I want to thank you for
writing such a well-versed and coherent response to Ms. Knust's
ill-written article. I assume you do not get a lot of 'fan mail',
because the topic you discuss about is such a hot button issue in
America. But I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for
sticking to Scripture and for doing so unabashedly and with biblical
facts on your side.
God bless you, Mr. Gagnon. You are in my prayers.
Angelica __________________
From: John
___________________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 4:21 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Your response to Knust
I'm a clinical
psychologist trained at _______________. Just so you know something
about the person who says here to you, God bless you,
brother, for a wise response that would impress Solomon, Paul and
Peter. I'm so glad CNN had "ears to hear" (or at least
enough integrity to print) a worthy alternate viewpoint. Press on!
From:
Nathan ________________
Sent: Thursday,
March 03, 2011 5:22 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Thank you
for your article on CNN
Dr. Gagnon,
Thank you for your well reasoned
article on CNN. I had read with disgust the Knust article and
knew that it needed a rebuttal. I'm glad that it received one
that was well founded in the actual words of scripture. From what
I saw, it also touched off a nerve on the comment board. Yet no
one could attack your arguments, they only attacked religion in
general - signs that there was no counter argument that could be
made. I appreciate your standing up for the truth and being
willing to be public about it.
Nathan ________________
From:
Randall
______________
Sent: Thursday,
March 03, 2011 3:08 PM
To: Robert
Gagnon
Subject: Opinion
article on CNN.com
Thank you for your clear response to the article by Jennifer
Knust claiming the Bible is not clear about homosexuality.
I'm continually astounded by articles and op-ed pieces with
claims that openly contradict the Bible, then state the Bible
supports their positions by pulling small phrases or sentences
out of context. I've read the Bible several times and know
these authors are wrong, but have trouble sometimes finding
the specific chapters and verses to show my children where
these writers err. Nor do I have the depth of theological
knowledge (or credentials) to craft an excellent counterpoint
article.
Occasionally CNN.com has the gumption to publish what they
would consider a "right-leaning" piece. I'm encouraged by
finding your essay on their website as the Christian voice is
all too often missing from world news.
From: Mark
______________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 9:46 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Response to Knust
Hi,
I thoroughly
enjoyed reading your response to Knust's CNN article. My
favourite statement was "The
fact that Knust chooses a distant analogue (slavery) over more
proximate analogues (incest, polyamory) shows that her
analogical reasoning is driven more by ideological biases than
by fair use of analogies". Thank you for stepping up.
From: Jim
_________________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 9:34 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Article
Dr Gagnon,
Read your article on CNN. Thank you for speaking the truth in
love. The astonishing thing about it is CNN published it!
May the Holy Spirit anoint your words as you no doubt come
under attack for speaking out.
Just a sinner saved by grace,
Jimmy _________________
From:
Jason _____________________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 7:13 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Thank you for your CNN article
Mr.
Gagnon
I recently read your article, linked on CNN's front page regarding
the Bible's position on homosexuality. I had earlier read
Jennifer Knust's article, the subject of your refutation. I found
myself thoroughly disgusted and aggravated with her article.
I
wish you had been given more space to write, because a true
refutation would have torn her article to shreds. I am a Roman
Catholic and have been studying apologetics for a few years now,
and I realize that for every sentence of blasphemous non-sense
that our secular world touts as unvarnished truth, it usually
takes pages and pages of research and work to refute it clearly
and most importantly, honestly. So i certainly appreciate your
well thought out response.
Honesty. That virtue was certainly lacking from Knust's article.
I went into the old testament and read up on her references to
David and Jonathon's supposed affair. She quoted a verse if i
remember correctly. The verse said *nothing* of the sort.
Anyways, I'll get off my soap box, but needless to say I was
thrilled to see your rebuttal. I've been seeing more and more CNN
articles bashing Christianity, bashing Jesus, bashing the Bible
and its about time someone started setting things straight. Keep
up the good work!
God
Bless you!
Jason _______________
From: paul
_______________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 7:05 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Awesome Article on CNN - Please Sign me up for
your mailing list
Hi Dr Gagnon,
You may or may not realize it but you are doing a lot of great
good. It was good to read such an article on CNN. I hope you
keep writing on CNN.
For me the Article was very informative and will be a great help
to me in my ministry as a Pastor since I have had to preach on
this issue quite a bit.
God Richly Bless and Keep You
In Christ,
Pastor Paul
_______________
From: Andrew
____________________
Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 9:36 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: thanks for your article on CNN
Hi Dr. Gagnon,
Thanks for your
article the Bible condemning homosexuality. I'm passing the
article on to my children so that they will be able to
understand and articulate the truth of God's Word on this
subject as clearly as you did.
From: David
____________________
Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 9:24 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Many Thanks
Dear Dr.
Gagnon:
I’m writing
simply to express my thanks for your scholarly, clear, and
convincing writings concerning homosexual practice and
Scripture. I recently read your book entitled The Bible
and Homosexual Practice and found it very enlightening and
helpful.
I am among a
group of Elders in our large _______________ church associated
with the PC-USA who have been asked to help our congregation
explore whether to maintain this affiliation or seek some
other sort of arrangement. Those of us in leadership roles
view support within the PC-USA for gay ordination and
homosexual practice as symptoms of an even more troubling
position: Viewing Scripture as culturally conditioned and no
longer authoritative or normative in our time. Your work,
along with that of scholars like Richard Hayes and Kenneth
Bailey, has been particularly helpful to me.
I read your
recent blog entry on CNN as you responded to a piece written
by Jennifer Knust. Thanks for your excellent scholarship and
for standing in the breach at this critical time. I can only
imagine the verbal assaults you’ve had to endure and pray the
Lord will continue to protect and strengthen you.
Very truly
yours,
David
From:
Edward _________________
Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 9:24 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: thank you CNN
Thank you for
the excellent CNN Belief Blog article. You are a gift to
Christ's church. Keep working hard on this issue. The
church around the world needs your scholarship as we seek
to follow Christ faithfully.
I have seen
the declension of previously faithful brothers and sisters
in Christ in my previous denomination, the Reformed
Church in America, over the last five years on this issue.
Your work of scholarship is needed now more than ever.
Rev. Edward
___________________
From: Rev. ____________
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 9:08 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: CNN Belief Blog Article
Dr. Gagnon,
I
appreciated your recent response to Knust's article in the CNN
blog. However, what I found most interesting were the comments on
your article. Although there were many more responses than I
wanted to read, it didn't take long to recognize the general
patterns. For one thing virtually no one used any scholarly
resources to disagree with you, in fact, none of the comments I
read were a response to any of the work in your article. I was
quite surprised by how many of them simply expressed their
disagreement and then denied the authority of either Jesus or the
scripture. None (that I saw) denied or even argued against the
authority of your information or arguments.
A
number of the comments seemed to come from people who were
probably quite intelligent, but they were not using much in the
way of thinking processes to respond to you. Is it just that the
kind of people who comment on the CNN blog are ding-a-lings,
intellectually lazy or pseudo-intellectuals? I could only think
of one reason for the intellectually low quality comments to your
article. They are people who have made a decision that does not
depend much upon thinking. Public debates appear to be based on
different criteria than they were during the Reformation. But
then, the article you responded to seemed intellectually porous
and of weak scholarship when read next to yours.
So, what is the criterion by which so many people are taking their
positions? A couple of years ago I invited a pastor to one of your
lectures. This pastor was sympathetic to the homosexual agenda,
but reversed her opinion after your lecture. However, as time has
gone by she has gradually returned to her previous position; but
not because she has found your research and information flawed.
She cannot tell me why except to fall back on the familiar
arguments that you completely demolished in the lecture. I am
beginning to realize that intellectual rigor and logic such as
yours is more important to the Christianity of our time than ever
before. It is important that all of us respond with such whenever
possible.
Rev. _________________
Examples of Negative Emails and My
Responses
Not surprisingly I also
received some very negative emails. Though these were in the
minority of the emails that I received (I would guess about 20% of
the total number), I give a much larger sampling of them here than I
do the positive emails. The reason for that is that readers may find
my critiques of these emails helpful. Most of the negative emails
were ad hominem (i.e. personal) attacks against me by persons who
apparently had no convincing arguments to offer for their position.
