a big difference between not entering into a sexual union, which is
no sin, and entering into an inherently unnatural (i.e. structurally
incongruous) sexual union, which is a sin.
Your argument that only commitment is needed to justify a
sexual union, as if there were no embodied formal prerequisites, is not
a scriptural notion and is logically untenable. Why stint yourself and
limit yourself to homosexual unions? Since the prohibition of faithful
polyamorous unions is, according to Jesus, predicated on the twoness of
the sexes, and you don't give any significance to the duality of the
sexes for sexual relations, why not go on and accept a committed
polyamorous union of 3 or more sexual partners? And since homosexual
practice and incest of adult-committed sorts are both rejected on the
grounds of not enough complementary otherness and too much formal
sameness on the part of the participants (one most keenly felt at the
level of sex or gender, the other derivatively felt at the level of
kinship), and you don't think too much structural likeness matters in
the case of same-sex pairing, why not go on and accept an
adult-committed incestuous union?
The reality is that sex is not just "more intimacy" and
that generic love, though necessary, is not a sufficient criterion for
having sex. If it were, then since we are called to love everyone with
whom we come into contact it ought to be acceptable to have sex with
everyone. And, by your reasoning, since parents love and are committed
to their children, they ought to be able to have sex with them, or with
their parents or siblings, since apparently you believe love and
commitment are sufficient for justifying a sexual union. What your
argument doesn't acknowledge is that there are a host of additional
considerations beyond love and commitment that have to be taken into
account when the issue is sexual relations, including the number of
partners, degree of blood relatedness, gender or sex, and age.
You appeal to the love of God in Christ but patently
ignore the fact that Jesus himself, the man of love, viewed a
male-female prerequisite for valid sexual unions as absolutely
essential. Now we have here two alternatives. We could go with the moral
view of our Lord, whom I can safely say is infinitely wiser spiritually
and more loving than you or I, or we could go with your anti-Jesus view
and conclude that you are wiser and more loving than Jesus in this area
that Jesus regarded as foundational. Your charge of "homophobia" has to
be laid at the feet of Jesus our Lord, given his views on a male-female
requirement, and makes about as much sense as "polyphobia" or
"incest-phobia" when adult-committed relationships are in view.
Please pardon me for not finding your response to my
presentation convincing. I have laid out a few reasons why I am not
persuaded by you. I have spent the time to respond to you in the hope
that you will lower your ideological grid a bit and give serious
consideration to these things.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Harry _______
Sent: Thursday, January
29, 2009 2:06 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Homophobia
Two
questions:
Show me
any place in the gospels that Jesus turned away a person who was gay or
lesbian?
Did
Jesus on the cross say, I am dying for everyone but the gays and
lesbians? Another: How can you convert a question that deals with
divorce into one that deals with gays and lesbians? Let's stay on the
subject, here.
By the
way. When Jesus quoted Leviticus, he did not quote 18:22. He quoted
19:18. I stand with him.
Dr.
__________
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 6:26 PM
To: 'Harry ________
Subject: RE: Homophobia
Harry,
"Show
me any place in the gospels that Jesus turned away a person who was gay
or lesbian?"
We
don't have a text where Jesus meets a Jew who is engaged in homosexual
practice because no Jew in the first century would have participated in
such activity (or, if engaging in it, would have let anyone know it
since such acknowledgment would have meant instant death). What we do
have is stories of Jesus who reaches out to sexual sinners but not to
affirm their sin; rather to reclaim them for the kingdom of God by
turning them from their sin. "Go and no longer be sinning" carries with
it the implicit motive clause (explicit in John 5) "lest something worse
happen to you." I wasn't advocating "turning away" persons with same-sex
attractions but calling them to a life where they do not, by their
behavior, put themselves at risk of not inheriting the very kingdom that
Jesus proclaimed. You might as well say: Show me any place in the
Gospels where Jesus turned away adulterers or participants in incest or
bestiality. You are not suggesting we should promote these behaviors
too, are you?
"Did
Jesus on the cross say, I am dying for everyone but the gays and
lesbians?"
No, he
died for all people, including mass murderers, rapists, pedophiles,
racists, etc. but I trust that you do not deduce from this that he
condoned their behaviors or proclaimed that they would all inherit God's
kingdom irrespective of whether they continued in such behaviors. (If
you do deduce this, then your theology has very serious problems
indeed.) Why do you think Jesus warned people to cut off their hand,
eye, or foot if it should threaten their spiritual downfall because it
is better to go into heaven maimed than to go into hell full-bodied?
Moreover, Paul, from whom we get most of our theology of grace, made
clear that there is no sin transfer to Christ apart from a self transfer
to Christ; no Christ living in us apart from our dying to self. Paul
believed that the person who continued to live under the primary sway of
sin would perish irrespective of any claim to know Jesus. And you might
check out the triplicate of warnings that Jesus issued at the end of the
Sermon on the Mount in Matt 7.
" How
can you convert a question that deals with divorce into one that deals
with gays and lesbians? Let's stay on the subject, here."
I am
staying on the subject but you appear not to have grasped my point.
Jesus predicated his view of marital twoness (rejecting both concurrent
and serial polygamy) on the fact that God made us "male and female," two
primary complementary sexes whose sexual unions permits no third party.
In other words, Jesus arrived at his view on divorce and remarriage
(and, implicitly, polygamy which is the easier case) through the view
that the foundation of marriage is that God made two and only two
complementary sexes. That is very much staying on the subject. I showed
how the Qumran community made a similar use of Gen 1:27 to prohibit
polygamy.
" By
the way. When Jesus quoted Leviticus, he did not quote 18:22. He quoted
19:18. I stand with him."
So what
if Jesus didn't cite Lev 18:22 directly? He didn't cite directly the
prohibitions of incest and bestiality in Lev 18 either; do you think
that this means that he was okay with such behavior? Jesus didn't have
to cite Lev 18:22; he cited the flipside, the male-female prerequisite
in Gen 1:27 and 2:24, as foundational for all sexual ethics. Certainly
Lev 19:18 is not in contradiction to the sex laws in Lev 18 and 20
(recorded by the same legislators) and certainly too Jesus and early
Christians did not treat the commandments regarding incest, adultery,
man-male intercourse, and bestiality as expendable, merely symbolic
commands. Anyone who knows anything about first-century Judaism and
Christianity knows this, don't you think?
If you
are really serious about wanting to learn, read a fuller presentation of
my views at
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf
(which includes discussion not only of Scripture but also philosophy and
science) and
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexStacyJohnsonSJT2.pdf (with
parts 2 and 3 as well). I can't continue to dish out piecemeal to you
material that I have already written elsewhere. If you are not
interested in reading this material, you are not really interested in
learning or having your preconceived views challenged. I hope, however,
that you will demonstrate the opposite.
Blessings,
Dr.
Gagnon
Question about conducting remarriages
From:
H.
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 11:11 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Thursday talk
Dr. Gagnon --
I wanted to drop a note to let you know how much I enjoyed your
presentation. I found your presentation very persuasive. I had noticed
that most of the arguments being made by proponents of gay ordination
were based more on American civil values than on the scriptures, and I
came away from Jack Rogers' presentation thinking I must have missed
something.
By the way, I heard a talk by Barbara Wheeler a couple of years ago
when she and Jack Haberer conducted a dialogue at the national
gathering of presbytery moderators, and she admitted that her own view
in favor of gay ordination were formed by non-biblical influences.
I'll try to make a point to read one of your books on the topic in the
next few weeks.
I was also hoping to ask a questions about a topic you touched on
briefly, which is divorce. How do you think pastors should deal with
the question of divorce and remarriage? Obviously, most of us are
called on sometimes to perform weddings for people who have been
divorced. My general practice has been to approach the subject in
pre-wedding consultations in terms of divorce being the result of
human sinfulness, and to stress the importance of repenting of the
lack of commitment which has resulted in the previous marriage(s).
What's your view?
And how about remarried clergy? Our presbytery, like most, has a
number of pastors who have been remarried. What's your advice on this
issue?
Again, thanks for your guidance.
In Jesus' service,
H.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 8:27 PM
To: H.
Subject: RE: Thursday talk
Hi
H.,
It was
nice meeting you.
The
divorce-remarriage thing is difficult. While a serious issue it is not
as serious as (even adult-committed) incest or homosexual practice.
There are special problems such as: Was the person who is remarrying
an initiator or victim of the previous divorce? If initiator, on what
grounds? (The only acceptable grounds for divorce would be adultery
and, presumably, desertion and serious physical endangerment.) As a
pastor I would have to know these things before any consideration of
participating in the service. I’m not even sure that Jesus would have
allowed remarriage under any circumstances so long as the first spouse
is still alive. His remarks in Matt 5 suggest that even a wife who has
been divorced on invalid grounds, becomes an adulteress if she
remarries.
See my
article at
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoWinkHBTResp.pdf pp. 110-22.
Blessings,
Dr.
Gagnon
Correspondence with an evangelical
scholar at an evangelical seminary about Obama's homosexualist political
agenda
From:
B
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 1:36 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Thanks for [alerting me to Obama's
political program for gay rights at the
official White House webpage. What I find there is the following---
Support
for the LGBT Community
"While we
have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a
lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by
those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we
are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to
its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with
dignity and respect."
-- Barack Obama, June 1,
2007
-
Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans
constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made
up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored
legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent
hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national
origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability.
As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made
hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.
-
Fight Workplace Discrimination:
President Obama supports the Employment
Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination
employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and
gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended
benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based
on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal
remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State
Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation.
-
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT
Couples:
President Obama supports full civil unions that
give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of
married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of
Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+
federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of
marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and
other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the
right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal
health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
-
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage:
President Obama voted against the Federal
Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as
between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of
marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
-
Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell:
President Obama agrees with former Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military
experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The
key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty,
and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The
U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked
out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally,
more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy,
including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will
work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it
helps accomplish our national defense goals.
-
Expand Adoption Rights:
President Obama believes that we must ensure
adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their
sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy
and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
-
Promote AIDS Prevention:
In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and
begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that
includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce
HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health
disparities. The President will support common sense approaches
including age-appropriate sex education that includes information
about contraception, combating infection within our prison population
through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives
through our public health system. The President also supports lifting
the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce
rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been
willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that
continues to surround HIV/AIDS.
-
Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS:
In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has
quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than
one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced
the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development
of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS.
Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that
women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other
infections.
Some of this I would clearly disagree with,
however I don't oppose civil unions or civil rights for gays, nor do I
think 'don't ask, don't tell' works, nor am I in favor of hate crimes
against gays.
I do however think some of those hate crimes laws however go much too
far, in calling any sort of criticism of gay lifestyle as hate speech.
I do also oppose redefining the term marriage. What Pres. Obama has
said is that he thinks that the issue of the definition of marriage
should be left in the hands of the states. In other words, he doesn't
favor the Constitutional Amendment ban idea. He does agree, and
personally does define, marriage as an act between an man and woman as
the Bible says, as do the vast majority of African-Americans.
The sum and substance of this is that it looks like you are right to be
concerned about some of this, but not by any means all of it. America
is a secular society and equality under the law is a primary goal of
course. I have never seen much promise in trying to
impose
strictly Christian values on a pluralistic
society like we have, without the consent of the governed. My point is
this--- Obama has repealed various of Bush's executive orders. I don't
have a problem with that. I think that if we cannot persuade society to
agree with us and our Christian views, then it is not fair play to bring
them in through the back door with executive orders of whatever sort.
Good to hear from you as always,
Dr. B
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:40 PM
To: B.
B.,
Thanks for
your comments.
One doesn’t
have to be in favor of “hate crimes” against homosexuals to be opposed
to a “hate crime” bill. Laws are already in place protecting everyone
against violence and threats. “Sexual orientation” laws inevitably treat
any who oppose homosexual practice as bigots to be excluded from
white-collar jobs and polite society; lead to enforced indoctrination of
school children; and mandate compliance in goods and services despite
conscience objections (see, for example, the New Mexico female
photographer fined thousands of dollars for declining to photograph a
lesbian wedding). These are inevitable developments. “Sexual
orientation” “employment discrimination” laws lead to GLBT organizations
in the workplace, coming out workstation celebrations, affirmative
action programs for “sexual minorities,” etc. Any recognition of “sexual
orientation” as a specially protected class alongside of race and gender
leads to a civil insistence that “sexual orientation” diversity is as
prized as race or gender diversity and opponents of such as comparable
to racists and misogynists. You are concerned about “hate crime” laws
going too far but do not appear to realize that the implementation of
any “sexual orientation” law leads inevitably to these abuses, as
numerous examples from Canada, Europe, and even the US make clear.
I’m
surprised that you are for homosexual “civil unions.” Are you for “civil
unions” for 3 or more concurrent adult-committed sexual partners or for
adult-committed incestuous bonds as well? Don’t you know that the
granting of “civil unions” compels employers and taxpayers to subsidize
the immorality of homosexual relationships, promotes state
characterization of opponents of homosexual practice as bigots, and
leads inevitably to “gay marriage” (when every right and benefit of
marriage is granted but only the name “marriage” is withheld, it is a
very short and inevitable step to marriage, as you should know from the
reasoning of the Massachusetts Supreme Court, which noted the hypocrisy
of granting all but name and then mandated gay marriage)? If you are
supportive of civil unions, where the state expresses as much of an
interest in furthering homosexual unions as it does heterosexual
families, then you have no reasonable case for being opposed to
withholding the mere word “marriage,” for in all other respects you
support what appears to be a homosexual marriage. If it walks like a
duck and talks like a duck and has the body of a duck, it’s a duck.
