Slavery, Homosexuality, and
the Bible, Part II
By Robert
A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
In
his response to
my critique of
his Presbyweb Viewpoint article, Rev. Krehbiel seems to miss the
point—over and over again.
1. Bad reasoning. Rev.
Krehbiel operates with a very bad syllogism:
Major
Premise: Any appeals to Scripture that bear some resemblances,
in broad strokes, to antebellum, pro-slavery appeals to
Scripture are invalid.
Minor
Premise: Contemporary anti-homosex appeals to Scripture bear
some resemblances, in broad strokes, to antebellum,
pro-slavery appeals.
Conclusion: Contemporary anti-homosex appeals to Scripture are
invalid.
The problem here is that the
major premise is absurd, for two key reasons. First, it takes no
account of what Scripture actually says. It leaves unquestioned
whether antebellum pro-slavery appeals have the same accuracy as
contemporary pro-complementarity or anti-homosex appeals. In short, it
treats as functional equivalents both inaccurate applications readings of
Scripture and accurate applications of Scripture. Second, it takes no
account of the fact that sexual behaviors that Rev. Krehbiel apparently
does not want promoted—incest, polygamy, prostitution, and
pedophilia—could be validated by the same major premise. One need only
contend that arguments against such sexual behaviors use biblical texts to
unjustly smear “sexual minorities.” Indeed, a number of pro-monogamy
appeals to Scripture in the mid-to-late nineteenth century, in reaction to
Mormon polygamy, resemble pro-slavery arguments. Are these arguments
invalid? Then, too, if one pushed it, we could probably find some
resemblances between contemporary anti-homosex appeals to Scripture and
antebellum anti-slavery appeals to Scripture. Would that validate
contemporary anti-homosex appeals?
Rev. Krehbiel’s own arguments
are quite similar to a number of pro-polygamy arguments made in the
nineteenth century. It is a tad inconsistent that he doesn’t like that
being pointed out, but he does like to peddle far more remote connections
between antebellum pro-slavery appeals and contemporary
pro-complementarity appeals.
Rev. Krehbiel would like to get
away from a discussion of what Scripture actually says about
slavery and same-sex intercourse. But doing so is a false step and, in the
end, makes impossible any responsible exegetical and hermeneutical
appeals to Scripture.
2. Scriptural mandate.
As stated in my first response, Scripture itself does not provide the kind
of clear and unequivocal witness for slavery that it exhibits
against same-sex intercourse. Therefore, the former does not make a
good analogy to the latter.
In other words, Scripture
nowhere expresses a vested interest or mandate in preserving
slavery, whereas Scripture does express a clear countercultural and
creational vested interest in preserving an exclusive male-female
dynamic to human sexual relationships. Ergo, biblical authority is not at
stake in the former but it is very much at stake in the latter.
An emancipation movement would
not have appalled Jesus and Paul but acts of same-sex intercourse would
have done just that. There is much to suggest that Jesus and Paul would
have condoned an emancipation movement, though they might have questioned:
(a) how it could be accomplished without massive violence (they did not
live in democratic states and lacked political power); (b) how some
particularly destitute persons would survive (they did not live in welfare
states so some people might face starvation); and (c) how the disciples of
Jesus would survive if it made emancipation a cornerstone (they would
confirm for authorities suspicions that Christian faith was a seditious
threat to the Roman Empire).
If Rev. Krehbiel cannot see a
difference here that is so significant as to make any analogizing between
slavery and same-sex intercourse unworkable, then I fear that we are past
the point of reasonable discussion. Rev. Krehbiel’s stance on same-sex
intercourse represents a fundamental challenge to the authority of
Scripture and Jesus that far supersedes any challenge posed by
emancipation movements. It is a challenge to Scripture’s core values.
3. The Bible’s “trajectory” of
critique. Although Rev. Krehbiel states that “the Bible fails to
condemn” slavery, Scripture does in fact, at a number of points, show a
decidedly critical edge to the institution of slavery and regard
freedom from slavery as at least a penultimate good. I briefly
mentioned some specifics in my first response to Rev. Krehbiel but a far
more detailed discussion is available in The Bible and Homosexual
Practice (see “Excursus: The Biblical View of Slavery,” pp. 443-52).
Rev. Krehbiel does not like my
phrase “trajectory of critique” because, he believes, there is no
linear progression in the critique. Actually, there are lines of
development at particular points, though of course there are regressions
at others. Whether one is justified in seeing a trajectory in the
historical evidence may lie in the eye of the beholder. At any rate, it is
immaterial to my main point that the Bible often exhibits a critical
posture toward slavery, and indeed of a form of slavery that in many ways
was much less pernicious than the slavery of the antebellum American
South.
In order for the Bible’s stance
on slavery to be a good analogy to the Bible’s stance on same-sex
intercourse, Rev. Krehbiel would need to demonstrate that Scripture shows
serious reservations about prohibiting same-sex intercourse. But he
does not demonstrate this, nor can he. There is not a single
statement anywhere in Scripture—or in early Judaism—that so much as hints
that a homoerotic act of any sort might be acceptable.