A few, however, were intelligently written. Some were so verbally
abusive I simply didn't respond (gotta love the tolerance!). Here is
a sample of the thoughtful and the thoughtless:
From:
Johnson ___________________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 6:26 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Your views on the use of analogies
Dear Professor Gagnon,
I have been following your writings and letters posted on your
website with great interest, and your grounding in Biblical text and
hermeneutics is quite stimulating. I should enter this email with
full disclosure that I disagree somewhat with your views on
homosexuality (you would have figured that out within a sentence or
two, regardless).
My specific question relates to your determination that many
analogies to the Bible's view on homosexuality used in publications
and letters to you are bad. More specifically, your criticism is
often that the authors use "remote" analogies, which is dishonest
and is a "cherrypicking" of analogies that support the author's view
rather than a closer analogy that would contradict that view. I'll
get concrete: people defending homosexuality often use slavery,
diet, gender-based issues, or methods of punishment cited in the
Bible to explain that those are, by general consensus, obsolete. It
follows from the analogy, then, that someday intolerance of
homosexuality will take the same path to obsolescence that slavery
and the other analogies did. You counter that none of these examples
are close analogies to homosexuality, but instead incest and
polyamory are closer --- which certainly Christianity and much of
society at large do not and should not condone.
My question to you is this: Do your arguments fall back on what is
actually a subjective judgment which analogs are "closer" to
homosexuality, when what's really going on is one person believes
homosexuality itself is moral and you think that it is immoral? For
instance, I believe slavery is a closer analogy for homosexuality
than incest, because (1) incest has indisputably bad consequences
(e.g. deformities in offspring) and we should not as a society come
to accept it. In contrast, both slaves and homosexuals were/are
unfairly persecuted or done unjust harm, and homosexuality and freed
slaves (unlike incest) do not cause harm to society. Within that
framework of reasoning, slavery is closer to homosexuality than
incest is.
You may counter that I have it wrong, homosexuality _does_ bring
harm to society. But isn't that a subjective judgment rather than
objective scholarly reasoning? And in this context of the debate
over which analogies are closer, aren't your declarations that some
analogies are bad actually based on your belief that homosexuality
is "just wrong" --- while people writing in to you with other
analogies just believe differently? In other words, aren't we simply
at a point in this debate where you believe one thing, others
believe another thing, and this close analysis is a pretense of
objective, scholarly reasoning when we all just have subjective
disagreements about fundamental morals?
I appreciate your time and look forward to your thoughts.
Thank you,
Johnson
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:57 AM
To: Johnson _________________
Subject: RE: Your views on the use of analogies
Dear
Johnson,
This is a very civil
and intelligent email. Thank you for it.
Pardon my briefness
but I am having to go through a ton of email from the editorial.
I don't think
slavery can be made a closer analogue than incest and polyamory.
The Bible has no
vested interest in promoting slavery. Indeed, it is significantly
critical of it. It does show a vested interest in rejecting
homosexual practice, incest, and (in the NT) polyamory (already in
the OT for women), all of which are sexual offenses that can be
conducted in the context of consent and commitment. The rejection of
both incest and polyamory is ultimately predicated on a male-female
prerequisite. Slavery is not.
Homosexual practice
does issue in disproportionately high rates of measurable harm in
terms of STI's, mental health problems, and in the numbers of sex
partners and low relational longevity of unions. Many would like to
attribute these harms exclusively to societal "homophobia." But male
and female homosexuals experience these harms at different rates and
in ways that correspond to expected gender types. The main problem
is sex with someone who is not a true complement or counterpart. The
extremes of a given sex are not moderated and the gaps not filled.
It is not accidental, for example, that monogamy is a far greater
problem for male homosexual relationships than even for female
homosexual relationships. I trust you know the reason why as a male
yourself.
Incest does not
produce intrinsic measurable harm as you suggest. Only
disproportionately high rates, like homosexual practice. You can
imagine a adult-committed incestuous union where no progeny would
arise (e.g., a same-sex one; or where one or both partners are
infertile; or where strong birth-control precautions are taken). But
that wouldn't make an incestuous union between consenting adults
morally acceptable. The birth difficulties are merely the symptom of
the root harm: too much structural or embodied identity on the part
of the participants, here on the level of kinship. There's so much
uber-identity on the part of same-sex erotic unions that procreation
isn't even possible, let alone given to corruption of the genetic
pool.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Jason P. Myerson
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:00 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: commentary
Good
Afternoon Robert,
I
read your substantiating texts regarding the bible's interpretation
that homosexuality is completely against GODs rules. I guess
sacrificing your son is also GODs rule as well as slavery. If you go
strictly by Jesus's teachings he mentions nothing of the sort, and
in one of the four gospels, brushes across the topic, but really
doesn't want to answer the question of marriage due to its
unimportance to his teachings. I find the most repetitive teaching
Jesus's teaches is that be kind to thy neighbor and treat him/her
with respect as you would want to be treated. The most reiterated
teaching played out again and again in the bible that is paramount I
find interesting that most Christians and bible followers forget.
Meaning if someone is a homosexual you should treat him with respect
as he is your neighbor and not meant for your judgement as this is
Gods. The reason the new testament came out was that it was after
Gods frustration with the prior people and prophets that could not
control the imature and lost people of that time. Jesus was
revolutionary as with other prophets that God had in close quarters.
Genesis 22:1-19. "Here the Lord asks Abraham to
sacrifice Isaac,
his only son
through ...." I always love how people pick
and choose what quotes to substantiate their point and it's always
these texts that are found in old testament and they ignore the
sacrifices and other archaic, absurd teachings that are in there.
So, please when you quote the bible quote all of it for validity.
Please don't pick and choose to substantiate your own biasnesses.
It's 2011, I think we have caused enough sufferings and killing due
to bigotry in history. Let's for once really follow Jesus's supreme
teachings and create maybe the eutopia he years ago visioned.
With
Utmost Sincerity and Love,
Jason P. Myerson
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 8:08 PM
To:
Jason P. Myerson
Subject: RE: commentary
Jason,
Thanks
for your email. Where do I begin? To argue that marriage was
unimportant to Jesus when he tightened the requirement for sexual
purity beyond anything known in the ancient world and stated that
the sexually impure could be thrown into hell misses the mark by a
wide margin. He didn’t have to talk overly much about marriage
because the Judaism of his day mostly got that right. Jesus reached
out in love to the economically exploitative tax collectors but that
outreach certainly didn’t connote acceptance of their exploitation.
The same applies to his outreach to sexual sinners, as indicated by
his comment to the adulterous woman: Go and no longer be sinning
(lest something worse happen to you).” It would have been
unreasonable for Jesus to talk at length about homosexual practice
since the extant historical evidence indicates that no Jew was
advocating such behavior, let alone engaging in it.
The
Abraham story to which you refer establishes that God will not
require sacrifice of Israelite children and subsequent Old Testament
legislation condemns child sacrifice vehemently.
There
are certainly teachings in the Bible that we don’t follow today. If
you read my article carefully you will see that I talk about that
point. But there’s plenty of good evidence for recognizing that a
male-female requirement for sexual intercourse is a core value in
Scripture’s sexual ethics.
You
might find some further responses to the kinds of views that you
express in my online addendum to the article at
http://www.robgagnon.net/JenniferWrightKnustBlunders.htm .
Blessings,
Dr.
Gagnon
From:
Hal _________________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 6:22 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: some thoughts
Dr. Gagnon,
I recently read your opinion essay on CNN.com. I also visited your
website and read a couple of your essays on homosexuality and
Christianity. I also spent some time on your answers to e-mails
section and found those to be quite fascinating.
Let me start out by telling you that I am a heterosexual christian.
I believe that homosexuals were born with a sexual attraction to
the same sex. I was very interested particularly with your
argument that even though they may be born with that feeling, it
is still their duty to God not to act upon it. I happen to know
someone who is a homosexual who has no attraction at all to the
opposite gender, this person has never acted upon their homosexual
urges. This person I am speaking of is a very devout Christian,
but he is a miserable person. You can see how miserable he is in
everything that he does. What are your thoughts on this? Should
homosexuals who are born with a biological attraction to the same
sex really live their lives in complete misery and depression.
Whose place is it of any living person to tell them that they
shouldn't fall in love with someone who they have an attraction to
on all levels?
Blessings,
Hal ________________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 12:10 PM
To: Hal _______________
Subject: RE: some thoughts
Hal,
Thanks for your
comments.