If you
believe that Obama thinks in his heart that homosexuals should not have
the right of marriage then you are extremely gullible about Obama’s
views. It has now been revealed that already in 1996 he publicly
expressed his commitment to support the institution of gay marriage.
This past year, before the homosexual organization known as the “Human
Rights Campaign,” he compared the withholding of marriage to homosexuals
to miscegenation laws in the South. See further my online article here:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/ObamaWarOnChristiansRespToBritScholar.pdf.
Obama hasn’t just rejected any federal marriage amendment; he has also
consistently rejected any state attempt to restrict the word “marriage”
to a male-female union, including California’s Prop 8. Moreover he is
determined to get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act whose only purpose
is to prevent gay marriage in one state from being foisted on other
states.
Opposition
to homosexual practice is no more restricted to Christian revelation
than is opposition to sanctioning adult-committed incest and polyamory.
Indeed a prohibition of both derives from the foundation of, or in
analogy to, the reasons for adopting a male-female prerequisite.
Blessings,
Rob
Lost on my website?
From: Cesar
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 10:57 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Please, do me a favour.
Dear
Gagnon,
My name is Cesar ______, I'm Brazilian and Christian
I have known your web site and I have sought biblical serious texts
about homosexuality.
Well, I noticed that in your site there are too many texts about the
matter and unfortunately this has been a problem for me begin some read.
In fact, I was looking serious commentaries with base on Hebrew and
Greek interpretation about the classical verses that mention
homosexuality in the books of Leviticus, Romans, Corinthians and
Timothy.
Well, I would like your help to lead me to these texts or books because
I'm lost in your web site.
God bless you,
Cesar
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:22 PM
To: Cesar
Subject: RE: Please, do me a favour.
Dear
Cesar,
There is a
lot of material on my website but here are four places to start:
“More than Mutual
Joy: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus” (http://robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm)
A half hour video
on “What the Bible Says about Homosexuality” at
http://www.vimeo.com/2126309
“How Bad Is Homosexual Practice According to
Scripture and Does Scripture’s Indictment Apply to Committed Homosexual
Unions?” (http://robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm)
“Why the
Disagreement over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice?”
(http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf)
Blessings,
Rob
Response to an
evangelical leader supportive of "gay rights" on the Crystal Dixon case
For information on the Crystal Dixon
case go
here
From:
T.
Sent: Tue 1/13/2009 9:54 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Dear Rob,
I just thought you would like to have this letter that
was sent to me by the president of the University of Toledo in response
to my concerns about the dismissal of Ms. Crystal Dixon for making
statements that he felt were contrary to the values of the institution.
It is interesting the way this game can be played in
academia, because at the University of Colorado a very outspoken
professor made some horrendous statements about people who died on 9/11
being deserving of their deaths. His message was filled with all kinds
of anti-Semitic comments, yet the university said that beliefs about
free speech would not allow the university to dismiss that professor.
It seems to me that Ms. Crystal Dixon, expressing her personal
convictions on gays and lesbians, was far less offensive than anything
that was uttered by that professor in Colorado.
You know that there is much that we disagree on when it
comes to gays and lesbians. I am on the side that champions their
rights, but having said that I am also for the rights of those who want
to express themselves in ways that are contrary to my beliefs and
convictions. A free society, and certainly an open university, demands
this. I think that Dr. Roy A. Jacobs made a mistake and I am surprised
that there wasn’t more of an outcry against him. I especially feel this
way after reading Ms. Dixon’s comments, which I felt were very
even-tempered.
I suppose that, in spite of our severe differences, there
are places where we can agree.
Sincerely,
T.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 11:41 AM
To: T.
Subject: T.
Dear T.,
Thank you for sharing
this letter with me. The obvious flaw in Jacobs' rationale is that he
had no actual evidence that Ms. Dixon had not carried out her duties and
yet still removed her from the position; therefore, despite his denial,
he has abridged her free speech.
I am grateful that we
agree that Jacobs did the wrong thing. I further agree that we are in
very different places on other matters involving homosexual practice.
Of course, I would not
characterize our differences as you would; namely, that you are "on the
side that champions their rights" while I am not. That description
severely prejudices the matter, does it not? I don't believe that I am
denying any "rights." For example, it is no more a "right" for two
persons in a homosexual relationship to have their sexual union
subsidized by their employer through domestic partnership benefits than
it is a "right" for three or more persons, or close blood relations, to
have their adult-committed sexual union so subsidized. Homosexual
persons, like all persons, have a right not to be subject to violent
acts; yet this right is already protected through anti-violence laws
that protect all persons; a special "hate-crime" law enshrining "sexual
orientation" as a special protection category could not add to this
right but rather only deter free-speech rights of other by establishing
"sexual orientation" as comparable to race or ethnicity. Persons engaged
in adult-committed homosexual practice should have as many employment
rights, but no more, than persons engaged in adult-committed incestuous
or polyamorous unions (the latter two I do not think should be subject
to criminal prosecution or arrest).
You "champion" "sexual
orientation" employment "nondiscrimination" laws and yet you are
surprised by the outcome at the University of Toledo. You should not be
surprised. When Obama (whom you strongly supported in spite of his
radical pro-abortion positions and perhaps because of his radical
homosexualist stance; see now his invitation to Gene Robinson to speak
at his inauguration) pushes through national "sexual orientation" laws
you will see much more of this discrimination against Christians. For
some reason you think it is possible to pass "sexual orientation"
legislation and not abridge the rights of Christians to speak against
homosexual practice and to opt out of acts that coerce them to promote
homosexual activity in society. This, I would suggest to you, is not a
rational position given things that have already transpired in Europe,
Canada, and even parts of the United States.
Blessings,
Rob
On
Sex, Salvation, and Human Merit
From:
Redvan6
Sent: Thu 1/8/2009 2:51 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Sex and Salvation
Dr.
Gagnon: We aren't saved or unsaved by avoiding this or that type of
sexual experience. Practicing Christian homosexuals aren't saved by
keeping "morally clean"-whatever that might mean or holding on for dear
life for fear that they might catch a fornicating glimpse of another
man's you-know-what. All of which could set the stage for a descent
into the very fires of Hell itself if not checked and throttled at all
costs. Begs the questions: How
Are We Saved??? How Are We Kept??? Is Sexual "Morality" Required For
Salvation??? I would have thought that the doctrinally
mature Christian would have clarified these issues in Bible 101. Settle
once and for all by thorough Biblical study what it means to be
saved...God's awesome grace to us in Christ
apart from the works of the Law-apart from good behavior-apart from self
effort/good works. Christ justifies the UNGODLY. Christ justifies the
UNRIGHTEOUS. HOW? Simply by calling on His name in
faith believing in and receiving His cleansing blood to wash away all
sin. Gay or straight it makes no difference. We are saved/sealed by
genuine faith in Jesus not by avoiding sexual temptation or any other
sin for that matter. Christ came to save sinners not people who try to
blunt their own personal sinful expression through self effort, self
denial, and other legalistic attempts to "appear not need the sacrifice
of Calvary" quite so much. Having been purchased by His blood, we will
exhibit the new nature through good works that glorify Jesus Christ.
The indwelling Spirit will manifest Himself in the gay or straight
believer's heart by Christ honoring behavior.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:25 PM
To: Redvan6
Subject: RE: Sex and Salvation
You do
not understand Pauline (or Christian) soteriology. Nothing an individual
does can merit salvation; but one does appropriate it by faith, trust in
Christ's saving work on the cross; and the person who lives by faith is
the person who, in the main, lets Christ live in him (or her); and
Christ is not producing sin. Not that Paul (or Jesus) expected
perfection but he did expect a transformation, a life lived in the main
in conformity to the indwelling Spirit rather than in conformity to sin
operating in the human body. The person who lives in the latter way does
not believe or have faith in Christ in anything like a life
reorientation toward the gospel. Such a person, Paul repeatedly
declared, will not inherit the kingdom of God, not because he (or she)
has failed to merit God's salvation but because he (or she) has not
truly trusted in Christ. So Paul's approach to the case of the
incestuous man in 1 Cor 5-6, his discussion of "why not sin?" in Rom
6:1-8:17, and many other places. The person who engages in a serial
unrepentant manner in homosexual practice is, like the incestuous man,
at high risk to not inherit eternal life, irrespectively of whatever
confession he (or she) makes. You would benefit greatly from a more
careful reading of Scripture. You don't understand grace.
Robert
Gagnon
Response to a critic about the focus of my work
From: John G. Ayres
Sent: Fri 1/2/2009 9:41 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: The Focus of your "ministry"
Dr. Gagnon:
I read with some
interest your response(s) when asked about your ministry’s
effectiveness in “curing” homosexuality. I particularly found it
interesting that you claim that your ministry isn’t about “healing” or
“reorienting” homosexual persons, as this would take significant time
and resources away from your “ministry.”
Considering that I
find precious little on your website regarding anything other than
homosexuality, I am compelled to ask you:
1) Why your obsession
with LGBT persons, if you do not consider your ministry to be
“focused” on this one particular “sin”? Can’t you find something else
in this sinful world to write and talk about? It leads one to wonder
if your obsession isn’t rooted in internalized homophobia and perhaps
a disownership of homosexual feelings you find inside yourself?
2) If homosexuality
and its resulting inability to be redeemed is so worthy of the
majority of your attention, how could gay “reparative” ministry be so
not a part of your ministry? Is it your position that
all that is required of you with regard to homosexuality and
Christianity is to beat people over the head with the Bible? Faith
without works is dead. I might find you to be more credible if you
spent your time actually ministering to others instead of using the
platform of your professorship as a sort of pedestal to wag your
finger and thump a lot of “thou shalt nots.”
Like most Christians
I’ve ever met, it seems to be so much more convenient for you to
glorify the Messenger than it is to actually live his message. People
like you and Bishop Duncan make Pittsburgh the hillbilly backwater
that it has always been and will always be.
Hey, I’m just
saying...
John Ayres
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Gagnon [mailto:rgagnon@pts.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:45 PM
To: John G. Ayres
Subject: RE: The Focus of your "ministry"
John,
A prominent area of my
research is on what Scripture has to say about homosexual practice.
Such attention needs little justification beyond the obvious:
first, this issue has dominated church discussions and controversies
for the past 30 years; second, a male-female prerequisite is treated
in Scripture as a foundational element of human sexual relations, and
this foundation has turned into the moral and religious equivalent in
our day of an endangered species which, if not defended now, will be
lost forever; third, few have had the courage to defend this
foundational element in the face of vicious attacks from power-sectors
of society supporting homosexual practice, making the need for such a
defense great indeed.
The "internalized
homophobia" argument is absurd. So, if the culture began pressing for
acceptance of polyamorous, incestuous, or pedophilic unions and I
devoted considerable attention in my writings to showing why such
cultural acceptance would be morally wrong, would you say that my
primary motivation would be internalized polyphobia, incest-phobia, or
pedophobia respectively? For the record, I have no memory of ever
experiencing same-sex attractions. But those who do have such
attractions while affirming God's limitation of sexual unions to male
and female are courageous, not hypocritical, since it requires a view
of discipleship toward Christ consistent with Jesus' own call to take
up one's cross, deny oneself, and lose one's life.
I minister to persons,
including persons with same-sex attractions, as God leads me to do so.
But my primary job is not as a therapist but as a scholar of
Scripture, which is a noble occupation in its own right and more than
a full-time job. Your premise that a person with homosexual
attractions is not helped unless these attractions can be removed is
completely misguided, inasmuch as most persons never rid themselves
entirely of desires to do what God expressly forbids, whatever the
desire. No commandment of God is predicated on people first losing all
desires to violate the command in question.
Your argument is also
premised on the position that affirming same-sex attractions is
inherenly loving so that writing against homosexual practice is
inherently hateful and abusive. I reject that premise completely (as
did Jesus and every author of Scripture). If, as Scripture indicates,
homosexual practice is an inherently self-dishonoring act that treats
one's maleness (if male) as only half intact or femaleness (if female)
as only half intact--two half males uniting to form a whole male, two
half-females uniting to form a whole female--then clearing away the
misunderstandings that Scripture is somehow supportive of homosexual
practice is not an act of hate but an act of love. When Jesus declared
in the midst of talking about sexual ethics that one should cut off a
body part that threatens one's spiritual downfall because it is better
to go into heaven maimed then to go into hell full-bodied, he was not
being hateful but loving.
Given the intellectual
thinness of the "logic" in your email to me, I wouldn't go around
abusively referring to others as "hillbillies" if I were you. Your
first priority ought to be to educate yourself more on this issue
since it is apparent that you have not thought through a number of
matters clearly. Please don't write me again until you make a
reasonable effort to do so by reading my material comprehensively and
carefully.
Dr. Gagnon
From: John G. Ayres
Sent: Fri 1/2/2009 1:58 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: The Focus of your "ministry"
You prolific and
verbose response still doesn't answer the question: why
homosexuality, specifically? Methinx the lady doth protest too much.