For the authors of Scripture and
for Jesus, slavery was at most a sometimes unavoidable penultimate evil,
given the political, social, and economic realities of the ancient
world—for example, as an alternative to starvation. In order for
Scripture’s view on same-sex intercourse to be analogous, even in a remote
sense, one would have to demonstrate that the Bible’s other-sex
prerequisite for sexual unions was actually just a preferred good.
However, no one who knows the ancient Jewish and early Christian evidence
could reasonably argue that Jews and Christians merely hoped that sexual
intercourse would involve other-sex persons. That’s like arguing that Paul
viewed not having sex with one’s mother as a mere preferred good (cf. 1
Cor 5).
4. Countercultural witness.
Along the same lines, Rev. Krehbiel ignores completely the fact that
the Bible’s countercultural witness works in opposite directions as
regards slavery and same-sex intercourse. I can see why he ignores it. As
regards slavery, the Bible looks fairly liberating in relation to the
ancient norm. As regards same-sex intercourse, the Bible moves in the
direction of more, not less, rigorous opposition. This renders improbable
the notion that the writers of Scripture got their stance on same-sex
intercourse wrong because they were naively imbibing at the cultural
well.
5. Degrees of cultural
difference. What the authors of Scripture, and Jesus, meant by
“slavery” is something significantly different from what we Americans
normally mean by slavery. Slavery in the ancient world was not
predominantly race-based, often did not mean lifelong servitude, often
served as a form of criminal justice (in the absence of long-term prison
facilities), often allowed private enterprise, sometimes led to social
advancement, and operated in a social and political economy that made
complete abolition of the institution problematic (totalitarian states
that disallowed political reform; no welfare net). These differences are
well documented and help to mitigate somewhat the problem of different
stances toward the institution of slavery held by ancient and modern
believers.
Now Rev. Krehbiel continues to
insist that homoerotic relationships in antiquity were so different from
modern manifestations as to make it impossible to assert that the biblical
authors would have been opposed to committed homosexual unions. Of course,
that is easy to assert but not so easy to demonstrate. For Rev. Krehbiel
and others must demonstrate not only that the authors of Scripture were
unaware of committed homoerotic unions but also that the authors of
Scripture rejected same-sex intercourse precisely and solely because of a
lack of loving commitment exhibited by them. As it is, Rev. Krehbiel has
not, and cannot, demonstrate either point.
6. Jack Rogers the “better
exegete”? In fact, Rev. Krehbiel declines to offer the proof for
these critical matters, instead referring readers to “better exegetes than
I,” specifically to
Jack Rogers’ recent essay posted at
the Covenant Network website. But Rogers’ treatment of
Scripture’s stance on homosexual practice is entirely without merit.
I have already thoroughly debunked his
remarks about my nature argument made in his 2001 Covenant
Network presentation. In this more recent presentation Rogers tells us how
Scripture itself convinced him that Paul was not indicting committed
homosexual unions. According to Rogers, Paul in Romans 1:24-27 and 1 Cor
6:9 (and, presumably, 1 Tim 1:10) had in mind the kind of massive temple
prostitution (allegedly) going on in the temple of Aphrodite at Corinth in
Paul’s day; that, consequently, Paul was talking only about “idolatrous
people engaged in prostitution.” No serious biblical scholar, even
pro-homosex biblical scholar, argues this point—not Nissinen, not Brooten,
not Fredrickson, Schoedel, Bird, etc. There are many reasons why this view
has not found a welcome in serious biblical scholarship. I came up with
fifteen reasons yesterday afternoon without trying to be exhaustive. I
will soon make them available in a piece tentatively entitled “A Bad
Reason to Change One’s Mind: Jack Rogers and the Temple Prostitution
Argument.” They include such points as:
-
The consensus of historians that there was no massive
temple prostitution, let alone homosexual cult prostitution, going on at
the temple of Aphrodite in the Corinth of Paul’s day.
-
The mention of lesbian intercourse in Romans 1:26,
which in the ancient world was not conducted in the context of cult
prostitution.
-
The fact that Paul’s language in Romans 1:24-27
speaks about mutual gratification and mutual judgment, female with
female and male with male, and says nothing about exploiters and persons
being exploited.
-
The intertextual echoes to Gen 1:26-27 and Gen 2:24
that underlie the critiques of same-sex intercourse in Rom 1:24-27 and 1
Cor 6:9 respectively.
-
The fact that none of the other vices enumerated in
Romans 1:29-31 are dependent on idolatry.
-
The parallel between idolatry as an act against
creation and same-sex intercourse as an act against nature in
Rom 1:19-23 and 1:24-27 respectively.
-
The distinction in 1 Cor 6:9 between idolatry and
same-sex intercourse, as well as the comparable case of incest treated
in 1 Cor 5-6.
-
The fact that the expression “contrary to nature,” as
applied by other ancient writers to same-sex intercourse, never includes
a primary indictment of cult prostitution.
-
Early Jewish critiques of same-sex intercourse, which
always focus on the compromise of gender integrity, not issues of
idolatry or prostitution.