You ask about your
miserable friend. There's lots of misery in the homosexual life
too, and multiple health dangers even for those with the best of
intentions. How do you think Paul felt being called to a ministry
that caused him to be regularly beaten, stoned, poorly
fed-clothed-sheltered, etc.? How do you think Jesus felt being
crucified? Jesus called us to take up our cross, deny ourselves,
and lose our lives (one of the best attested Gospel sayings). All
of us in life have struggles. Persons with homosexual attractions
are not the only ones. Many believers stay in difficult marriages
out of obedience to the gospel where singleness (they feel) would
have been far to be preferred. The bottom line: None of us gets a
pass to violate the will of God. Ultimately, I believe, God can
use even the most difficult moments of life, life's deprivations,
to shape Christ in us. That's what Paul thought, at any rate, and
as someone who suffered as much as any Christian in history he
knew what he was talking about.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Justin _______________
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 4:09 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality
Dr.
Gagnon,
After reading your recent blog on CNN i can't help but be struck by
a single glaring flaw in your opinion. While you do a very
proficient job of showing the Bible does not explicitly condone
homosexuality, no where do you show that it explicitly prohibits it
either. You state that the bible exclusively references relations
as those between a man and a woman, yet the implication that
anything outside of that is automatically condemned is making a
fairly large assumption.
I would also like to respectfully disagree with your opinion that
interpretations made in the second century are somehow more relevant
than interpreations made in modern times. I'd suggest the breadth
of knowledge by those making modern day interpretations trumps the
scholars that were doing the same centuries ago.
Cheers,
Justin
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 8:53 PM
To: 'Justin _______________
Subject: RE: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality
Hi
Justin,
Please
see my articles at
http://robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm and you’ll find plenty
of evidence of the Bible’s strong and specific opposition to
homosexual practice.
I was
given extremely limited space (word count) for this article. I could
only address the points that Knust made and only a couple of the key
ones. I originally had a section on the Romans 1:24-27, specifically
how we know that the indictment was absolute, but it had to be cut
because of word-count limitations. However you can see it, in brief,
in my addendum to the Knust piece at
http://www.robgagnon.net/JenniferWrightKnustBlunders.htm.
BTW, if Jesus extrapolated the essential twoness of a sexual bond
from the 2-ness of the sexes, male and female, as I argue, then
there can be no doubt that he saw a male-female prerequisite as
foundational for all sexual activity.
I cite
interpretations from the second century simply to confirm that all
the earliest interpretations read “no ‘male and female’” as meaning
“no sex” when applied to sexual relations; that makes it more likely
than not that this is how the originally authors understood it.
Certainly that’s how Paul interpreted his own words, given his
remarks about homosexual practice in Romans 1:24-27 and 1
Corinthians 6:9 (1 Timothy 1:10).
Thanks
for the civility of your response.
Blessings,
Dr.
Gagnon
From:
Matthew Gordon
Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 12:10 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Question about Bible and priests.
Dear
Robert,
I just
read your opinion piece on whether the Bible is for or against
homosexuality. I'm curious, does the Bible state any opinion on
priests having sex with children? Perhaps the church should do an
in-house cleaning before passing too much judgement on what
consenting adults behind closed doors. With the church's track
record of protecting their clergy so that pedophile priests can
continue to damage the lives of more innocent children, you'd think
that it would be more realistic about it's own self righteousness.
Then again, I should not make the mistake of assuming that people
who take the bible as literal truth are the least bit realistic.
Perhaps that's a flaw that I need to work on.
Sincerely,
Matt
Gordon
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:29 AM
To: Matthew Gordon
Subject: RE: Question about Bible and priests.
Dear
Matt,
I don't see the
relevance since I believe that pedophilic priests are liable to
criminal prosecution.
By your rationale
since some persons who profess to be Christians engage in immoral
activity that the church does not sanction the Church should
sanction every and any immoral act (which, then, would have to
include things like murder, incest, and exploitation of the poor).
Dr. Gagnon
From: Matthew Gordon
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:53 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: Question about Bible and priests.
Dear Robert,
The
church, in effect, sanctioned pedophilia by sweeping it under the
rug until recently and not effectively taking action to stop what
they knew was going on.
My
point is, the church has been guilty of great wrongs throughout
history. Has Christianity done more harm than good? I hardly have
the evidence to prove that point conclusively one way or the other.
But I feel that religion, when in the wrong hands, is dangerous and
can be used as a weapon by those who have a motive of their own. I
suspect that your article stating that you believe that the bible
condemns homosexuality was a thinly veiled attempt to publish what
is, in effect, hate speech. After all, to use your words,
homosexuality is "immoral".
According to the bible, there are all kinds of sins. I find it
curious that you focus on the words written about homosexuality vs.
any other "sin" in the bible. Perhaps you have homosexual leanings
of your own that you're ashamed of? Or perhaps you feel that the
bible entitles you to sit in judgement of other people and it makes
you feel good about yourself. Only you know the answer. But I do
know one thing, when a person goes out of his way to put down
another human being or group of human beings, it is often with the
intention of deflecting attention from their own flaws.
Anyway, I look forward on reading your opinion about Jews.
Matt
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 9:10 AM
To: Matthew Gordon
Subject: RE: Question about Bible and priests.
Matthew,
The canard about "hate
speech" is as unreasonable as the claim that calling immoral, or
opposing civil status to, sexual relationships involving three or
more sexual partners concurrently or involving close kin is "hate
speech." I think what you have just written to me is far closer to
hate speech than anything that I write. Note the repeated ad hominem
on your part. I always find it odd that the people who speak loudest
in condemning opposition to homosexual practice as "hate speech"
exhibit so much blind hate.
The reason for my attention to the issue is
that acceptance of homosexual practice is being foisted on the
church and on society when, I believe, the witness of Scripture,
reason, and science strongly indicates that such behavior should not
be accepted. If there were a full-court press in the church and in
society to condone polyamorous or incestuous behavior of an
adult-committed sort I would give these matters significantly more
attention too. To my knowledge I never
have experienced homosexual urges. But then the notion that to
oppose homosexual practice makes one a "closet homosexual" is about
as absurd as me claiming that your vigorous opposition to pedophilia
makes you a "closet pedophile."
For someone who wants to
argue against judgmental attitudes, you present yourself as very
judgmental of anyone who disagrees with you. Indeed, if we apply
your principle that to write against something or someone is to
expose one's own problems in the same area, then you, in criticizing
me so harshly for "hate speech," must suffer much from hating
others. For that you have my sincere sympathy.
Dr. Robert Gagnon
From:
RUSTYSPOT
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 5:05 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality
Yeah. The Bible condemns killing, too. "Thou shalt not
kill". Soldiers are trained to kill, but they still get equality under
the law. Another scriptural / law discrepancy which is conveniently
ignored in the grand scheme of the conservative political agenda. So
sad.
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 12:17 PM
To: RUSTYSPOT
Subject: RE: My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexuality
The
Bible condemns murder. That's what the Decalogue is talking about in
its historical context. It does not condemn the state taking action
against murderers in its midst, including capital sentencing.
Given
your absolutist stance on no killing, I guess you think that the
United States should have done nothing after the attack on Pearl
Harbor in Dec. 7, 1941. And we should have let Hitler go on and
continue to gas the entire European Jewish population?
From:
RUSTYSPOT
Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 1:01 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: My Take: The Bible really does condemn
homosexuality
You're
wrong. The Bible does not put conditions on killing.
It
doesn't say "Thou Shalt Not Kill (except during wartime)." It does not
say "Thou Shalt Not Kill (except in self-defense)." It doesn't say
"Thou shalt not kill" (except in cases of capital punishment)."
It says
"Thou Shalt Not Kill". Period.
To do so
is immoral and against the word of God. But people who kill (i.e.
Presidents, Popes, Soldiers, Law Enforcement Officials) are not denied
equality as a result of their violation of "The word of God.".
The
point is that when religion and morality start to dictate law,
government, and the allocation of human rights, you can't just "pick
and choose" which parts of the bible to take literally. Otherwise,
anybody who violates the multiple crazy abominations listed in
Leviticus (eating shellfish, etc.) would be given second-class citizen
status, too.
We were
right to go after the Japanese and Hitler. But those actions have
consequences.
Own it.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 1:30 PM
To: RUSTYSPOT
Subject: RE: My Take: The Bible really does condemn
homosexuality
You
say "We were right...." Well, that's justified killing, isn't it?