The tremendous
increase in divorces, extramarital relations, children growing up in
single-parent heterosexual households, 1 in 4 teenage girls under 14
testing positive for HPV, etc ad nauseum don't qualify as weakening
the foundations of moral sexual and family behavior? Heterosexuals in
no small number have denigrated and eroded the institution of
marriage. Homosexuals, meanwhile, have yet to even be given the
opportunity to do nearly as badly.
I am tempted to laugh
at your characterization of gay men and women as being "half" of their
gender. Such knee-jerk reactionary homophobia can be called nothing
else than the neurosis that it is. By your own assertion, those who
choose celibacy are less than "half" their gender, as they choose not
to express their sexuality whatsoever. What does that make them, in
your system of accounting....1/4 male or female?
Your obsession with
all things queer says much more about you than it does anyone else.
Those of us with a mind, who actually use it, aren't fooled a bit.
You'll do well in Pittsburgh; that is, if you can get the uneducated
masses to stay awake long enough to listen to (let alone understand)
your diatribes.
John Ayres
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 3:12 PM
To: John G. Ayres
Subject: RE: The Focus of your "ministry"
John,
On your 1st paragr.
below. Didn't answer the question? Reread my first paragraph where I
answer it with three points.
On your 2nd paragr.
below: Of course there are heterosexual sins. I just don't see a
lobbyist group in the church for such things. I do see it for
homosexual practice. As regards promiscuity, homosexuals, particularly
male, do far worse on average than heterosexuals; this is also true as
regards sexually transmitted disease, relational longevity, and mental
health. That you do not know these things underscores again your
uninformed view of things. And homosexual practice, like incest, has
the added dimension of sexual intercourse with another who is already
too much of a formal (structural, embodied) same; here males aroused
by the very maleness that they possess (anatomical, physiological, and
psychological) and females by the very femaleness that they possess. A
man having sex with his own grown sister is the closest analogue. Your
observation is analogous to, and makes as little sense as, the claim
that fighting against cultural support for polyamory or incest, even
of adult-committed sorts, would be wrong because it would ignore the
ills of monogamist or non-incestuous persons.
On your 3rd paragr.: "By
your own assertion, those who choose celibacy are less than "half"
their gender, as they choose not to express their sexuality
whatsoever."
Your statement does not logically follow. A man who
chooses not to have sex remains a full male sexually. It would be the
attempt to merge sexually with what he already is as a sexual being
that would compromise the integrity of his maleness since male and
female are obviously the only complementary sexual beings; one merges
with their sexual other-half. This is a fairly obvious point.
The uninformed character of your
remarks, as well as their arrogance ("Those of
us with a mind, who actually use it, aren't fooled a bit"),
underscores the waste of my time to engage further someone such as
yourself until you do something more to educate yourself. I asked you
not to write back until and if you do educate yourself further on the
matter. I do not have the time to reiterate points that I have dealt
with extensively elsewhere to a person who has no desire to read the
best material that disagrees with the homosexualist view.
Dr.
Gagnon
Material on women's ordination and homosexuality
From: pastord
Sent: Sat 12/13/2008 10:46 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: women's ordination and homosexuality
Dr. Gagnon,
Can you tell me
where in your book The Bible and Homosexual Practice you explain why
the argument for women's ordination is not comparable to the arguments
for homosexuality? Or any other articles where the distinction is
made?
Thanks. I
appreciate your tireless participation in the debate to show how
sloppy our logic and reasoning is sometimes. So many seem to be
working with tunnel vision and self-love, or fear of rejection by
others. We hate conflict, sometimes, and we hate judging others,
sometimes.
Rev. D.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:29 PM
To: pastord
Subject: RE: women's ordination and homosexuality
D.,
Thanks for your note. I deal with the issue at
http://robgagnon.net/RogersUseAnalogies.htm and
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf (pp.
93-94). See also: William J. Webb, Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals
(Intervarsity Press). My colleague Edith Humphrey has an article on
the issue in
God, Gays and the Church:
Human Sexuality and Experience in Christian Thinking
(eds. Lisa Nolland, Chris Sugden
& Sarah Finch;London: Latimer Trust, 2008).
Blessings,
Rob
Should the government support homosexual unions?
From: C.
Sent: Tuesday,
December 09, 2008 12:43 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: marriage amendment
Hello Mr. Gagnon.
I am teaching Sunday
school at church in which we are discussing this same sex marriage
debate. We are agreed concerning the bible's prohibition of
homosexuality as well as same sex marriage. the issue we struggle
with the most is whether or not our government ought to be involved in
an issue we see as a religious issue and not a civil one. I was
reading your articles and wanted to ask if you had any insights
concerning this dilemma?
C.
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 1:02 PM
To: C.
Subject: RE: marriage amendment
Dear C.,
It is as much a civil
issue as society's prohibition of incest (even of an adult, consensual
sort) and polygamy (again, even of an adult, consensual sort). In
fact, as Jesus noted, it is the twoness of the sexes that is the
foundation for the limitation of the number of partners in a sexual
union to two (bringing together the two primary sexes makes a third
party both unnecessary and undesirable). And incest is prohibited by
analogy to the principle that too much structural (embodied, formal)
sameness among the participants, a principle established by the
prohibition of sexual relations between persons too much alike in
gender or sex. Both Jews and Christians in antiquity viewed the
prohibitions of same-sex intercourse, incest, adultery, and bestiality
as applicable beyond the sphere of God's people.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
Response to a skeptical evangelical leader who wants to know whom I have
"'delivered' from homosexual orientations"
[The
following is from an evangelical leader whom I have reason to believe
supports some degree of acceptance of homosexual unions and is seeking
ways to support the homosexualist agenda without alienating the audience
for the leader's message. I understood the request based on this broader
context (which I cannot disclose here); that is, as a way of undermining
my scriptural arguments through questioning whether my teaching converts
homosexual persons into heterosexual persons.]
From: T
Sent: Fri 5/9/2008 4:35 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Dear
Robert,
It
would be most helpful to me if you could give me the names and
addresses of people who have been “delivered” from homosexual
orientations as an outgrowth of your ministry. Could you give me
the names and addresses of people whom you have led to Christ
because of your particular approach and teachings on this subject?
Being a ___________, I am very interested in case studies and I
approach the whole subject from that perspective, even as you
approach the subject by an analysis of the biblical text. If you
can help me, it would be most appreciated.
Sincerely,
T
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 6:03 PM
To: T.
Dear T,
My ministry is not one of "delivering people from
homosexual orientations." I have received many thanks in my speaking
engagements, and occasionally through emails, from people who say that
my teaching has helped them to recognize what God's will is for their
lives and to be encouraged that God is able to empower them to obedience
in their behavior whether or not they are "delivered from same-sex
attractions." I do not keep track of these. Working with people to
manage and sometimes diminish same-sex attractions would require an
"Alcoholics Anonymous" approach, i.e. long-term therapeutic help and
group networking. This in itself would be a full-time ministry and it is
not what I do, given the demands made on me in teaching and publishing.
A bit troubling (though I acknowledge that I could be
reading too much into your request) is the apparent presumption that
"deliverance" must take the form of losing a homosexual orientation.
When did God ever predicate a single one of his commands on people first
losing all desire to violate the command in question? Isn't the reason
why God gives commands and prohibitions because there are people with
innate urges to violate them? Is the monogamy principle applicable only
to people with no polysexual orientation? Is the principle of no
intercourse with prepubescent children (and for our culture the whole of
adolescence) applicable only to persons not so "oriented" with a
pedosexual orientation? (Incidentally, do you keep track of persons who
have been delivered from polysexual and pedosexual orientations or
alcoholic predispositions? And, if not, why not?)
Isn't the whole of the Christian life a struggle against
the warring passions of the flesh, which God requires us not to succumb
to and, when we do succumb, to repent, however many times for the rest
of our life this takes (Gal 5:16-18)? Is it the case that when Paul says
in 1 Cor 6:11, "and these things some of you were," he means that the
offenders in the offender list in 6:9-10 no longer experience innate
urges to commit offenses when they become washed, sanctified, and
justified by believing in Christ and receiving the Spirit of God? And if
it doesn't mean that (and it doesn't) what then does Paul mean by "and
these things some of you were"? Does he not mean that they have
"reoriented" themselves to be crucified with Christ, to die to selves,
and to live for God by having Christ live in them through their
gratitude for Christ's redemption (Gal 2:19-20)?
And what is the shape of God's grace here? According to 2
Cor 12:7-10 grace is most profoundly experienced when, in answer to our
fervent entreaties to be delivered from some distressing circumstance,
God says "no" and explains "My grace is sufficient for you; my power
will be brought to completion in and through your weakness." Is the "no"
a cause for depression and defeatism or the realization that this is a
formative moment for being shaped more vigorously into the image of
Christ?
Do you, as a ___________, keep track of these stories?
Perhaps you should. These are the real success stories. Anybody can obey
God when no particular stressful circumstances arise from the obedience.
But to obey God in a manner that requires one to take up one's cross,
deny oneself, and lose one's life, is to know what it means when Paul
says "for me to live is Christ" (Phil 1:21) and "may it not happen that
I boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the
world has been crucified to me and I to the world" (Gal 6:14). Do we,
with Paul, bear the marks or scars of Jesus on our body that comes with
being crucified in relation to the world and our own fleshly passions
and desires (Gal 6:17; 5:24)? The message of the cross is the message of
life. The message of "gratify your urges that violate God's will but do
so with the fewest negative side-effects" is the message of death (cf. 2
Cor 2:14-17). If I were to preach the latter message, I would have
easily removed a great deal of stress in my life that has come for
defending the male-female character of sexual relations over the past
decade (cf. Gal 5:11).
As you might note from my open letter to the President of
Toledo (here)
I focused on socio-environmental influences on homosexual development
combined with congenital influences and the role of incremental, often
blind and indirect, choice. I didn't say that, once acquired and deeply
imbedded, same-sex attractions are easy to diminish in intensity, much
less get rid of. But a culture that provides a full-court press for
affirming homosexual practice to children from (in some areas of the
country) first grade on up will have a significant impact, I believe, in
increasing the incidence of homosexuality (and I don't mean just an
increase in the number of people who, already having same-sex
attractions, come "out of the closet"). In that sense, as well as in its
attraction for behavior incompatible with embodied existence, a
homosexual orientation is most definitely not like race and biological
sex.
I hope this response is helpful to you.
Blessings,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
What
about no reproduction in heaven and the existence of "complementary"
homosexual unions?
From:
Judy
Sent: Fri 4/18/2008 9:36 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Your views on homosexuality
Dear Dr. Gagnon,
I've read with interest your well-documented views on homosexuality...
However, is it not true that people are not to be defined solely by
their physical appearance? Is not the physical, the earthly body, a
temporary body, given its outline and desires produced by hormones for
the general purposes of reproduction of the race? Will our spiritual
bodies, given to us someday in the realm of eternal life, be defined
likewise as "male and female"?. We don't really know, but I think not,
as there is no need for reproduction in Heaven.
Here in San Francisco, I have as friends a couple who are most certainly
heterosexual, yet she is very "dominant, butch, assertive" while he is
more "feminine, diminuitive, responsive". You've probably experienced
the same things in some couples that you are acquainted with. In other
words, emotionally they are not the so-called "norm", but certainly they
are emotionally "complimentary" and compatible.
Likewise, I've met many homosexual couples here in San Francisco who are
likewise complimentary in the realm of emotional/spiritual: one may be
somewhat "dominant, assertive, initiating" while the other is "gentle,
passive, receiving" in their entire self. In other words, they DO "fit"
together", as companions and soul-mates and (perhaps) partners, despite
their physical sameness. In my 17 years of living in SF, I have really
not seen many long term same-sex relationships which are based on
"sameness" - in fact, those seem to be very, very few-- and frankly yes,
narcissistic. Most couples I've met are very different -like salt and
pepper -and refreshing to experience as a "couple". This, despite
their same sex.
As you are already aware, the earthly body is temporary, but our
relationships will continue on into eternal life. Could it be that you
are deceiving yourself about the true complexity of the situation, just
because physical parts (man/woman) "fit" for reproductive purposes?
This is perhaps a mystery, and perhaps too big for us to comprehend
with our human minds. The angels, are, apparently, sexless. What will
it be like for us then, to relate with one another in heaven, without
bodies that address the gender issue? Hmmm.
Sincerely,
Judy
San Francisco, CA
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 11:48 PM
To: Judy
Subject: RE: Your views on homosexuality
Dear
Judy,
Thank you for your
thoughts on the matter. In response, I offer two observations.
First, you are right
that "there is no 'male and female" (Gal 3:28), along with other texts
in Scripture (e.g., Jesus' saying about no marriage in heaven), suggest
a limitation on the ongoing validity of male/female differentiation. But
to argue for the validity of homosexual unions misses the point that the
end of the significance of sexual differentiation for mate selection
spells the end of all sexual relations. So long as sexual relations are
permitted, a male-female prerequisite is in place. We won't be having
sex in heaven--Jesus' statement about no marriage in heaven is clear
about this. What we will have is unmediated access to God which will
make sexual relations look dull by comparison.
Second, the fact that
some persons in homosexual relationships show some complementarity
features (you note dominance and passivity) does not make them
complementary in the truest or deepest sense. Those who are in such
relationships confirm this when they claim exclusive attraction to
members of the same sex, do they not? If maleness or femaleness did not
have significant reality, in a holistic sense, beyond certain typical
social constructions, there would be no such thing as exclusive
homosexuality. If all a dominant male sought was a passive partner, then
either a passive male or a passive female would do. If a passive male
sought a dominant partner, either a dominant male or a dominant female
would do (etc.). Yet the persistence in claiming that only a person of
the same sex will do is tacit acknowledgement of a multi-level reality
to maleness and to femaleness.
Same-sex attraction is
attraction for, well, the same sex. A homosexual man who had a gender
nonconforming childhood may seek another man as a means of compensating
for his (the former male's) perceived deficiencies in maleness. Yet the
lie and self-deception is that he was and remains a male. A homoerotic
union regularizes the self-deception.
I hope that this makes
sense to you.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
Judy
Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 8:37 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: Your views on homosexuality
Dear Dr. Gagnon,
Well, not exactly. People are at all different places on the Kinsey
Scale. Some profess only attraction to one sex or another, but others
are in the middle of the scale, and can have loving (and sexual)
relationships with either sex (as long as it is with someone who they
are attracted to and are compatible with). The problems arise not on
the individual level, but at the societal level, where those who are
uncomfortable with those of a different sexual persuasion than their own
have to be "running the show", so to speak. But it's not "our show" it
is the Lord's. We are all a part of the play...
Sex is not just for pro-creation. It is also for bonding purposes as
well. You apparently have some very black and white views on
sexuality. Unfortunately, the world has a lot of grey areas which we
aren't necessarily capable of understanding the reason for existing.
It's not always important that the "female" and "male" ends of the pipe
fit perfectly. Instead, its about relationships - loving, caring and
growth-oriented.
I would like to invite you to "come and see" for yourself. Come
experience the San Francisco that I know, with same sex couples who are
faithful, monogamous, Christian, raising children successfully, loving
and caring people, not narcissistic in any sense. Challenge yourself to
see what is out there, and then ask yourself if this isn't from God.
So when can you come and visit?
Sincerely,
Judy
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:12 AM
To: Judy
Subject: RE: Your views on homosexuality
Dear
Judy,
Thank you for your
second email. With all respect, I think it demonstrates that you need to
read my remarks more carefully; even more, that you need to begin
reading my main works.
Of course there are
people at different ends of the Kinsey scale. This is not news to me.
You missed my point that the existence of some exclusive or
near-exclusive homosexuality (a Kinsey 5 or 6), which incidentally is
the dominant manifestation of male homosexuality, shows that there is a
fundamental recognition of something identifiably male or female that
transcends particular cultural affects of maleness or femaleness. Even
bisexuals recognize the difference. So do the roughly 98% of the
population that is exclusively or predominantly attracted to one sex.
Again you miss my point
that complementarity extends well beyond procreation and even beyond the
anatomical fittedness. Arguing that opposition to homosexual practice is
exclusively predicated on its nonprocreative character is like arguing
that opposition to adult incest is exclusively predicated on potential
procreation problems (i.e. birth defects), a problem that, incidentally,
would not apply to homosexual incest. There is a holistic dimension to
maleness and femaleness that extends to anatomy, physiology, and
psychology. By definition persons erotically aroused by their own sex
are erotically aroused by what they already are, male for maleness,
female for femaleness, at every level. The attempt to merge with one's
own sex is buying into the self-deception that one's own sexuality as a
male or female is not intact but needs structural supplementation and
not just structural affirmation.
No, the problems in
homosexual relationships don't arise simply or solely from societal
"homophobia." They arise first and foremost from the fact that putting
two (or more) people of the same sex in a sexual union doesn't moderate
the extremes of a given sex or fill in the gaps; hence, male
homosexuality experiences disproportionately high rates of problems that
are different from the types of disproportionately high rates of
problems in female homosexuality, differences that are typical of their
respective genders.
Now these problems are
merely the symptoms of the root problem: the attempt to merge with
someone who is not a true sexual complement. Of course there are some
committed homosexual relationships. No consensual sexual relationship of
any sort--not adult incestuous bonds or adult-committed polyamorous
relationships, not even pedophilic practices--produce
intrinsic, scientifically measurable
harm.
The fact that you can refer to committed
homosexual relationships as something that you think I don't know about
shows that you have not read, or understood, my work. Commitment in a
homosexual relationship no more validates the union than would
commitment validate an adult-consensual incestuous or polyamorous union.
As Paul knew at Corinth, commitment in an incestuous bond does not
morally improve the quality of the relationship because, having failed
to meet the structural prerequisites, the relationship should have ended
yesterday. You say that I am "black and white." And yet you are no less
"black and white" in affirming homosexual unions and thinking that those
who disagree with you are wrong. And are you "black and white" in
rejecting adult-committed incest and polyamory? Or is this too a grey
area for you? After all, as you say, as long as the relationships are
about bonding and are loving, who could be opposed to them?
Go to
www.Oprah.com, specifically http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/200710/tows_past_20071026.jhtml?promocode=ssend20071026TD
and see also the videos of the show at
www.video.aol.com
under “Oprah
Winfrey & Lisa Ling interview Mormon Polygamists.” You'll see that there
are some loving, caring polygamous relationships that appear to be
raising children successfully. By your definition of what constitutes an
acceptable sexual union, which apparently includes no formal
prerequisites for structural, embodied correspondences, it satisfies all
the requirements. You will have to agree with Oprah: "The
best part of doing this job
… [is that] I come in
with one idea and then I leave a little more open about the whole idea.
And what I realize … is that in every situation there are people who
give things a bad name. There are
difficulties and then
there are people who handle those difficulties differently."
Of course, Jesus closed the door on the
permission that Moses gave to men to marry more than one woman and did
so by appealing to the twoness of the sexes in creation, "male and
female God created them." Completing the sexual spectrum by joining the
two and only two primary sexes makes all third parties unnecessary,
whether serial or concurrent. But since the binary or sexually dimorphic
character of man-woman unions is not essential for you, you have no
logical, scriptural, or creation-based ethic for limiting the number of
partners in a sexual union to two, so long as the sexual union is
loving. You "say" that it has to be monogamous but you don't explain why
it must be and indeed have no legitimate basis for asserting that it
must be. People are, after all, capable of loving more than one person
concurrently (witness a parent's love for all his or her children, for
example). A problem for your argument is that you do not recognize the
special requirements placed on sexual unions that are not placed on
non-sexual loving relationships.
At this point rather than continue
to repeat responses that I have already given elsewhere, I am going to
ask you to read my response to the Myers/Scanzoni book at
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf,
at least pages 30-45, 98-101, 125-28, before responding, so that I don't
have to reinvent the wheel here. Thanks for your attention to these
matters.
Blessings,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
A
question from a seminary student about the exploitation argument
From:
C
Sent: Wed 4/16/2008 6:11 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Romans 1:26 - a question from a [PCUSA] seminary student
Dr. Gagnon:
I am now a (second career) M.Div student at [a PCUSA seminary]. In
conversation with one of the professors on campus here the statement was
made about Romans 1:26-27 that "Paul had no idea about the kind of
homosexual relationships we know today...what he was talking about was
man to boy sex, with a wife at home ... the NT world knew nothing about
long-term committed homosexual relationships as we know them today."
My question to you is how to refute that statement. I have heard (but
cannot recall where) that there were a group of Greeks (phonetically it
seems like they were described as "kenides" who did engage in what
today's culture would describe as long-term, committed homosexual
relationships). Is my recollection correct? If so, are you able to fill
the memory gaps for me? If not, is there any semblance of argument
against that statement? I have your book if you can point me to a
reference there.
Many thanks for the work you do, as well as being available for
questions such as mine!
C.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 7:50 PM
To: C.
Subject: RE: Romans 1:26-27 - a question from a [PCUSA] seminary
student
Hi C.,
The professor making this argument simply
doesn't know the material well.
That Paul had in view
all homosexual relationships is evident from the fact that: (1) Paul had
the creation texts in the background of his indictment, which had the
male-female prerequisite in view; (2) Paul used a nature argument that
was not limited to man-boy sex; (3) Paul indicted lesbianism in 1:26,
which was not typically conducted on adult-adolescent model; (4) Paul
spoke in 1:27 of the mutuality of the desire "for one another"; (5) Paul
referred to "soft men" in 1 Cor 6:9 which in context could be used
of adult males who feminized themselves to attract male sex partners
(the kinaidoi/cinaedi); (6) caring adult homosexual relationships in
antiquity were known; (7) some Greco-Roman moralists indicted homosexual
relationships absolutely, including adult relationships; (8)
relationships between adult males were thought to be worse than
relationships between a man and a boy because adult men had, or should
have, outgrown the "softness" of adolescence and so were wholly
inappropriate as the receptive partners in male-male intercourse; (9)
early Jewish prohibitions were absolute (one rabbinic text even
specifies that the Levitical prohibitions refer to an active partner
that is adult and a passive partner that is either adult or adolescent.
See further my article at
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf ,
pp. 65-77.
For point 6 above see my first talk
at Princeton Seminary rebutting Stacy Johnson's use of the exploitation
argument; go to
http://robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm
Finally, the best thing
to do would be to find a group on campus that could bring me over to
your institution to do a few lectures on the subject. But if that is not
possible the resources above should suffice.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
__________________________________________________________
A disgruntled supporter of "inclusivity"
who would like to see me removed from PTS
From:
'Pam
Sent: Tue 2/12/2008 7:28 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: question for you
Hello Dr. Gagnon-- It is my understanding that you are involved with
the
Wine Skins group, but I wanted to go to the horse's mouth before I
assume
anything.
I am in a church that supports PTS and I am not too happy to continue
that
trend if this news is true.
Do you have time to explain why a professor at a seminary of the
PCUSA
should be advocating leaving the denom.? I am confused but don't we
help pay
your salary?
Thank you for your time. Pam
From: "Robert Gagnon"
To: 'Pam
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 2:44 PM
Subject: RE: question for you
Dear Pam,
Obviously if I were advocating that people leave the denomination I
would
have already left myself. But I have not left. At the same time anyone
has a
right to leave any denomination. This is not a prison. I left the
American
Baptists to join the PCUSA 12 years ago. Was that wrong? Or do you
regard
the PCUSA as the only true church?
If the PCUSA were to advocate racism would you feel compelled to stay?
Were
it to ordain self-avowed wife-beaters would you stay? Were it to
ordain
serial unrepentant adulterers, persons in loving adult incestuous
unions, or
persons in a loving and faithful sexual threesome would you stay?
(Scripture
clearly regards homosexual practice as equivalent in severity to, or
worse
than, adultery, incest, and polyamory.) Were it to ordain persons who
did
not believe in Christ as Savior and Lord would you stay?
I am trying to prevent the PCUSA from getting to the point where many
will
feel compelled to leave the PCUSA. Are you doing the same?
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
'Pam
Sent: Wed 2/13/2008 4:33 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: question for you
Dear Prof Gagnon, Though I don't feel you answered
any of my questions, I
agree with you that anyone has the right to leave the denomination.
In
fact, I think that is a better idea than those persons who I have
personally come in contact with who use false statistics for example
to bash
the PCUSA.
No, I do not regard the PCUSA is the only true church. I think you
have
missed my point. If you are given the responsibility to teach,
mentor,
train young men and women for the pastorate of the PCUSA along with
other
like denoms and you get your support from PCUSA churches, do you feel
you
owe any allegiance to them?
My understanding of the main position you object to is the ordination
of
homosexuals and when I read my book of order, mine says we do not
sanction
that. Do we have a couple churches who have done so? YES. In my
presbytery we also have a couple of churches who refuse to ordain
women.
Where is the outrage there?
I am doing my part by teaching Bible study, being active in a very
supportive PCUSA church, and loving people. I also go to the horse's
mouth
to get the facts, ie, I went to a discussion by Dr. Weaver and a
PCUSA
spokesperson on leaving the church or not.
Not one of the "sins" you mentioned will keep me from getting into
heaven
or by your condemning of those groups will you get a special
dispensation.
But, I hope and pray that when I see God's face and he asks me why, I
can
say "Because I wanted to be more inclusive, not exclusive." I'll take
my
chances.
Where does it say that homosexuality is worse than other sins in the
Bible?
I didn't know sins were ranked.
By the way, I never brought up homosexuality in my earlier email, but
EVERY
single time I speak to someone from a confessing church, Wine skins,
persons wanting to leave the church, etc, THEY always include the
topic in
the discussion. Why is that?
You have been most kind in taking time to reply. Thanks, Pam
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 10:40 PM
To: 'Pam
Subject: RE: question for you
Dear Pam,
A
few comments on your remarks.
1.
Of course, I feel some loyalty to the PCUSA, though I should remind
you that many non-Presbyterians are among the faculty at my
institution and others. They have only a very limited loyalty to the
PCUSA inasmuch as they are not members of the PCUSA, do not contribute
financially to it, and do not contribute significant amount of time
and energy to it apart from their teaching at the seminary. Since my
devotion to the denomination well exceeds theirs (or even that of many
fellow Presbyterian faculty), I trust that you can see why I regard
your question about my allegiance as inappropriate. Moreover, my
ultimate allegiance must always be to Christ, not to any earthly and
transient denominational structure. I hope that the same is true of
you. And, despite what you claim, I believe that I have answered your
first email and not skirted the issue.
2.