The
Decalogue command doesn't have to add those limitations because it is
well understood in the historical context. The very trajectories of
tradition that record the Decalogue do so while at the same time
telling stories of justified killing. A similar case can be made from
ancient Near Eastern law generally.
As for
"picking and choosing," there certainly are laws in the OT that don't
carry over in the age of Jesus. Jesus himself stated as much when he
overrode Mosaic allowance for polygamy due, he said, to human (here
male) "hardness of heart." I assume that you don't know better than
Jesus.
From:
Albert ____________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 11:02 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: CNN article: The Bible bans homosexuality
Good
evening, Dr. Gagnon.
I just
read your article. I would suggest you reacquaint yourself with some of
the teachings of the late Dr. William Orr [who taught at Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary decades ago]. One of the one's I like best is his
view on evil and forgiveness and the inevitable shriveling of evil in
the presence of forgiveness. To me, those teachings are much more
important to humanity than the rather needless discourse you and Ms.
Knust have embarked on.
Why not
let all of us try to treat those we interact with in the way we would
like to be treated in return. The "Lord" certainly knows how hard that
is for me, and, I suspect for many of the rest of us.
Al
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 7:49 AM
To: Albert ____________
Subject: RE: CNN article: The Bible bans homosexuality
Dear Al,
Thank you for your
email. I am acquainted somewhat with Dr. Orr, one of my predecessors. I
am glad to hear of your positive memories of him. And I am well
acquainted with teaching on forgiveness in the New Testament. But may I
reacquaint you with repentance? Jesus teaches in Luke 17:3: If your
brother sins rebuke him and if he repents forgive him. That's an echo to
Leviticus 19:17-18: You shall not hate or take revenge on your neighbor;
and if your neighbor does wrong you shall reprove your neighbor (lest
you incur guilt for failing to warn him) and you shall love your
neighbor as yourself. Jesus warned the woman caught in adultery: Go and
no longer be sinning (lest something worse happen to you, loss of
eternal life).
Writing an essay that
rebuts a scholar's claim that the Bible cannot substantiate a opposition
to homosexual practice is not a waste of time, unless you consider the
promotion of immoral behavior in the church to be fruitful.
Love rejoices in the
truth, not in the promotion of immorality (1 Cor 13).
Nothing that I have
written about diminishes the significance of love and forgiveness. On
the contrary it establishes it. If I were engaged in immoral activity
that could threaten my inheritance of God's kingdom I would want someone
to warn me (in a gentle way of course) before it was too late. You
wouldn't say nothing if your children were about to touch a hot stove,
would you? Well, why would you say nothing if they were endangering
their eternal relationship with God?
You may be interested in my
follow-up at
http://www.robgagnon.net/JenniferWrightKnustBlunders.htm.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Michael Mauzey
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 10:43 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: You godly enough to read this through?
Do you bible-thumpers
ever publically admit that what you claim that Jesus said about this and
that was at the very least written down over 200 years after Jesus died,
so who really knows what Jesus said? And what about all the other
Gospels that Constantine and his flunkies at the Council of Nicaea chose
to leave out of their holy bible ? Why is there no Gospel of Mary
Magdalene ... clearly Jesus' favorite and most trusted disciple? or of
the Essenes or of Judas (who many believe ... including myself ... that
Judas was doing what Jesus instructed him to do and that if Judas had
not done it, there would be no such thing as christianity today ...
there could be no resurrection without Jesus' death , so Jesus would
have faded into oblivion, just like Mr. Magoo.
So isn't Judas one of
the true heroes of history and one of the main founders of Christianity?
And Mary Magdalene was a
prostitute? Come on ... even the antichrist pope doesn't spout that
ridiculous propaganda anymore. Yea ... how holy were those christian
catholics when thet slaughtered the Incas and Aztecs or lest we forget
the glorious Spanish Inquisition and all of Jesus' love that was shown
there by Jesus' christian devotees?
How can you trust what
X
tells
Y
who then tells
Z
who in turn tells
A
who shares it with his child
B
and thus over 200 years have passed ... so NONE of the writers of the
bible actually spoke to Jesus or even heard Jesus speak?
I admit that I am not a
christian (christians scare me a lot more than muslims do), but I have a
deep belief in and love for God. I do believe that Jesus was a prophet
sent by God to help humanity become more humane as have many other
prophets that God has sent.
But you christians
distort Jesus' teachings of love into hate and arrogance. I hope I'm
not standing next to you when I meet my Maker cuz' I don't think He's
gonna be very happy with you.
And my last point ...
have you ever heard the adage, "Methinks thou doth protest too much"?
It sure seems to me that you write an awful lot about homosexuality,
kinda like most homophobes are really closet homosexuals themselves.
I'll pray for you cuz' I
think you're really gonna need the prayers of someone who believes in a
LOVING God,
Michael Mauzey
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:36 AM
To: Michael Mauzey
Subject: RE: You godly enough to read this through?
Michael,
Where should I begin in
responding to this?
Let's take just one
example: Judas was used in God's plan but that doesn't make him morally
innocent, anymore than the fact that God used Babylon to bring Israel
into exile in the 6th century B.C. absolved Babylon for their excesses
against Israel.
And I fail to see how
citing actions by Christians in the past against the very teachings of
the gospel are a criticism of that gospel.
As for not being able to
determine anything about what Jesus believed, that will be news to
thousands of New Testament scholars in this country alone. Establishing
the historicity of Jesus' views is the divorce-remarriage text is fairly
simple: multiple attestation by independent sources, a teaching
dissimilar from the prevailing cultural environment, a teaching that
caused even the church that preserved these sayings problems, etc.
There is nothing hateful
or arrogant about opposing cultural incentives for homosexual practice,
just like there would be nothing hateful or arrogant about opposing the
promotion of adult-committed incest or polyamory or adultery.
Open
the New Testament sometime and read the whole thing for comprehension.
You might be enlightened by its teachings and especially by the true
figure of Jesus Christ, not your misperceived notions of who Jesus was.
I know I was helped by doing so decades ago and continue to draw
inspiration from the New Testament.
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Trautwein, Richard C
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 9:42 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Disgrace
I pray, with every bone in my body, that
you someone very close to you
is gay. And I wish even more that you get to experience first-hand,
how
much hurt & pain people like you cause the gay community. Your
research
is pointless, homosexuals aren't going anywhere, we didn't choose
this.
Leave us alone. Find something else to do with your free time.
In the future, when gay marriage is legal, our history books people
like you will be the 'bad guys', just like during every other civil
rights movement.
So who do you want to be? Abraham Lincoln or John Wilkes Booth?
Believe what you want, but stop thinking that your beliefs get to
control my life.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 9:52 AM
To: Trautwein, Richard C
Subject: RE: Disgrace
Dear
Richard,
What matters to me is
what God says about me on the day of judgment, not what future
textbooks say. I don't want to be someone who wilts under cultural
pressure and ends up endorsing immoral behavior as a result.
I have had lots of
close associations with persons who experience same-sex attractions.
So what? All of us are loaded up with innate urges to do what God
expressly forbids, sexual or otherwise. We are not the sum total of
our biological urges but rather who God intends us to be as a new
creation in Christ. Jesus tells us to take up our cross, deny
ourselves, lose our life, and come follow him. You don't get an
exemption from that demand just because your particular innate urge is
a same-sex attraction.
When it comes to the
civil sphere I don't make religious arguments but rather a
philosophical and scientific case. When it comes to imposing views, I
think that is exactly what you are trying to do. The only difference
is: You don't offer much of an argument.
Dr.
Gagnon
From:
Joe _____________________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 8:47 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: re: my gay son: can I get your opinion on another
view?
Hello, my name is Joe
and I wanted to get your opinion on something thats been troubling me.
I know my boy is
not the "same sex" as me , and the reason for that lies in the
fact that he was born with the sexual brain of a woman, and we know
from the number of people that suffer from similar impairment that
sexual attraction -a function of brain activity- does not
always align with the person's gender. And that results from a
breakdown in the gestation process, nature does not always get it
right.
It follows that gay
people experience gayness as a given, and not as a matter of choice.
To this extent my son
and those like him, are not homogenous with me, as I was born with
the"normal" sexual desire, which means I harbour no sexual desire at
all towards persons of the same gender.
I am considered
normal, but there are historical precedents for the practice of sex as
a lifestyle of choice between normal men, particularly in the
armies of ancient cultures including the Romans. Could it be that the
Bible was referring to the latter in its condemnation, and not the
former?