On your observation about my apparent lack of "outrage" as regards the
fact that some churches deny women's ordination (I personally
am unaware of any such churches in the PCUSA), several points are in
order. First, if you had read my recent article in Presbyweb on "Three
Clear Indicators in the Book of Order Regarding Essentials: A Plea for
Theological Sanity and Constitutional Honesty" (at
http://www.presbyweb.com/2008/Viewpoint/Robert%2BGagnon-PCUSAInsanity.doc),
you would see that I list affirmation of women's ordination as one of
three obvious essentials for ordination in the Book of Order (owing to
frequency of mention in diverse contexts). Second, having said that
and though I myself affirm women's ordination, the scriptural case for
women's ordination is much less clear than the case against homosexual
practice so I don't think the two can be compared in terms of severity
of violation. You will note that the Twelve did not include women, for
example. Third, it is far more outrageous to ordain a person involved
in strongly unnatural behavior (take consensual sex with one's parent
or sibling as an example) than it is to have reservations, owing to
Scripture, about women's ordination.
3. You say: "Not
one of the "sins" you mentioned will keep me from getting into
heaven."
Unfortunately
for your observation, Jesus, Paul, and the entirety of the New
Testament witness would beg to differ, in my opinion as a New
Testament scholar. Why do you think Paul repeatedly warned believers
that to engage in certain behaviors in a serial unrepentant way would
put them at risk of not inheriting the kingdom? (Go to note 31, pp.
7-9 at
http://robgagnon.net/2Views/HomoViaRespNotesRev.pdf for some
Pauline texts that make this point.) As regards Jesus, see my
discussion at
http://robgagnon.net/Reviews/homoWinkRejoinder.pdf, pp. 5-15. Your
argument about wanting to be more "inclusive" won't hold up with God.
Infidelity is infidelity. "Inclusion" is not the highest Christian
value. Tolerance of evil is not a virtue. "Love" cannot be equated
with "inclusion." There are, of course, inclusive features of Jesus'
teaching/ministry and the apostolic response to it, most notably the
outreach to Gentiles and women. Yet there are also many exclusive
features as regarding belief (the necessity of believing in Christ to
be saved, for example) and behavior. See the views of the Risen Christ
in the letters to the 7 churches in Revelation (chs. 1-3). Note also
Jesus' repeated warnings of judgment unless repentance were
forthcoming (see the article of mine that I cite above for texts). I
would not be a more "loving" parent if I encouraged my young children
to embrace behaviors that could lead to their harm. In fact, state
social services would take my children away from me if I embraced such
a philosophy. You don't love more when you grant people assurance that
"all will be well" in spite of the behaviors that they engage in,
behaviors that Scripture declares puts people at risk of not
inheriting God's kingdom. Indeed, that is loving less. This is why
Paul repeatedly says, before issuing such warnings, "Stop deceiving
yourselves." What would be "deceiving oneself"? Thinking that one go
engage repeatedly and unrepentantly in certain behaviors proscribed by
God and "get away with it." That is apparently the view that you
subscribe to. Faith is not a mere intellectual assent to the truth. It
is "yes" to God's saving work in Christ that results in a death to
self, a denial of self, so that Christ can live in us and we for God.
I discuss this issue in a critique of something that our moderator
recently said. Go to:
http://robgagnon.net/JoanGrayResponse.htm
4. You say: "Where
does it say that homosexuality is worse than other sins in the Bible?
I didn't know sins were ranked."
Well, now you know. I discuss this
very question in an article on my website at
http://robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm (html) /
http://robgagnon.net/articles/HomosexHowBadIsIt.pdf (pdf).
Please read this. You will see why it is an important topic for
discussion.
I have spent much time
responding to you. And now I would ask you that you read fully and
carefully the material that I have referred to in this email before
contacting me again. There is no point in me repeating what I have
already addressed. And you have assured me that you like to get things
from "the horse's mouth." Thank you.
Blessings,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
A
testimony from a pastor who has dealt with bisexual urges
[This
testimony from a pastor speaks for itself. I thank the writer for his
courage.]
From:
R.
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 10:09 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Your letter to the Evangelical Leader
Rob,
I appreciate your response to the Evangelical leader (here).
I think it is spot on.
What you say leads me to share a bit about why I know you
are right, and why I too take this stuff so seriously. I ask your
indulgence as I share something personal. You can use it if you find it
worthy of such, although I ask that you withhold using my full name.
The reason I know you are right, and why I take this so
seriously myself is that I did struggle with homosexual/bisexual
impulses when I was a teenager (starting around 16).
I came from an immediate family where no father was
present. My brother and I were not close. The only male close in
proximity was the man my mother chose to sleep with (and he was an
alcoholic, both abusive emotionally and physically, even asking my
mother in a drunken rage to have sex with me). Clearly, male bonding in
a filial or paternal sense was not something I felt was available to me.
Further, there was a general acceptance of sexual immoral
behavior in the family. My mother, her father, her sister and brother
were all acting out in ways that were contrary to the Scriptures, and
this was not hidden from the children's eyes.
It is within this context that I began to have an
attraction for men and women. When it occured to me that I might be
homosexual or bisexual, I was horrified. I was not horrified because the
family would be upset, or society would be upset. No. I lived in a very
"liberated" (although really enslaved) home; and I grew up in South
Florida which is almost as laid back about things sexual as San
Francisco.
I was horrified, because I knew this is not the will of
God for me or anyone. I cannot tell you the number of arguments I got
into with my mother and other family members because I brought out the
Bible and showed them what I read about obedience, and sexual purity,
and the like.
Given this, I remember being in my room and praying. I
said (and this is a paraphrase), "I know that what I feel isn't right.
You have said that I must either have marriage with a woman or celibacy
(Matthew 19). If I am not to be married, given my impulses; then grant
me the grace of celibacy. I for my part WILL NOT ACT upon the impulses
that I feel. Help me to be faithful to you."
I did not act on the impulses. I was given the grace of
the Lord to remain faithful. I was also blessed with a faithful pastor
who reminded me that it was no sin to be tempted by thoughts I did not
choose, but it was a sin to keep bringing them up or to act upon them. I
asked the Lord to help me understand what was going on in me, for truly
something wasn't ordered right in my life.
That breakthrough happened one day when I went to visit
my father. I shared with him some of what was going on with me, and he
realized (before I did) that he needed to spend more time with me
(listening and talking time). When this happened, I realized by God's
grace that I was simply disordered in distinguishing what I truly wanted
with men. I did not desire sexual bonding. I desired philial bonding. I
wanted brothers...the right kind of love that God desires between men.
With women, the desire was more of a sexual nature. That too had some
disorder, and it took me more time to deal with that (and sometimes I
still need to deal with that whenever I see a steamy beer commercial
during a football game).
The point here I want to make is that I was encouraged by
the Lord himself, by the Scriptures, by the church to remain faithful to
the sexual ethic found in the Scripture. If I had acted on my impulses;
if I had been encouraged to act out on my disordered thinking; I would
be in a damnable situation...it would be far more difficult to extricate
ones self from that.
I have spoken with young men who have had similar
impulses and come out of a similar background. I have shared with them
how I handled those temptations to sin. I tell them to do nothing with
the impulses. Do not act upon them. Ask the Lord for the grace to be
patient and live faithfully. Seek out faithful pastors who will help you
stay the course. I tell them they are not abnormal, but at their stage
in life when the hormones go crazy, the devil uses that moment to
help disorder their thinking and their living. Be patient. Be faithful.
To encourage civil laws or church wide mandates that
would invite people to act against the law of God invites disaster...as
indeed inviting people to engage in any sin brings disaster. It just
isn't loving. It isn't what Jesus calls us too. I wish people would
understand that. I grieve for others who have been led down the path of
"sexual tolerance" because now their position is worse than before, and
many don't even know it. It gets harder to bring them out, for now they
hear that the "church" says its okay.
I have a passion about this, because I know what the Lord
can do. I know this disorder. I know in myself that it can be beaten,
but not acting upon it is a key part of the battle!
I can honestly say that I haven't had the impulse for
sexual relations with men for 21 years. I am married to my wife and have
two children (of which one is with the Lord praying on my behalf I
hope...if not I'm going to have to have a talk with that boy). I do not
say that I don't deal with sexual temptation and sin in my life, but I
can say that the sexual temptation that I truly struggle with is not
homosexual or bisexual. Further, I can say that the reason I struggle so
much with the temptation I do have (pornography) is that I opened that
window to my soul by engaging in a habit. I have repudiated the habit,
but the temptation feels like a greater burden, because I opened myself
up to it as a young man by acting on the temptation to look at it.
Again, not acting on the temptation would have been
better. I didn't give myself over to obedience as I should, and did with
the other impulses. I reaped the consequences. This is why also I am not
only against homosexual sexual behavior, but I know the damning nature
of sexual immorality in all its forms. It is terribly important that we
encourage folks to cease and desist and not act on sexual temptations
that go outside the norm established by our Lord in Genesis 2 and
Matthew 19.
Well, this is long. I apologize for the length and I
apologize if I have spoken in ways that give you more info than you
really want about me. However, you are right on. Keep up the fight. The
souls of many are at stake.
Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
R.
__________________________________________________________
Is
heterosexual cohabitation grounds for denying church membership?
From:
Bill
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2007 10:44 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Dr.
Gagnon- In over 25 years of pastoring in the PCUSA, I have consis-tently
raised questions about the legitimacy of granting membership to those
living in unrepentant hetrosexual sin, by reference to the arguments
against unrepentant homosexual sin. (For I am assuming that in both the
issue is that of discipleship and a Christian sexual ethic, and the call
for God's people to live in joyful holiness.) Though I have had to
respond to requests for membership of gay couples, the issue of co-habitating
couples comes to the foreground with greater frequency, and I have
discovered that people are much more reluctant to raise questions about
co-habiting than they are of same-sex relationships. I've read through
most of your articles, and though you repeatedly refer to what you
describe as extreme sins, would sexually active, co-habiting couples
fall into the same category, since in my mind, they are delaying
repentance (ie, either celibacy apart or moving into marriage
immediately)?
Thanks--
Bill
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 12:45 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Dear Bill,
Thank you
for your inquiry. My answer is: No, it is not as serious as homosexual
practice but, yes, it is serious enough to connect to membership
issues.
The offense
of unmarried heterosexual cohabitation is not as extreme an offense as
adult incest or homosexual practice, which are unnatural acts that
attempt to merge persons too much structurally alike. (Indeed, I know of
no one who would argue seriously that heterosexual cohabitation is as
serious an offense as, say, having sex with one’s parent.) Heterosexual
cohabitation is not a grossly unnatural act. But the persons involved
should recognize that by virtue of the sexual union they are “one flesh”
and for all intents and purposes are held to the standard of married
couples (compare 1 Cor 6:16 which treats even sex with a prostitute as
creating a “one flesh” union, albeit in this instance an unholy one).
Since marriage requires a commitment to a lifelong bond they should have
no difficulty in expressing that commitment in a formal marriage
ceremony. Reluctance to do so is likely evidence that they have not made
such a commitment and, therefore, must either make such a commitment
(presumably through the normal channels today for making such a public
declaration, i.e. marriage) or dissolve the sexual bond. In short,
refusal to marry is evidence that they are just “trying out” a sexual
relationship and therefore committing sin. Since Jesus intensified God’s
demand that his followers not engage in sexual activity with more than
one other person of the other sex lifetime (see Matt 19), cohabitation
without marriage should be treated as an offense that warrants
withholding membership; or, if membership is already in place, removal
from the fellowship of the church until repentance.
From a
pastoral standpoint, I recommend having a personal meeting with the
offenders, going through Jesus’ teaching on marriage in Matt 19,
highlighting the importance of obeying Jesus as his disciples, and
explaining that membership can only be granted (or actively retained) if
they marry or dissolve the sexual bond. I also recommend, if you haven’t
already done so, that you regularly preach on the importance of sexual
purity and marriage. I doubt that they would want to become members of a
church that clearly declared their behavior to be sin, if they insisted
on staying in a sexual relationship outside of marriage.
Hope this
helps,
Rob
From:
Bill
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 1:54 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Rob- thanks for the quick
and thoughtful reply. Struggling with the reality of this in both the
context of performing ceremonies as well as in membership has been one
of the more difficult areas of pastoral ministry for me. I originally
began to wrestle with this in earnest back in 1993 when a p/sa
homosexual desired to become a member of my former congregation. (He
didn't because he wouldn't break off his relationship.) Through the
firestorm that decision engendered in that entire community, I realized
I also needed to think more clearly about the implications of
heterosexual sin for membership. Though it seemed to me that the
arguments I used against homosex behavior were appropriate for hetersex
behavior as well, I did recognize that heterosexual behavior is
potentially redeemable, through marriage and repentance, whereas
homosexual behavior is not, so the arguments can't be sustained
completely.
Anyway- thanks for the the
direction and encouragement! I will keep you in prayer as you stand in
the midst of the fray.
Bill
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 2:10 PM
To: 'Bill'
Subject: RE: e-mail question @co-habiting couples/membership
Bill,
You're
welcome. Good line about heterosexual cohabitation being potentially
redeemable but homosexual relations not.
Rob
__________________________________________________________
Did
Jesus Change the Law's Stance on Capital Sentencing?
From:
T.K.