In other words, gay
persons were not the object of the biblical injunctions, but normal,
heterosexual persons who engaged in sodomy?
There is a difference,
and that difference may not have been understood by Leviticus, but
today I think this difference is being recognised and understood.
In the interests of
fairness I would ask if you would be prepared to put that view out on
CNN as well as your own respected view?
I look forward to a
possible reply from you
Joe
_____________________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:31 AM
To: Joe __________________
Subject: RE: my gay son: can I get your opinion on another
view?
Hi
Joe,
I sympathize with your
concern for your son.
The Greco-Roman world
posits a number of theories of congenital or early-childhood factors
for one or more forms of homosexual development. New Testament writers
were doubtless aware of these theories, as were many Greco-Roman
moralists. It wouldn't have made a difference to their indictment, as
I have argued in many places. Sin itself is an innate urge, passed on
by an ancestor, running through the members of the human body, and
never entirely within human control. All behavior is, on some level,
attributable to differences in brain structure and process. If
innateness were an argument for morality, then one would have to
condone all behaviors, which is a moral absurdity.
Blessings,
Dr.
Gagnon
From:
Joe _____________________
Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 2:10 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: my gay son: can I get your opinion on another
view?
Hi Robert, and thanks indeed for taking the time to
reply.
A note about innateness: Those whose gender is perfectly aligned with
their
sexual attraction and those whose gender is not so aligned, both
experience
their respective alignments as a given.
Indeed, the U.S.Convocation of Catholic Bishops noted in their
Pastoral
Message to Parents of Homosexual Children entitled 'Always our
children"
(http://www.usccb.org/laity/always.shtml)
observed as follows:
"Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as
something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual
orientation
cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to
choose".
~Joe
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 2:26 PM
To: Joe ____________________
Subject: RE: my gay son: can I get your opinion on another
view?
Hi
Joe,
The Catholic statement
could be better worded at a certain point, from the standpoint of what
Scripture says.
I agree that much
same-sex attraction is experienced apart from conscious choice, though
I would add that incremental, often blind, choices that a person makes
in life can impact the incidence of homosexuality. And the larger
culture can also impact incidence. It's not a completely deterministic
mechanism, a fait accompli that takes place at birth and irrespective
of any and every macrocultural and microcultural influence.
But my main concern is
with this statement: "By
itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation
cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to
choose".
It would be better to say
that the impulse to have sex with persons of the same sex is
intrinsically a sinful impulse but that one is not held culpable
merely for the experience of the impulse but only if one acquiesces to
that impulse by entertaining it in one's thought life or engaging in
behavior consonant with that impulse.
If the impulse were not
sinful, there would be no reason not to gratify it.
By analogy, a sexual
attraction to prepubescent children is a sinful impulse, which is why
the person experiencing it should refrain from gratifying the impulse.
But a person experiencing such an impulse would not be liable for it
if he or she did not act on it in thought or deed.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
Roger Gonzalez
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 7:46 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: So?
Who cares if the Bible condemns
homosexuality or not? This is a country of laws, not Christian or
Biblical values? Nowhere are the 10 commandments in any federal or
state law.
So what's your point? Who cares what the
Left or the Right think? What counts is that we treat all humans with
compassion instead of hate which your CNN diatribe alludes to.
Practice your religion the way YOU want,
but don't force others to believe how YOU want. Nothing wrong with
Christians being Christians; what's wrong is you trying to force
others to restrict their thinking and actions according to your
interpretations of the Bible...This goes for all religions...
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 11:28 AM
To: Roger Gonzalez
Subject: RE: So?
Roger,
Okay
... so what should we do instead? Have you impose your views on us, to
wit, that homosexual practice is wonderful, and forcibly indoctrinate
children in the schools not to believe otherwise, penalize persons in
the workplace who don't get all happy over GLBT groups imposing their
views on others, have counseling degrees withheld from those who don't
think homosexual practice is moral behavior, etc.? Should we promote a
form of behavior that has higher risks for STIs, high numbers of sex
partners over life, more mental health problems, higher relational
turnover?
My
editorial responded to an editorial that claimed that the Bible did
not present a clear consistent witness to homosexual practice. If I
were making a case for why the state should not endorse homosexual
practice I would make a nonscriptural argument like the one here:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf
Not a single thing
that I said promotes hate. What is hateful is pushing for the
acceptance of a behavior that produces high rates of measurable harm
and dishonors the sexual integrity of persons made in God's image.
Dr.
Gagnon
From:
Brent Fulton
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 10:36 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: CNN article on Bible and Homosexuality
Dear
Professor Gagnon,
I enjoyed
reading your CNN article "My Take: The Bible really does condemn
homosexuality." I agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality. But I
think peoples'--including believers’--consciences, not the Bible, define
moral versus immoral behavior.
Most
believers have determined that a few Biblical passages are immoral,
including those that call for children who curse their parents to be put
to death, forbid women from having authority over a man or from speaking
in Church, permit fathers to sell their daughters into slavery, and
permit the severe beatings of slaves. Although these immoral passages
only represent a tiny fraction of the 31,000 verses in the Bible, most
of which are moral, the tiny fraction musters a fortress against the
claim that only the Bible defines moral versus immoral behavior. In
these cases, believers’ consciences, not the Bible, have defined moral
versus immoral behavior.
So
believers' may use their consciences and decide that homosexuality is
moral. I would appreciate your opinion on this. The full version of this
argument is presented here:
http://californiaprop8.blogspot.com/ "Is the Bible or Your
Conscience the Source of Moral Authority? An Application to California’s
Proposition 8."
Sincerely,
Brent
Fulton
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:55 AM
To: Brent Fulton
Subject: RE: CNN article on Bible and Homosexuality
Dear
Brent,
It's not all random as
you present it to be. There is certainly teaching in the Bible that was
permitted owing to human hardness of heart but does not represent God's
creation will, as Jesus himself noted in his discussion of "any matter"
divorce allowed men (not women) in the law of Moses. And perhaps you
didn't read my discussion of the problems with the slavery analogy?
But there are also core values in
the text of Scripture, values that are held pervasively, that
is, throughout the two Testaments of Scripture; held strongly, that is,
the violation of which is consistently treated as a severe offense; held
absolutely, that is, no exceptions ever allowed; and/or held
counterculturally, that is, against prevailing cultural trends and so
something that did not come about merely from imbibing at the cultural
well. I would say that it is safe bet that a view that Jesus believed to
be foundational for the church's sexual ethics, reaching back into
creation itself, and treated by the combined apostolic witness to Christ
as such, should probably be treated for followers of Christ as
important. As for how important the issue of homosexual practice is, see
my article at
http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm for
starters.
To be sure, opposition to
homosexual practice can also be grounded well in moral reasoning and in
scientific evidence. See my discussion here for example as a beginning
point: http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf .
Of course one can't simply say, "The Bible says it," without any
recourse to considering whether the value is a core value within
Scripture, or without any recourse to reason and science.
I looked at the link
that you sent to me. I'm sorry to say that I wasn't impressed with your
argument. I think that you could read more widely on the matter of
Scripture and homosexuality, as well as generally on the question of
hermeneutics.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Brent Fulton
Sent: Friday, March 04,
2011 6:18 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: CNN article on Bible and Homosexuality
Dear
Dr. Gagnon,
Thank
you for your reply, which leads to a follow-up question: Do you advocate
for Christians to follow the directives in my List 2 "Word of Whom"?
These passages seem to fall into your category "held strongly" and some
even go into "held pervasively." If you don't advocate for them, the
most likely reason is that your and the Church's conscience are
directing you not to, because the passages are quite clear.
Best,
Brent
Fulton
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 3:29 PM
To: Brent Fulton
Subject: RE: CNN article on Bible and Homosexuality
Brent,
You mean this list?:
A1. Anyone who curses his
father or mother must be put to death (Ex. 21:17, Lev. 20:9, Mt. 15:4).
A2. If a son is rebellious
and will not obey his father and mother, then they shall take him to the
town elders and all the men of his town shall stone him to death (Dt.
21:18-21).
B1. A woman should neither
teach nor have authority over a man; for Adam was formed first, then Eve
(I Tim. 2:12-13)
B2. As in all the
congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in churches (I
Cor. 14:33-34).
B3. Wives should submit to
their husbands in everything (Eph. 5:24).
B4. If the wife comes to
rescue her husband fighting another man, and she seizes the other man by
his private parts, “you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity” (Dt.