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: "The Witness of Jesus" Question
I
appreciated the time you put into your chapter "The Witness of Jesus" in
your book, "The Bible and Homosexual Practice". I have always wondered
how we can put together how Christ did not abolish the law yet we find
Christ prioritizing the law differently. Your summary has shed much
light on the issue. Yet, I do have one question that still strikes me
as a theological problem. You see Christ associating with "sinners",
such as prostitutes. Christ freely associated with these people, while
he spoke out against the practices he did not push for the punishment
that the Old Testament called for. My question(s)- Why does Christ no
longer approve the punishment required in Old Testament law for such
offenses as adultery? Is the Old Testament more like Christ than we
realize? For instance could repentance save one from stoning in the Old
Testament? Or is Christ changing everything? Most people would
recognize this change for the better, does this mean the New Testament
is closer to God's character than the Old Testament? I have found
little to help me with these questions. If you can't answer these maybe
you could forward them to someone who could help. Thanks, T.K.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 1:31 PM
To: T.K.
Subject: RE: "The Witness of Jesus" Question
T.,
Good
questions. Capital sentences in the OT are implemented whether or not
the person repents. I see Jesus as recommending against implementation
of the capital sentence, at least from non-lethal offenses such as
sexual immorality, in the hopes of recovering the person through
repentance. I see this as a change. It’s not that the offense is lesser
in Jesus’ eyes but rather that dead people don’t repent. Something worse
than a capital sentence is coming down the pike: the Day of the Lord.
Jesus is giving offenders every opportunity to repent before that Day to
avert personal cataclysmic disaster.
Dr. Gagnon
__________________________________________________________
Hate
Mail from an Angry Left-of-Center Pastor with a 'Wonderful' Pastoral
Manner
From:
Robert Martin III [mailto:rmartin@fprespa.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:38 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject:
Dear Robert,
What a sad, sick man you are! I take great pity on you
as a pastor!
Sincerely,
The Rev. W. Robert Martin, III
[Senior Pastor, First Presbyterian
Church, Palo Alto, CA]
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 4:49 PM
To: 'Robert Martin III'
Subject: RE:
Dear Rob,
Thanks for
your piece of hate mail. Since my views are in obedience to Jesus and
the entire apostolic witness I don’t feel “sad” or “sick” and therefore
don’t need your “pity.” By the way you need to work a bit on your
pastoral manner.
I noticed
on your church’s website that you are a so-called “More Light” church
(really “Less Light” if the teaching of Jesus and the apostolic witness
are our guiding lights). No great surprise there. Thanks for sharing
with me your “light” and love. It’s been illuminating.
Robert A.
J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
__________________________________________________________
Hi B.,
Thanks for your thoughtful
question. You're right that it is asking how close to the line one can
get. I only know that Scripture indicates same-sex intercourse is a
more foundational violation of God's sexual standards than even adult
consensual incest; that engaging in such a behavior in a repetitive,
unrepentant way puts one at serious risk of being excluded from the
kingdom of God and the eternal life it offers. Jesus indicated, in a
context that had to do with sexual issues, that what you do sexually
can get you thrown into 'Gehenna' (hell); that if your hand, eye, or
foot should threaten your downfall, cut it off, because it is better
to go to heaven maimed than to go to hell full-bodied (Matt 5). That's
a fairly serious warning. Now I'm not saying that I know when an
individual crosses the line and it's too late to return, if ever. Only
God knows that. But neither can anyone assure you that you will escape
God's judgment; for one as much plays God when one acquits as when one
condemns. But Scripture tells us that there is high risk in provoking
God, so why risk it? If a person of great wealth offered you 50
million dollars if you were able to stay away from a lesbian
relationship for 5 years, would you risk losing it all by secretly
entering in such a relationship and possibly getting caught? Probably
not. Well, God is asking us to be faithful for a relatively short
duration of time--the life of a human on earth, which is a drop in the
bucket compared to the eternity ahead of us. And then there is the
thought that God and Jesus love us so much that Jesus' life was given
for our sakes. Would we really want to dishonor him if we could see
him standing by our side, hands outstretched with the imprint of nails
still there? I doubt it, And yet he lives within us.
It may be that God will
not change your "orientation," although women are much more likely to
experience significant shifts on the "Kinsey spectrum" in the course
of life than are men, so there is a good chance that you will
experience marked reduction in at least the intensity of the
homosexual drive and possibly develop some limited heterosexual
functioning. But then again, maybe not. I'm not God there either. I do
know that, like Paul's "thorn in the flesh," sometimes God says "no"
to a request to remove this or that circumstance that brings perceived
deprivation to our lives. Not just "no" but "no" because "my grace is
sufficient for you" within the experience of deprivation, that God's
power will be "brought to completion" in the midst of one's weakness
rather than taking one out of it. Often Christ is most formed in us
when we don't get we ask for, when we have to rely on the one who
raises from the dead, when we have no strength left on our own. No
commandment of God is predicated on people first losing all desire to
violate the command in question; on the contrary, commands are issued
by God precisely because humans want to do otherwise. Your true test
as a believer is not whether you will changed over to a total
heterosexual but whether in your particular circumstances you will
come to the conviction that knowing Jesus (Phil 3) is better than
getting what you want, when you want it, and with whom you want it
with. When we can look a temptation 'in the face' and say "I'd rather
have Jesus," then we have made progress. In the deepest sense, in
doing God's will we are not being deprived. We are getting something
better, something that made Paul and other believers willing to count
everything else as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing
Christ.
None of us get a pass from
Jesus' demand that we take up our cross, deny ourselves, lose our
lives, and follow him. But when we do this we also find that, in
comparison to what the world asks of us, his yoke is easy and burden
light. Our "flesh" will say no, but our spirit will say yes. I'd
rather have Jesus.
Blessings,
Rob
Dr. Robert Gagnon
From:
B.
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 9:22 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: sexuality and heaven
Dr. Gagnon,
Thank you for
your thorough and gentle reply. I appreciate your time.
-B.
Jack
Rogers and Analogies
4/5/07
Dear Dr.
Gagnon
I was just reading your piece on analogies in response to Jack Rogers’
book and your response to his response to you. I suspect that he and
others choose slavery and women's ordination as analogies to the
interpretation of Scripture in relation to the question of homosex
behavior because they deal with justice issues. In other words the
analogies are chosen not because they are close analogies or distant
analogies but rather because they fit in the category in which the
author sees the current issue.
Now, as
to Rogers’ assertion that the justification of slavery is tied to
Scottish Common Sense Realism as an interpretive technique, I suspect he
is correct. Mark Noll, in his, The Civil War as a Theological
Crisis, argues that it was precisely the naive method of
interpreting the Bible used by American Christians prior to the Civil
War that allowed many to believe that slavery was allowed according to
the Bible. The method used a propositional reading of the text. I
would suggest, but I am not quite as sure, that the arguments against
the ordination of women followed a similar method, particularly when
those opposed to the ordination of women argued that Paul's teaching, or
maybe I should say their interpretation of Paul's teaching trumped
narratives about women in leadership as direct teaching was to be held
higher than narrative.
I am not quite as sure how Roger's argument about divorce fits in this
same schema.
My concern is that I do not use the methods of the Old Princeton Divines
in my interpretation of Scripture. I find not only specific passages
that say that homosex behavior is sinful but also a broad theme within
the Bible that supports a God created binary relationship between men
and women. I find this broad theme from Genesis to Revelation, in
creation texts, in analogies between marriage and the relationship
between God and Israel and Christ and the Church, as well as in
particular passages about marriage and sexual behavior. The whole of
Song of Solomon is a case in point. None of the songs portray
male/male or female/female sexual attraction!
My point in all of this is to suggest that when one begins with
analogies that are related to justice, as Rogers does in his book, and
then declares that those who disagree with those analogies must
therefore use a particular method of interpreting Scripture, one has
said 1 + x = 2, but cannot prove that x=1. One can use other methods
than Old Princeton methods of interpreting the Bible and still come to
the conclusion that homosex behavior is sinful.
Maybe the real problem is not only in the particular analogies chosen
but also in the reason for the choice of analogies. If one chooses a
justice framework for one's analogies, as Rogers has, then one suggests
that the question at hand is one of justice. Rogers’ begins his book,
not with his arguments about the proper methods one must use to
interpret Scripture and not with his interpretation of relevant passages
of Scripture but with his analogies. One has to wonder then if
analogies produce exegesis of vice versa.
One last comment on an issue that is not
directly related to your argument. You say, in response to Roger’s use
of ethnicity and gender as analogues to homosexual orientation and
behavior:
Second,
Rogers is also once again mixing apples and oranges. Ethnicity and
gender cannot be compared with specific impulses to do what Scripture
pervasively, strongly, absolutely, and counterculturally forbids.
Rogers does not seem to understand the distinction. Quite simply,
ethnicity and gender are:
· 100% heritable
· absolutely
immutable
· primarily
non-behavioral
· inherently benign
Homosexual “orientation,” like many impulses, especially sexual
impulses, is:
· not 100% heritable
· not absolutely
impervious to outside influences
· primarily
behavioral
· thus not
necessarily benign
Unfortunately the history of racism in
the United States makes the question of ethnicity a political and social
question as well as a question of heredity. If one has a white father
and an African American mother, or vice versa, one is still considered
to be African American by the dominant culture, with all the social,
political and criminal assumptions that go along with that designation.
That is part of, (and I believe falsely used), Rogers’ analogy. The
dominant culture makes unconscious assumptions about the behaviors of
people who are African American. The dominant culture also makes a
variety of assumptions about people who are gay or lesbian which are not
necessarily accurate, such as the assumption that a gay male uses
feminine gestures and/or behavior and that some lesbians exhibit male
gestures and behavior. But these assumptions about gays and lesbians
are not only false but also beside the point. The problem is with
homsex behavior, not with one’s gestures. Thus Rogers’ analogy, based
on the prejudices of the dominant culture, is false. The problem is not
prejudice, it is Biblical interpretation. And the problem is not that
all who disagree with Rogers’ on the issue of the sinfulness of homosex
behavior “[get] it wrong is that they were relying on Scottish Common
Sense Philosophy (including appeals to “natural law,” selective
literalism, and proof-texting) and the scholastic theology of Francis
Turretin instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ,” to quote Rogers. We
don’t. I don’t and from what I read of your methods, you don’t either.
Rogers fails because he depends on outdated information on the
heritability of homosexual inclinations, failed interpretations of
particular passages of Scripture, and fails to note the broad theme in
Scripture that supports lifelong, monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Bob
A PC(USA) Pastor
One final note: I believe I have used
the term, “homosex” in the same way that you have in your writings. It
is my intention to use the term to refer specifically to sexual
relations between people of the same sex.
6/28/07
Dear Bob,
Thank you
for your stimulating comments.
It is true that Rogers chooses slavery and
women's ordination because they correspond to justice categories. But
that does not make Rogers' choice of distant analogies over close
analogues irrelevant. The proper purpose of engaging in analogical
reasoning is to assess what categories best fit the issue in question
through comparison-cases that share the greatest number of
correspondences. To eschew the closest analogues in favor of distant
analogues is to predetermine one's own results--here endorsing
homosexual practice is a social justice issue--and thus to make
analogical reasoning superfluous. The 'game' of analogical reasoning
becomes fixed from the start. You make this point yourself midway
through your comments.
As to your point about Scottish Common Sense
Realism, you are quite right that the Bible's opposition to homosexual
practice is not limited to specific texts and that a two-sexes
prerequisite underlies every discussion of sexual relationships in the
pages of Scripture. This is confirmed, as I showed in my other critiques
of Rogers, by an examination of relevant scriptural texts in their
literary and historical context--a context that Rogers repeatedly
misunderstands and shows poor knowledge of. But I wouldn't go as far as
you in discounting the relevance of appeal to specific texts. The degree
to which specific texts in Scripture take a strong position about a
matter is a vital part of an overall assessment of Scripture's stance on
homosexual practice. In debating the merits and demerits of adult
consensual incest between a man and his mother (or stepmother), one
would be foolish to give little attention to the Levitical and
Deuteronomic prohibitions as well as Paul's words about the incestuous
man in 1 Corinthians 5. Appeal to specific texts is not only possible
but desirable, so long as they are read correctly in their historical
and literary context. The fact that Paul likens homosexual practice to
idolatry as particularly severe instances of suppression of the truth
about God transparent in material creation, sees it as a violation of
male-female sexual complementarity (a point confirmed by the historical
context), and makes an absolute indictment that includes every and any
type of homosexual union unacceptable (another point confirmed by the
historical context) is very important for an overall evaluation of
homosexual practice in Scripture. But perhaps (or even probably) you
would agree with this point.
On your last point I agree that society at
different points may add false prejudicial characteristics to ethnicity
and femaleness that would increase resemblances to homosexual practice
(this is Rogers' point). But my point is that Scripture itself does not
consistently share these prejudices (nor does reason) and to the extent
that Scripture does not (and reason does not) is the extent to which the
analogies with homosexual practice break down. For example, the New
Testament rejects the notion that being a Gentile is in the first
instance an intrinsic desire to do what God expressly forbids but it
does not reject the same notion for homosexual desires. Nor (obviously)
should it inasmuch as there are lots of innate sexual desires that
violate embodied or formal realities and Scripture's strong
prohibitions. I could say more on this but I think my article already
does that. Again, I think we are not far apart from each other on this
point, if we are apart at all.