25:11-12).
B5. If a man rapes a virgin
who is not pledged to be married, the man shall pay her father and marry
her because he violated her (Dt. 22:28).
C1. A father is permitted to
sell his daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7).
C2. A man may beat his slave
and is not to be punished if his slave gets up after a day or two, since
the slave is his property (Ex. 21:20).
C3. Slavery is permitted and
slaves should be obedient (Eph. 6:5-8, Col. 3:22-24, I Tim. 6:1-2, Tit.
2:9-10).
C'mon...
First of all you have some
laws that apply only to a theocratic state on earth in this age. These
don't apply in the new covenant, including the capital sentencing.
Jesus' treatment of the woman caught in adultery, normally a capital
offense, is a case in point. I've already noted to you that Jesus talks
about allowances to human hardness of heart in the law of Moses that no
longer apply. And I've also dealt with why the slavery analogy is a poor
analogue to the Bible's view of a male-female prerequisite for sex.
As for the New Testament
texts about women's roles, most scholars would argue (and I would
concur) that the Pastoral Epistles and Ephesians are post-Pauline,
written by a Pauline school after Paul's death and represent a
conservative regress a bit on women's roles in order to accommodate
Christianity to prevailing cultural norms.
The 1 Cor 14:33-34 text
could be a text-critical interpolation (there is displacement of these
words in some early manuscripts) but even if that is not the case (and I
tend to think it's not) it still applies in context only to the issue of
women evaluating the authenticity of prophecies. Paul himself defends
their right to prophesy in the church so it is probably not a command to
silence to be taken absolutely. There are counterbalancing texts in Paul
like his salute to numerous women co-workers in the proclamation of the
gospel (including one woman, Junia, who along with her husband appears
to be called an apostle in a big A sense) and his reference in
Philippians 4 to two women leaders of the church at Philippi, asking
them to stop fighting (not to step down from leadership). There are
certainly problems with the view of women in the Bible at points but
there are also affirmations of women (even in the OT; for example, Judge
Deborah and the prophetess Huldah). Both within the canon of Scripture
and in comparison to what's going on the ancient Near East and the
Greco-Roman milieu, there is a strong liberating dynamic for women that
justifies carrying things forward beyond the canon. But there is
absolutely nothing like with regard to Scripture's view of homosexual
practice, where the perspective is one of unremitting opposition from
Genesis to Revelation and where a male-female prerequisite is regarded
as absolutely foundational. Even the women's roles issues is a far more
distant analogue to the issue of homosexual practice then the Bible's
view on incest and polyamory.
Your arguments apply only to
inerrantists and, moreover, largely to inerrantists who see no
difference between the two covenants. This view of things certainly
doesn't apply to me. What I'm talking about are core values in the text
of Scripture, elements that are regarded as foundational.
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Brent Fulton
Sent: Friday, Monday,
March 07, 2011 1:34 AM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: CNN article on Bible and Homosexuality
Dear
Dr. Gagnon,
Thank
you for your reply. I initially wrote you because I read your article,
and then saw you were a professor. That's precisely why I decided to ask
your opinion on what I wrote, realizing you had a deeper knowledge of
the subject matter than I.
I need
to re-read some of the items you mentioned (e.g., Jesus talks about
allowances to human hardness of heart in the law of Moses that no longer
apply).
One
last point. I tend to evaluate how pride enters into a decision, as I
think it's at the core of what separates man from God. The prideful work
to glorify themselves, while the non-prideful work to glorify God.
Homosexual practice doesn't really seem to center on pride, although I
agree with you that it is condemned in the Bible.
Sincerely,
Brent
Fulton
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Monday, March 07, 2011 8:15 AM
To: Brent Fulton
Subject: RE: CNN article on Bible and Homosexuality
Thanks for your note,
Brent.
I'm not sure how pride would
factor in to any form of sexual gratification that violates the will of
God, including adult-consensual forms of incest and polyamory. It may be
reductionism to regard things as wrong only if pride is an obvious
component. On the other hand one could argue that anytime a person is
engaged in activity that God forbids it is by definition a refusal to
glorify God, a substitution of one's own will and desire for God's. Part
of the point of Rom 1:18-32 is to argue that humans sin in deliberate
suppression of the truth about God and the way God made us. As regards
homosexual practice that suppression involves the transparent
complementarity of 'male and female," anatomically, physiologically, and
psychologically, a truth in the material structures of creation
unleashed in nature that anyone who engages in same-sex intercourse must
override. To override it is tantamount to a refusal to glorify God as
God by honoring the way God made us.
Blessings,
Rob
From:
Carter _____________
Sent: Thu 3/3/2011 10:47 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Regarding the Biblical importance of homosexuality as an
issue for contemporary Christians
Dear
Professor Gagnon,
I'm not a
Biblical scholar, and therefore not really in a very good position to
evaluate the credibility of your positions or those of your critics, but
it certainly appears to be true that the Bible condemns homosexual
activity in various places. It also would obviously be contrary to the
broader understanding of identity and sexuality put forward by your
theological interpretation of Genesis (I would disagree philosophically
with the conclusion, but the interpretation itself seems plausible). But
in my view, the problem is not with what the Bible says, but rather the
selective force with which various Christian communities apply Biblical
teachings.
Homosexuality may be condemned in the Bible. But so is adultery, lying,
usury, and many other things. Paul's First Epistle to the Corinthians
condemns homosexuals, for example, but does so in same breath that he
condemns drunks, the greedy, and adulterers. There are many Biblical
provisions which are weakly applied by believers or are ignored
entirely. For example, we typically do not see evangelical congregations
railing against fraud or corporate malfeasance, nor do we see them
condemn adultery with the same furor they reserve for homosexuals. The
emphasis Jesus placed on peace, compassion, and equity seems rather out
of place in the large number of conservative-leaning Christian
communities in America, which (I am generalizing, of course) tend to be
defenders of untrammeled capitalism, gun rights, the military-industry
complex, the prison industry, and the Israeli treatment of the
Palestinians, which -- regardless of how we view the claims of the
Israelis, what they have endured as a people, or the many positive
aspects of their society -- is I think an inhumane occupation. Some
openly advocate violence against those who sin; others explicitly
advocate for the accumulation of vast material wealth.
As an
outsider to these issues (I'm neither a Christian nor a homosexual), I
find the incongruity perplexing. It appears to me that the most
outspoken congregations (again, I am generalizing -- Osteen's position,
for example, would likely be a notable exception) on the issue of gay
marriage hold some of the more conspicuously anti-Christian views in
other matters.
In any
case, I would be delighted to hear your views regarding the importance
of homosexuality as an issue for Christianity. Is it really as important
as contemporary debate makes it out to be? Why do Christians seem to
care about it so much, while caring so little about things which seem to
harm society to much greater degrees? Why is homosexuality offensive to
Christians in a way that exploitation is not?
cheers,
Carter
_________________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 8:23 AM
To: Carter _____________
Subject: RE: Regarding the Biblical importance of homosexuality
as an issue for contemporary Christians
Hi
Carter,
Thanks for the civil,
polite, and thoughtful manner in which you expressed yourself.
I think Panda Bears are
really cute. But why should they get such massive attention relative to
other species? One of the reasons, in addition to their cuteness, is
that they are high on the most endangered species list.
That's what is happening
now on the issue of a male-female prerequisite for valid sexual
relationships. There is a full-court press by groups to promote
homosexual behavior and isolate as "bigots" any who disagree. If the
same were happening over adult-committed incest, polygamy, or adultery I
would have the same response.
As for how important the issue of
homosexual practice is, see my article at
http://www.robgagnon.net/HowBadIsHomosexualPractice.htm .
See also:
http://www.robgagnon.net/articles/homosexIncestPolyAnalogy.pdf .
I don't know anyone in high
positions in the church who condones exploitation of the poor or any of
the other things that you mention. But I know of no other Christian
belief that I have that is as much of a danger to my civil liberties as
my belief that homosexual practice is sinful. See the opening paragraphs
of my article here:
http://www.robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm
I hope this helps.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Carter _________________
Sent: Saturday, March 05, 2011 3:50 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: Regarding the Biblical importance of homosexuality
as an issue for contemporary Christians
Dear Dr. Gagnon,
Thank you for your response and the links, which
were quite helpful.
On the issue of the Biblical perspective on the
sinfulness of homosexual practice, I find the arguments in your article
compelling. I don’t know why some people find this threatening. Many
ancient cultures, particularly in the Middle East, found homosexuality
to be abhorrent; that the ancient Hebrews did so, and reflected this in
their moral teachings, should not come as any surprise.
With regards to your second article (“Why Homosexual
Behavior Is More like Consensual
Incest and Polyamory than Race or Gender”), I found this
interesting, although I must admit that I believe that some of your
premises are flawed. This is not really the issue I wish to pursue here,
but because I did not find it addressed in your “Responses to
Counterarguments” section, it may be helpful to at least sketch it:
A central premise of your paper is that “[r]ace and
gender are 100% heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily
non-behavioral conditions of life”. I think a lot of people,
particularly in psychology and the social sciences, would take issue
with that claim. Race in particular is problematic, as the social
concept of race does not neatly refer to discete phenotypic traits in
human genetics, but refers more centrally to appearance and ethnicity,
both of which are fuzzy indicators that are in some sense mutable,
depending on the case (e.g., “passing”, plastic surgery, etc.), having
quite a lot more to do with upbringing, culture, identity, and
perception than anything lurking in the human genome. The same case can
(and is frequently) made for gender -- that is, that gender is as much a
psychological and social role as it is a configuration of organs and
hormones, which themselves have become somewhat mutable given modern
medicine. I’m not at all well-versed in the literature of this field,
and I’m not really certain how I’d regard their claims myself, but
likely any scholarly treatment of the subject will find itself obligated
to address the point.
The more interesting issue, I think, is the belief that
federal protection for homosexuals represents a threat to the
institution of marriage and civil liberty. I’ve read your article here
(“Obama’s Coming War...”), and the first thing that strikes me about
your list of persecutory actions is that many of them are a negative
consequence (for a certain group) of some other right granted to gays
and lesbians. For example, terminating a hiring manager for
discriminating against homosexual job applicants is simultaneously an
act which infringes upon the rights of the manager (to discriminate),
while protecting the rights of homosexuals (to not be discriminated
against). Of course, this is rather different than the cases you cite in
your article regarding workplace discrimination -- which (with the
exception of the last) seem, to me, more about the fickle,
over-sensitive, and above all litigation/controversy-averse climate
which seems to prevail in much of academia, which I agree is unfair. The
last case (Irmo High) is the only one I would defend. The principal was
obligated to follow the law -- a law which, I will add, applies to all
student groups meeting for lawful reasons and interests. He chose to
resign rather than follow that law (which is his right). Anyway, I don’t
think there’s anything particularly scary about that last case.
Now, some of what you point to here I think refers to
legitimate First Amendment issues. The recent Westboro ruling in the
Supreme Court, however, should be an indicator that the United States’
view of free speech is much stronger than what is found in Europe, the
UK, and even Canada. It is also telling that it was an 8-1 decision, and
the one dissent came from a conservative judge. This means that the
“liberal”/”activist” members of the Court, including Obama’s appointee,
unanimously confirmed to protect the right of anti-gay activists to
protest at military funerals (a particularly mean-spirited and
unsympathetic form of presenting the issue, to say the least). Of
course, this doesn’t mean that Christians (as well as everyone else)
won’t have to remain vigilant in protecting our First Amendment rights,
only that I don’t think there is much reason to think that one’s ability
to rail against sinners (or anything else) in public will ever be that
limited.
I suppose what this comes down to is what one considers
to be a “civil liberty”. We might understand the term in both a legal
and moral sense. Legal civil liberties refer to the ones we have under
the current law. Moral civil liberties refer to the rights we think we
ought to have under the law. Personally, I think we should have a much
greater degree of control over where our tax money goes, which is one of
the issues you bring up in your article. As it stands, I am forced to
subsidize unjust foreign wars, an unjust prison system, and yes, were I
to be consistent with your interpretation of federal grants and tax
exemptions, I’m paying for a government which subsidizes religious
institutions. As far as I’m concerned, I should be permitted to withhold
my portion of that funding from morally objectionable projects, and so
should you -- even if we both disagree about what that means.
Unfortunately, under the system we have, we are both forced to pay for
things which offend the conscience. I’ll note the same is true for
education. Your children may be forced to learn that homosexuality is
“natural”. My children may be forced to learn that creationism is
“science”. So long as public education is a one-size-fits-all affair,
we’ll both have to hold our noses. For better or worse, that’s how a
federalist system works.
Another issue here is whether or not we can prohibit
equal protection, or the recognition of any other right, because of
other reasons which may or may not be legitimately negative (e.g., a
suppression of First Amendment rights). I don’t think this is really the
argument you’re making, but I’m not entirely sure; so to be clear, I
don’t think we can. That is to say: we can’t decline to provide equal
legal protection to homosexuals because, elsewhere in the legal system,
the First Amendment is being abused in their name, or because academia
elects to be oversensitive to these issues, or because the President’s
support of pro-gay groups. Equal protection has to be provided on the
merits of justice; by the same token, it should only be declined for
reasons of justice, not because we fear that it might cause abuses
elsewhere.
Personally, when it comes to what we fear, I’m much more
anxious about public policy being guided by Scripture than I am about
allowing homosexuals the right to marry. I certainly don’t feel that my
marriage is threatened by it. If anything, I’m sad that the committed
homosexual couples I do know are unable to do the same thing, and that
my own secular marriage has been, in some sense, hijacked by religious
overtones that I don’t want anything to do with. By restricting the
legal right to marry for religious reasons, secular marriages have by
default become religious, and as the citizen of a supposedly secular
state, I feel like I should have the right to a secular marriage. If
people wish to continue to get married in churches, they should do so.
They are, after all, not prohibited from adding whatever additional
meaning they wish to the union, including taking pride in the fact that,
at least for that domination or congregation, a similar service would be
denied a homosexual couple. I can’t imagine taking pride in that myself,
but I’m comfortable defending that right if someone else does. I just
don’t see why those rights have to be denied to others on a public,
federal level in order for marriage to be more meaningful. After all, it
seems unlikely to me that Christians really find the legal act of
marriage to be the meaningful part. I should think that a devout
Christian ought not to be concerned with his pact with the state. He
should be concerned, I would think, with his pact with God and,
secondarily, to his wife, with a legal union being more of an
institutionalized formality taken for prudential reasons.
Anyway, that
was a bit longer than I intended; I’m sure you’re quite busy, but as
always, I’d be quite interested in hearing your views on these different
matters.
Sincerely,
Carter
_________________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 3:34 PM
To: 'Carter __________________
Subject: RE: Regarding the Biblical importance of homosexuality
as an issue for contemporary Christians
Dear Carter,
Thank you again for another thoughtful
and civil response. Let me see if I can take your observations point by
point.
-
You point is well taken that the
concept of “race” as it has developed over the centuries certainly
merges plastic cultural forces. But I don’t think the observation
affects my overall point. A person of black African ancestry or of
oriental Chinese or Japanese ancestry or of Native American or
Siberian ancestry or of white European ancestry will certainly pass on
immutable markers of their race that are primarily non-behavioral. And
even if cultural constructions of what constitutes a person of
French(-Canadian) ancestry may be rather fuzzy, whatever we want to
call my “racial” inheritance (the configuration of markers of
ancestry) will certainly be passed on to my children and will be
immutable (plastic surgery would be at best only a superficial
change). My wife is a mixture of mostly African, partly Chinese, and
only a smattering of white European. Our children are a combination of
the “racial” inheritance of their parents: part white European, part
black African, and part Oriental. It was impossible for them to be
born without this combination. There is no way we could have produced
(no would we have wanted to produce!) children without these racial
inheritances. They are a part of our children’s lives that are 100%
heritable, absolutely immutable, and primarily non-behavioral.
Something similar can be said for sex or gender. Yes, “gender” is
generally treated now as the social constructs placed on sex and there
is a very tiny percentage of the population known as the “intersexed”
(for a discussion of the relevance of these at
http://www.robgagnon.net/JenniferWrightKnustBlunders.htm).
But the fact that remains that a particular combination of chromosomes
contributed by parents will result in a given sex. Surgery for
“transsexuals” doesn’t change the configuration of chromosomes in the
individual so that even surgically redoing the “plumbing” doesn’t
really change the person’s sex. Being a chromosomal woman or man is
not analogous to acting out a desire for sexual intercourse with
another who is a non-complementary same in terms of sex (male for
male, female for female). It is not a structurally discordant act nor
even a desire to engage in structurally discordant acts. A polyamorous
orientation, however, or even a sexual desire for a close kin, is a
much closer analogue than a person’s sex or gender.