I appreciate your thoughts,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
A
Person with Homosexual Desire Asks: How Does One Decide Which Commands
of God in Scripture to Follow?
From:
Paul
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 1:17 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Basic Question on Christian Ethics
Dear Dr. Gagnon...
FINALLY, I have met (or in this case
read) of a scholar on this current rift of homosexuality in the
church. I am so grateful that you are well-studied (my nephew is a
recent graduate of Dartmouth, and I received a M.Div from [name of
seminary withheld]).
As for my background, . . . . I felt
strangely called to the altar to serve my Lord. Living in [the South]
in a conservative Diocese, my rector advised me to "leave the
Episcopal Church" as the current row at that time (this was 1988) was
not "really" about women, but about letting gays be ministers "because
if we let women be ministers, then we have to let gays as well." I let
my call drop, as I was indeed sexually attracted to men, and was
afraid (and ashamed) that I would "be found out" in the Episcopal
discernment process.
At this stage in my life, I was
attending very conservative Bible studies, getting involved in things
like "Jesus Go-Fests", attending charismatic worship services....and
FERVENTLY praying that Jesus bring me the right woman. Because I was
ashamed of my attraction to men, I cannot tell you how many times I
prayed to the Almighty to take this burden from me. I dated something
like 10 women - all wonderful, great looking Christian women - but
nothing- no urge to kiss...nothing. I continued praying fervently, and
dating...hoping, and praying that I would meet "the one." One day, one
of the women that I was dating told me that she had been praying about
Jesus' Great Commandment and had focused on the last part of the
command - "as you love yourself..." Needless to say, this started the
ball rolling on how I was treating (and loving) myself, and indeed,
how God had created me.
Why do I write this to you? Obviously,
my theology has changed since my conservative-evangelical days as a
Christian (for your information, I define Christian as one who
believes that Jesus is the expected messiah as prophesied in the Old
Testament.) Yes, it was the Great Commandment that brought me out of
the closet (and a sermon from one of the priests, when he talked about
who the Good Samaritan was...in the parable of 'the neighbor.') As an
Episcopalian, in Midland Texas, every Sunday I heard the words "this
is the basis of ALL the laws..." in connection to the Great
Commandment. Hence, that Commandment has become the basis of my
Christian ethics... IF I do something that causes any harm in
my relationship with God, which causes me to love God less, and/or if
I do something wrong which causes my neighbor not to Love God...it is
wrong.
My question to you: I don't understand,
in all my reading of your scholarship, on how being homosexual causes
me to love God any less. For me, this is the basis of Jesus
teaching...it is as simple as that.
In my discussions of this great
theological debate with my good conservative brothers and sisters in
Christ, I have asked the question, which I do not get an answer: "How
do you decide what Biblical precepts to follow, and how do you judge
what not to follow?" Other than the Great Commandment, I have not
found "a magic formula" or central ethic...other than "well, if it
says it in the Bible, then that is what I do..." Of course, you know
that the Bible says many things that we no longer follow (for example,
there is NO mass killing of children who curse their parents (Lev
20.9)... And, my Priest from Fort Worth was right: from the New
Testament verse as we DO allow women to speak in church (1 Corinthians
14.34), we do allow women to teach men (see Tim 2.12, 3.8)... these
are contrary to New Testament teachings.
So, very sincerely, how do you order
your life and figure out your basic ethic on living? I have been
trying to understand how evangelicals order there lives, what basis of
ethics do they use, since obviously they pick and chose what to
believe in the bible... I have found NO ANSWERS.
Paul Philpy
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 3:41 PM
To: Paul
Subject: RE: Basic Question on Christian Ethics
Dear Paul,
As you know from my work I am not an inerrantist with
regard to the interpretation of Scripture. I recognize tension and
sometime even disagreement within the canon of Scripture. Jesus
himself overrode the Mosaic exemption given to men as regards polygyny
and divorce by appealing to the inherent “twoness” of the sexes as a
basis for limiting the number of persons in a sexual union (whether
serially or concurrently) to two—a point, incidentally, that has
enormous ramifications for your position on homosexual practice. There
are indeed some gray areas in interpreting what commandments to follow
and not to follow. There is no doubt, too, that philosophic reason,
scientific reason, and experience assist us in the decision-making
process.
At the same time, the degree to which a given view of
Scripture can be regarded as a “core value” determines the weight of
the burden of proof on those who would argue for a deviation from the
biblical witness. The more pervasive, absolute, strongly held, and
counterculturally held a given view is in Scripture the more evident
it is that this view belongs to a core value. Scripture’s witness for
a two-sexes prerequisite for marriage and against homosexual practice
is, in my view, a core value in Scripture’s sexual ethics—precisely
because it is a value held pervasively, absolutely, strongly, and
counterculturally. So claims such as yours, namely that loving
homosexual bonds are within God’s will, have a huge mountain to claim
to demonstrate that such a view is compatible with Scripture’s “big
picture.”
It becomes even more difficult to make the case when
one realizes that alleged “new knowledge” arguments (exploitation,
orientation, or misogyny arguments) are really not radically “new”
pieces of information for the Greco-Roman milieu and thus, are not
likely to have changed the views espoused by Scripture’s authors.
Throw into this mix the basic problems of attempted merger with, and
erotic desire for, sexual sames (a nature argument) and the scientific
evidence for disproportionately high rates of measurable harm in
homosexual unions (owing, significantly, to the absence of a true
sexual complement in same-sex pairings) and the case for overriding
the overwhelming evidence of Scripture fragments.
If you really want to give careful
consideration to the issues that you have raised to me then I
recommend that you read two things that I have written. First, read my
recent article “How Bad Is Homosexual Practice according to Scripture
and Does Scripture’s View Apply to Committed Homosexual Unions?” at
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexWinterResponse.pdf
(especially the two appendices that address the two questions of the
title directly, pp. 12-22). Then read my “Why the Disagreement over
the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice” at
http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf.
You can get the table of contents for this article at
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homoReformedReviewTableCont.pdf.
You will see material
on a nature argument, alleged analogies for disregarding the biblical
witness, and the so-called “new knowledge” arguments.
You say: "I
don't understand, in all my reading of your scholarship, on how being
homosexual causes me to love God any less." This is like saying: I
don't understand how being polysexual or pedosexual (or any other
orientation to do what God forbids) causes me to love God any less.
One loves God less by violating his clear commandments. If you love
God you will keep his commandments. Paul in Romans 1 presents
homosexual practice as a dishonoring and degrading of the integrity of
one's sexual self--in effect, a sacrilege. In dishonoring the person
God made you to be you dishonor God.
One last point. You make two problematic moves in your
theological justification for engaging in homosexual practice: (1) You
assume that if you can’t get rid of homosexual passions and/or
generate heterosexual passions God must accept your acting on such
passions; and (2) you can’t love yourself or, for that matter, love
God unless you can live out of such desires. Neither premise stands up
to theological scrutiny. Jesus calls us all to take up our crosses,
deny ourselves, and lose our lives as we follow him on the road to
discipleship. Paul speaks at length of what it means to die with
Christ to self and to live radically for God. The identity of a
believer is not constructed out of homosexual desires or any other
desires to do things that God expressly and strongly forbids but
rather out of the person that God has created, and now recreated, us
to be.
Jesus does not call us to “love ourselves” in his
interpretation of Lev 19:18, the second great commandment. He rather
calls us to redirect that innate self-oriented love that we all have
to an equally intense love of others. All of us struggle with deeply
ingrained desires to do things that God forbids. You have sinful
desires of one sort, others have sinful desires of another sort. No
one gets a pass from doing the will of God (note the opening petitions
of the Lord’s Prayer). What counts, Paul tells us, “is keeping the
commandments of God.” We all must face the reality that the “knowledge
of Christ” far surpasses the gratification of fleshly aims
(Philippians 3). Until we come to grips with the fact that knowing
Christ, and thus “taking every thought captive for obedience of Jesus”
(2 Cor 10), is better than gratifying sinful desire, no progress in
spiritual development or maturity is possible. We have to want Jesus
more than the gratification of any given sinful desire, which we will
only come by a greater realization of how great Jesus is.
By the reasoning you give, men who struggle with
polyamorous urges should accept such urges, as should persons sexually
drawn to close blood relations or, even worse, children, for to do
otherwise would be to hate oneself and violate the second great
commandment. Therefore, your reasoning cannot be accurate and must be
subjected to the renewal of the mind that comes with ongoing
reflection on the gospel of God's great love for us in Christ.
Thank you for your questions and the civility with
which you express them. I wish I could wave away, as if with a magic
wand, all your difficult circumstances. But that, apparently is not
God’s way in most cases. As Paul found out with regard to his “thorn
in the flesh,” God’s grace is sufficient for us—meaning that it is
often in and through our experience of deprivation not in our
immediate deliverance from such, much less the avoidance of hard
times, that God’s power in our lives is brought to completion.
Although it will often seem otherwise, your intractable, intense urges
to have sex with other men are an opportunity for tremendous growth in
God, not by gratifying such desires but rather but taking up your
cross and denying them. God’s grace is sufficient for you, for me, and
for everyone who stands at the foot of the cross.
Blessings,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
Where have I spoken about why women's ordination is a bad analogy for
the acceptance of homosexual practice?
From: F.
Sent: Sunday, March 04,
2007 10:40 AM
Dr. Gagnon,
My name is
F_________________, Sr. Pastor of ______ Church of ____________. We
are a former PCA church, recently re-aligned with the RCA because our
views of women in ministry were incompatible with staying in the PCA.
I have enjoyed all of your on-line resources regarding homosexuality
and the Bible, and thank you for your hard work.
I have a quick question:
It seems like I read an article of yours but can't seem to find it on
the question of how accepting women's ordination does not
automatically lead to acceptance of homosexuality. I have my own
arguments against this slippery-slope idea, but would love to find
where you have addressed the differences between the two issues. Do
you have a link to something you have written specifically to this
issue? I think the article I remember was one in which someone was
accusing you of inconsistency since you are pro women's ordination.
Thanks for any and all
help.
Warmly,
F.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 2:20 PM
Dear
F.,
Thank
you for your kind note and sorry for the delay in responding.
Perhaps you are thinking of:
"Jack
Rogers's Flawed Use of Analogical Reasoning in Jesus, the Bible, and
Homosexuality" (Nov. 2, 2006) at
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/RogersUseAnalogies.pdf (pdf) and
http://www.robgagnon.net/RogersUseAnalogies.htm (html).
My
long rebuttal of Myers/Scanzoni (http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf)
has this on pp. 93-94 as a short summary:
An
analogy to women in ministry is flawed for three reasons. First, it
confuses categories. Being a woman is much more of a fixed,
immutable condition than the experience of homosexual desire. Unlike
impulses generally, the sex of an individual is 100% congenitally
determined (i.e., by chromosomes). It cannot be elevated or lowered
in ‘intensity’ in accordance with early childhood socialization,
macrocultural influences, or individual life experiences. Moreover,
being a woman is not a self-definition directly linked to sinful
behavior. Homosexual passion, on the other hand, is a direct desire
for scripturally prohibited, structurally incongruous behavior.
Second, as noted in the refutation of the misogyny argument above,
there are many places in Scripture that take a positive view of
women in ministry, which in turn provides some degree of precedent
for expanding such roles. Unlike the misguided refrain, “in Christ
there is neither heterosexual orientation or homosexual
orientation,” one doesn’t have to dream up an antinomy for Gal 3:28,
“there is no ‘male and female.’” Third, the direction of Scripture’s
countercultural witness has to be considered. Relative to the
broader milieu, the New Testament witness regarding women looks
fairly liberating; but, again, the only countercultural dynamic
operating in Scripture as regards homosexual practice is in the
direction of greater opposition.
Hope
this helps,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
Email from a father whose teenage son has "come out," on my Two
Views book
From: Mark
Sent: Friday, March 02,
2007 7:30 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Two Views
Dear Robert,
I have just finished
reading "Two Views" and can say that your treatment of the subject
came across as very logical, understandable (for a lay person) and
treated the biblical narrative well. I found it a different story with
Via and noted that his presupposition that same sex attraction is a
given state rather than a chosen state influenced his treatment of the
subject considerably and made it clear that he was subject to the very
accusation made against your essay. I have recently read a book
"Battle for Normality" by Gerard Van den Aardweg and and wondered if
you had read this short work and had any opinions. I found it to be an
eye opening look at the nature of the homosexual condition which he
links to peer exclusion in the early years of child development (7-8
yrs) and later developing into erotic desire for the those in the
excluding group in adolescence. Having recently suffered the
devastation of a teenage son who has just made a claim to being
homosexual this book was like looking into a mirror of my sons
behaviour. This book has helped me to understand my sons choice,
realize that he is not a "homosexual" in the sense of being born this
way and that he has a chosen this path. It is interesting to note that
my son initially claimed to have been gay from about the age of 13 but
now after several months he has reduced this to 7 or 8. He will soon
be in a position to claim that he was born this way when in fact, I as
the always observant father can assert, this is in fact a self
deception designed to legitimize his behaviour and choice.
It is a evident that Via
supports this type of self deception, due to his own blindness in this
matter.
Thank you for your stand
in these issues. I recognize that as the days move forward this issue
will be the one that tests the church more than any other. I am sure
you have suffered and will suffer for this "stand" that you take. You
have clearly taken up your cross, I thank God that Jesus abides with
you in this.