-
My point in the Obama article to which
I referred you is that persons who find homosexual practice to be
immoral should not support so-called “gay rights” because to do so
will put themselves in legal jeopardy at various points. Since you
regard marriage of persons of the same sex as a “right” and appear in
general to support homosexual activity these infringements of the
rights of those who believe homosexual practice to be immoral will be
of no concern to you. My argument is not designed to persuade persons
with your viewpoint, except that you asked why Christians should be
concerned about the advance of “gay rights” and I gave you multiple
examples why. The case that you dismiss as “not … particularly scary”
of the principal who choose to resign rather than promote GLBT clubs
still makes my point. Yes, he is “obligated to follow the law” but my
point is that there shouldn’t have been a law in the first place that
would force principals to allow such clubs for immorality on high
school campuses (any more than a principal should be forced to allow
high school clubs centered around polyamory or incest, were there to
be laws promoting such behavior). So my point to Christians is: Don’t
support the agendas of politicians who want to promote such laws.
-
The Westboro ruling was a helpful
correct ruling guarding free speech rights. But two caveats from my
perspective: First, there is certainly no guarantee that such a ruling
(even though 8-1) will not be changed by a future Supreme Court. After
all, sodomy laws were nearly universally upheld until the past few
decades and by wide margins. But in 2003 the Supreme Court reversed a
ruling that it made 17 years earlier in Lawrence v. Texas. Remember
that the plaintiff against the Phelps family originally won but lost
at the Appeals Court level and finally at the Supreme Court level.
There are certainly legal experts in the country today who think the
Supreme Court got it wrong (even among more conservative persons,
Alito being just the first example). So to say that a different
Supreme Court 15 years from now couldn’t arrive at a different verdict
is obviously erroneous, particularly given the fact that “gay rights”
will increasingly trump other civil liberties. Second, the Westboro
case does not prevent other infringement of civil liberties that are
already going on, from forced indoctrination of children in the public
schools to forcing the providing of goods and services that promote
homosexual acts to terminating the employment of people in both
academia and the white collar world who express verbally their belief
that homosexual practice is immoral.
-
While it is true that we all find
ourselves compelled to pay for things that we find offensive I don’t
think you made a comparable case for the things that offend you. You
can disagree with the US prosecution of wars or an unjust prison
system or the teaching that creationism is science (which is taught
almost nowhere nowadays) but your tax paying dollars don’t promote the
view that you are the equivalent of a racist for holding the views
that you do. They don’t put your employment in jeopardy.
-
Your
question about whether equal protection under the law can be
prohibited begs the question of what constitutes equal protection
under the law. I believe that I have shown (at least to my
satisfaction but apparently not to yours!) that “equal protection” no
more establishes “gay marriage” than it does marriage between 3 or
more persons concurrently or marriage between close kin. Nor does
equal protection require the support of what society regards as
immoral, a point that one can make with many examples. No school can
(concurrently at least) compel the official recognition of a
“polyamory awareness group.” Nor can proponents of incest force a
printer to print posters for a group that promotes incest. Probably
too most companies could fire workers (or at least not promote to
execute positions) workers known to engage actively in prostitution,
polygamy, or adult-consensual incest. You may say: But that is because
these sexual behaviors may violate the law. My point exactly. This is
a battle over what gets protected in the law as a “civil liberty.”
-
Obviously you and I disagree over what we fear as regards developments
in law. You also misconstrue my case as solely religious. As I noted
to you, when I present an argument as to why the state shouldn’t
promote homosexual practice I restrict myself to arguments from
philosophic reason and science. So it’s not about foisting “religious”
views, any more than restricting marriage to two persons concurrently
or rejecting incestuous bonds is about foisting religion. Supporting
homosexual practice supports behavior that dishonors the participants,
increases the behavior in question (and, I believe, even the incidence
of homosexuality itself) and thus the disproportionately high rates of
measurable harm that attend such behavior, and relegates opponents of
such behavior to the status of bigots, with all the attenuation of
civil liberties that then follow. So your point about not feeling your
marriage to be threatened wouldn’t be a point that I share. By your
own reasoning you could and should say the same about polygamous
bonds: Why not grant marriage licenses to 3+ unions? “I certainly
don’t feel that my marriage is threatened by it.”
Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Blessings,
Dr. Gagnon
From: Emily
_________________
Sent: Fri 3/4/2011 1:58 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Greetings
I hope you are well. I was viscerally disturbed
by some of your rhetoric in your recent artilce on CNN, "The bible
really does condemn homosexuality". I read this article yesterday
and, although you may never read this or truly hear my message, I
feel compelled to share my thoughts with you. In an attempt to
demonstrate that man-woman sexual intercourse is the only natural
and God-given arrangement, you unabashadly characterize women
as subhuman entities:
"It’s true that Genesis presents the first
human (Hebrew adam, from adamah, ground: “earthling”) as
originally sexually undifferentiated. But what Knust misses is
that once something is “taken from” the human to form a woman,
the human, now differentiated as a man, finds his
sexual other half in that missing element, a woman."
You give men sole claim to humanness and define
women as missing sexual "elements". This is hate speech. Rarely do
I see someone make such a clear claim that women are not truly
humans, but "things/elements" whose purpose is to satisfy true
human's (men's) sexual needs. This attitude has, unfortunately,
been co-opted by secular society and fuels pornography, rape, the
sexualization of young girls, the prizing of appearance over
character, etc. As a theologian and scholar of a loving religion,
you can do better.
Sincerely,
Emily _________________
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 2:15 PM
To: Emily ________________
Subject: RE: Greetings
Emily,
Hate speech? Really,
with all due respect, that's a ridiculous assertion on your part.
Did you catch my
point: two other halves? What does "other half" connote to you? To me it
connotes equality. If a man is human and a woman is his sexual "other
half" how could she be subhuman?
I phrased things the way
I did because that is exactly how Genesis 2 phrases it as the whole
context for my remark makes clear ("It is true that Genesis
presents...").
My point was not
that women are "things/elements whose purpose is to satisfy true human's
(men's) sexual needs." My point, as I made clear in the context, was
that a woman is a man's sexual counterpart or complement. Obviously,
then, the reverse can be said: a man is a woman's other half, the
missing sexual "element" so far as gender or sex is concerned. Or have I
just made men subhuman? Neither a woman or a man has to be in a sexual
relationship. But if a person it is, it must be with a true sexual
complement, with someone who is the one sex or gender that one is not.
Please don't
be so quick to jump to the worst possible conclusions. Charging someone
with "hate speech" is a strong charge. If you knew
my work you would see that I promote an egalitarian vision of women's
worth and roles.
Dr. Gagnon
From:
Emily _________________
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:18 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Greetings
Dear
Dr. Gagnon,
I am
genuinely grateful that you chose to respond. You were easily able to
pinpoint the weakness in my argument (the hate speech characterization)
and I apologize for the ad hominem attack. Admittedly, I wrote that
email for me and others who share my worldview. I can easily find a
perspective in which labeling your words as “hate speech” is, well,
“ridiculous”.
The
point of your piece was to demonstrate how God intended sexual
relationships. Therefore, you were bound by the original language of the
Bible. My grievance is that these original writings appear to have
produced a religion that conceives of women as the second sex (to borrow
de Beauvoir’s language). Despite the fact that the language could have
been reversed in the quotation I submitted, the word choice was
purposeful and has ontological implications. In your text, it appears
that men seamlessly transitioned from sexually undifferentiated humans
to humans, whereas women are a special kind, created to complement this
prototypical human (Adam?). In other writings, you make your position
clear that women embody qualities of God absent in men and that humans,
as a group, more closely reflect God's nature than men or man.
I do
not doubt that a careful reading of the scripture for culturally
relevant meaning naturally results in an egalitarian philosophy. My
point is that literalism and androcentrism can result in restricted
roles for women and a narrow understanding of the feminine—as evidenced
by the litany of concerns I addressed in my last message. Analogously,
my literal reading of your work obscured a more holistic and “true” view
of you, the person.
Thank
you, sincerely, for your time,
Emily
From: Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:55 AM
To: Emily ___________________
Subject: RE: Greetings
Thank you for your response,
Emily, which I read with interest.
Dr. Gagnon