Every Blessing Mark
________, UK
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:22 PM
To: M.
Subject: RE: Two Views
Dear
Mark,
Thank
you very much for your kind note and sorry for the delay in
responding.
I
haven't yet read the book you mention but will need to, as your email
indicates. Your love for your son will be very important in years to
come, although ultimately the decision to obey God rests with your
son. Choice is a factor in some homosexual development but often it is
incremental, blind, mixed with unsolicited congenital and social
influences that increase risk for homosexual development. In other
words, one may choose action A in ignorance of the fact that action A
will increase risk for homosexual development when combined with
congenital and social factors. The important issue is not the degree
of choice but the issue of obedience, since sin infects us all as an
innate impulse passed on by ancestors.
I
have included below some email correspondence on my website (www.robgagnon.net)
that I hope will help.
Blessings,
Rob
__________________________________________________________
Why meeting nice "gay" and lesbian persons should not lead to approval
of homosexual practice
From:
Brien
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:52 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and
Hermeneutics
I was raised a gay hating PCA member.
Recently something changed the way I think towards homosexuals.
About a year ago my girlfriend invited
me attended [an Episcopalian church in Connecticut]. Many of the
members there happened to be homosexual. I'd never been around
Christian's who were openly gay. Initially I thought it was
blasphemous, but I was curious so I started attended services there
regularly. I've always been theologically inclined and open minded,
so I rationalized this as an opportunity to observe what "Christian
homosexuals" are really like.
I assumed the sermons would be filled
with homosexual comments, they weren't. Actually the sermons were
excellent but I sexuality rarely came up. Instead of disliking the
place I grew to really appreciate it. Something was different about
that church. More then anything else I felt the presence of
non-judgmental unconditional love. Now I'm ashamed to have questioned
their faith in the first place.
For example, they had a mentally
handicap person participating in their service every Sunday. He
rarely did things correctly, the Episcopalian order of worship is very
ornate. But every Sunday his imperfect participation struck me as a
perfect image of our relationship with God. I found it beautiful and
very appropriate. He was one of my favorite parts of the church.
I ran into your page during a random
Google. I left your page five minutes ago but I felt compelled to
share this...I can't say why and there's no need to reply. I'm not in
the habit of random emails, I simply couldn't shake the conviction to
write this.
Thanks and God bless,
-Brien
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 12:32 PM
To: 'Brien
Subject: RE: The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and
Hermeneutics
Brien,
Thank you for your email, which is thoughtful and not
abrasive. It may be that God had you send the email to change my
views—but possibly instead to have your views changed (or both).
-
If you grew up “gay-hating” then you
were in the wrong place to start. You shouldn’t have been hating
anybody, least of all those engaged in serial unrepentant sin who
need your help. The point is to reclaim people for the kingdom of
God, not consign them coldly to hell.
-
That you would change your position
over the issue of homosexual practice simply by finding out that
persons with homosexual impulses are nice people underscores that
(a) your views were not properly grounded in Scripture to begin with
and (b) you were apparently operating with the faulty notion that
persons with same-sex attractions bray at the moon, i.e. are
complete moral degenerates. Then, when you found out that the latter
was not the case, you switched views. But the reality is that you
only switched from one erroneous position to another. People are
great at bifurcating their lives, being very good in some areas and
very bad in others. The fact that a person violates the commands of
God in one area of life but otherwise appears to be a good person
does not validate the violation. Some very nice men have
extraordinary difficulty in controlling sexual urges for more than
one person. Does that mean that they must not be nice people or that
having sex with more than one person concurrently must be a good
thing? No and no. Even pedophiles are not complete moral werewolves
or subhuman beings.
-
If you have acquitted in your own
mind persons who engage in homosexual behavior then, contrary to
what you say, you practice “judgmental conditional love.” For you
have made a determination that God himself has not made. You can be
just as judgmental acquitting someone of behavior that God rejects
as condemning someone for behavior that God has not condemned. By
your own statements the only way that you felt that you could love
people was if you learned to accept what they did. But that’s not
love. God’s love, manifested in sending Christ to die for us, was
not the kind of “nonjudgmental unconditional love” that you talk
about. Yes, God loves us unconditionally, but, no, God does not
refuse to pronounce judgment on those who live their lives in serial
unrepentant opposition to his will. See Romans 1-2, and 6:1-8:17:
God’s wrath is manifested in allowing people to engage in
self-dishonoring impulses that mar the image of God stamped on their
being; God’s grace is manifested when God destroys the lordship of
sin in our lives and works toward changing us into the image of
Christ. God loves us enough to want to change us into the image of
Christ. Moreover, the New Testament, including Jesus, is quite clear
that continuance in unrepentant sin of an egregious sort puts one at
risk of not inheriting the kingdom of God. For example, in the
Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5, in between the two antitheses
about sex, comes this statement: If your hand, eye, or foot
threatens your downfall, cut it off; it’s better to go into heaven
maimed then to be sent to hell full-bodied. So when Jesus reached
out to sinners, whether economic exploiters (tax collectors) or
sexual sinners, he urged them to “sin no longer” lest something
worse happen to them than a capital sentencing in this life. If you
think or act otherwise, it is not because you have now learned to
love more than Jesus or his apostle to the Gentiles, Paul, did
(compare, for example, the case of the incestuous man in 1
Corinthians 5: your views resemble more those of the Corinthians
than of Paul). It is because you have learned to love less. See the
quote of Augustine that I make at
http://www.robgagnon.net/Achtemeier-LaymanControReply.htm
-
Please do not compare being mentally
handicapped with acting out on homosexual urges. The analogy is
badly flawed. People are not responsible for feeling any urges but
they are responsible for what they do with what they feel—unless, of
course, they are insane, under severe physical coercion, or are so
mentally handicapped that they don’t know what they are doing. Most
men, owing to significantly higher rates of the main sex hormone,
testosterone, are far more prone to a polysexual orientation than
are women. Does that mean that we should now embrace in the church
what the Gay Men’s Issues in Religion of the American Academy of
Religion referred to as “polyfidelity”? Obviously not. And yet many
men are intensely wired to be so. Let me be clear about this: No
command of God is predicated on people first losing all intense
urges to violate the command in question. And since all behavior is
at some level biologically attributable to brain structures, it is
absurd to argue that behavior can be exempted from moral valuation
if the impulse to engage in it is partly congenital. Of course, too,
Paul defined sin as an innate impulse, running through the members
of the human body, passed on by an ancestor, and never entirely
within human control.
-
Of course we are all imperfect. But
as Paul said in Galatians 2:19-20: “I through the law died in
relation to the law for the express purpose that I might live for
God. I have been crucified with Christ. I no longer live but Christ
lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in
the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.” Or as Jesus
said: If you want to become my disciple you must deny yourself, take
up your cross, lose your life, and come follow me. It really doesn’t
matter what pre-existing urges anyone has. No one gets an exemption
from dying to self-orientation and keeping the commands of God.
-
I urge you to read my work more
fully. You may want to start with the following:
http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf
Blessings to you,
Robert Gagnon
__________________________________________________________
Jesus, eunuchs, and the allegation of a 'gay Jesus'
From: J.
Sent: Mon 1/15/2007 1:02 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Princeton University Scholar Maliks Faris
Scholarship on Eunuchs and Homosexuals
Malik Faris, a graduate of the
University of California at Berkeley and Princeton University,
has contributed extensive research, supporting the fact that
homosexuals were once known as 'eunuchs.' Perhaps if you have
time, I highly recommend that you visit his website at
http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/.
In the past, you had asserted that no 'serious' Bible scholar
would make the claim that Jesus was gay. Former professor at
Columbia University, Dr. Morton Smith, and Emory University
graduate and Professor of theology, Dr. Theodore Jennings, are
and were not serious Bible scholars to you? I could name more
individuals, but you understand my point. Again, I hope you
find time to visit Malik Faris's website.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 9:28 AM
To: J.
Subject: RE: Princeton University Scholar Maliks Faris
Scholarship on Eunuchs and Homosexuals
J.,
Probably "born
eunuchs" in the ancient world did include people homosexually
inclined, which incidentally puts to the lie the oft-repeated
claim that the ancient world could not even conceive of persons
that were congenitally influenced toward exclusive same-sex
attractions. I have always argued that homosexual orientation is
not a radically "new" concept. This undermines the "new knowledge"
orientation argument put forward by pro-homosex activists.
Jennings is not a
serious biblical scholar, he's a prof. of theology (there's a
difference). An example of how far wrong Jennings can be is his
thesis that Jesus' response to the centurion's request that his
"boy" be healed indicates Jesus' commendation of homosexual
practice (see, incidentally, the rebuttal of his article in
Journal of Biblical Literature made by D. B. Saddington in
JBL 125:1 [Spring 2006]: 140-42). For a rebuttal of a
pro-homosex reading of the centurion story see n. 59 in my online
notes to my published essay in Homosexuality and the Bible: Two
Views at
http://www.robgagnon.net/2VOnlineNotes.htm (html),
http://www.robgagnon.net/2Views/HomoViaRespNotesRev.pdf (pdf).
Needless to say, his views that Jesus had a homoerotic
relationship with the beloved disciple and that there were
homoerotic contours to his footwashing of the disciples are
nonsense. ).
Morton Smith was a
serious biblical scholar but he has not made a serious or
reputable case for identifying Jesus as homosexual.
See now the recent correction of his views by Scott G. Brown, "The
Question of Motive in the Case against Morton Smith," Journal
of Biblical Literature 125:2 (Summer 2006): 351-83 (esp. pp.
354-73). Brown shows that from the beginning Smith's statement
that the nighttime encounter between Jesus and a "youth wearing a
linen cloth over his naked body" briefly mentioned in the disputed
document "Secret Mark" was nothing more than an un-argued hunch
and that, with time, Smith "acknowledged that this matter [was]
impossible to decide and actively corrected claims that he thought
that longer (i.e. Secret) Mark proved that Jesus was gay" (p.
365). Brown then goes on to show (pp. 365-73) that the homoerotic
reading of this text is highly unlikely.
Have you read my
work on Jesus and homosexual practice? If not, please do so. Start
with my online critique of David Myers and Letha Scanzoni, at
http://www.westernsem.edu/wtseminary/assets/Gagnon2%20Aut05.pdf
Jesus' comparison
of men who make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven with
"born eunuchs" shows that Jesus categorized "born eunuchs" as
persons not having any sex (Matt 19), for certainly Jesus was not
giving the disciples permission to have sex outside of marriage
and thereby avoid his newly enunciated standard for marriage. So,
from that standpoint, any argument that is made about "born
eunuchs" including homosexual persons (with which I would agree)
leads to the view that Jesus did not give homosexually oriented
persons the option of sex outside of marriage between a man and a
woman.
Blessings,
Rob Gagnon
__________________________________________________________
A
heartfelt email from a woman with same-sex attractions
[Note: Below is a correspondence from a few years ago that I happened
to come across again just the other day and checked on.]
You have
written by far the best material I have ever read regarding
homosexuality and what is wrong with it. Certainly you have
provided the most comprehensive biblical assessment I know to
exist. Thank you.
There is not a single thing you've written with which I
intellectually disagree. It
might interest you to know that I am a lesbian, and as such, I have
a serious question for you. It is this: Although I understand the
biblical logic and prohibitions, how do I get my heart to let go?
For
whatever reasons, for as long as I can remember I've had an intense
emotional craving to "connect" with females. Contrary to what many
people apparently think, it only culminates in sex, it does not
begin there. Nevertheless, the closeness of those moments seems
somehow to heal me and complete me, which is what makes something
inside of me resentful of the prohibitions. It hurts to have to go
backwards to aloneness and emptiness.
And its
hurt is of suicidal proportions.
As I
said, Dr. Gagnon, your material is superior. I just don't know what
to do with my heart.
Thank you for your kind and clearly
heartfelt correspondence. I applaud your desire to conform your
life in accordance with Scripture's standards for sexual ethics,
albeit with some personal tension.
The most important thing for you to do
is to get counseling from persons working in reparative therapy to
help you connect with your feminine self. You need to work on
recognizing that you are complete and whole in your own
femaleness. Therapy can help you identify circumstances in life,
in relationships with parents, siblings, or peers, where the
development of a secure sexual identity as a female was disrupted.
Healing these areas of life will help you to see that another
woman cannot, in fact, complete you sexually. If a sexual
relationship is to be had, it should be had with a man, a
complementary sexual other, because only in such relationships can
one interact with a true sexual counterpart that supplies the
missing (in this case, masculine) sexual element. But the first
goal is to become secure in the integrity of your own true sexual
identity as a woman.
Do you know of Exodus International or
of any other transformation ministry in your area?
P.S. Also, a good text in Scripture for
you to begin reading is 2 Corinthians. It will help you to see the
value of endurance in difficult times in shaping Christ in you.
Don't give up; let God do his work in your life.
[Just
recently I came across her original correspondence to me and wasn't
sure that I had responded (I was checking office email at home where
searching for earlier correspondence is not convenient). So i sent C.
a note.]
12/25/06
Did I ever respond to this [i.e.,
your 2003 email]?
Rob
12/26/06
Yes, you
did. Your answer was immensely helpful and encouraging.
How
thoughtful of you to have wanted to make certain. Thank you, Dr.
Gagnon.
______