-
The link between 1 Cor 6:9 and the absolute
prohibitions in Leviticus, where the latter too are not restricted to
temple prostitution.
-
The meaning of “soft men” (malakoi) in ancient
usage, which is nowhere tied closely to matters of cult prostitution.
I even have an argument against
same-sex intercourse purportedly made by a Corinthian, in which temple
prostitution is not at issue (see below). Rogers’ views would be laughable
if they didn’t have such tragic potential for leading uninformed readers
seriously astray. In short, if Rev. Krehbiel thinks Jack Rogers is a
“better exegete” than himself, then this is a telling thought indeed.
7. The issue of committed
homosexual relationships in antiquity. Many of the arguments cited
in bullets above can be employed to critique Rev. Krehbiel’s general
position that the biblical authors did not have in view—indeed, could not
conceive of—the notion of committed homoerotic unions. Rev. Krehbiel
claims that he has read and understood my arguments but finds them
unconvincing. Shoving off the reasons why to others who do not in fact
rebut my case is a poor defense. Let him tell us what specifically he
finds unconvincing about my arguments.
On the question of whether the
ancient world could conceive of committed homoerotic unions, how about the
remarks by Aristophanes in Plato’s Symposium that the most noble
love is male-male love and especially in circumstances where “they
continue with one another throughout life. . . . desiring to join together
and to be fused into a single entity . . . and to become one person from
two”?
Or how about Callicratidas’s
remarks in the pseudo-Lucianic Affairs of the Heart, which allude
to “reciprocal expressions of love” between the lover and beloved to a
point where “it is difficult to perceive which of the two is a lover of
which, as though from a mirror. . . . Why then do you reproach it . . .
when it was ordained by divine laws and has come down to us from
succession? And having received it gladly, we cherish it with pure
thoughts as though caretakers of its temple.” I could go on but what’s the
point? Rev. Krehbiel has no arguments to refute this.
As none other than John Boswell
has said:
If the
difficulties of historical research about intolerance of gay people
could be resolved by simply avoiding anachronistic projections of modern
myths and stereotypes, the task would be far simpler than it is.
Unfortunately, an equally distorting and even more seductive danger
for the historian is posed by the tendency to exaggerate the
differences between homosexuality in previous societies and modern ones.
One example of this tendency is the common idea that gay relationships
in the ancient world differed from their modern counterparts in that
they always involved persons of different ages. . . . (Christianity,
Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality, 27; my emphasis)
Rev. Krehbiel claims that it is
“eisegesis” to contend that biblical writers rejected same-sex intercourse
because of its “same-sexness”; that is, because of an erotic desire to
merge what one already is as a sexual being. I say to Rev. Krehbiel, prove
it. In my own defense I can marshal a number of pieces of evidence. For
example, consider these four points for starters:
-
Genesis 2:18-24 clearly precludes homoerotic
relationships of any sort. Sex is about merging, or more precisely
“re-merging,” with one’s sexual other half. That is what the story of
the splitting of the originally undifferentiated adam (“human”)
communicates. The only difference created by the splitting is a
separation of the sexes. Hence, the only possible way of reconstituting
a sexual whole is to involve male and female, man and woman. Perhaps
Rev. Krehbiel would want to argue that the ancients could not think that
way. Oh, but they could—see again Aristophanes’ story in Plato’s
Symposium about Zeus splitting three originally binary humans down
the middle (male-male, female-female, male-female). Certainly, too,
Paul’s intertextual echoes to the creation texts in Romans 1 and 1
Corinthians 6, which proscribe same-sex intercourse, make clear that
this is how Paul understood the matter. A male is not another male’s
sexual other half, nor a female another female’s. Rev. Krehbiel contends
that the creation account makes the sex of the participants
non-essential and only the expression of mutual self-giving as
essential. But that is manifestly false. What is missing from the male
is essential femaleness, not additional maleness. And for the authors of
Scripture a sexual relationship is never just about mutual self-giving.
If it were, then we should have sex with multiple partners and with our
parents and siblings. Sex is about merger and merger has to do first and
foremost with structural complementarity, a matter that must be settled
before one considers such things as degree of commitment and reciprocal
affection.
-
Not a single Jew and not a single critic of same-sex
intercourse among Greco-Roman moralists ever focus on the absence of
love or commitment as the main problem with same-sex intercourse.
I challenge Rev. Krehbiel to come up with a single piece of evidence to
the contrary. If ancient critics of same-sex intercourse did not
criticize it primarily for the absence of committed love, then how could
its presence in some modern homosexual relationships—to say nothing of
some ancient homosexual relationships—have made any difference to their
critique?
-
The prohibitions as expressed in Leviticus, Paul, and
many early Jewish writers (e.g., Philo, Josephus) are expressed
absolutely. No exceptions. And, unlike in the “pagan” Greco-Roman
milieu, there are absolutely no cases of homoerotic relationships ever
cited in Jewish literature in the Second Temple period. None. This is
amazing considering the high incidence of multiple forms of homosexual
practice in the ancient Near East and in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean
basin. The reason for this absence of incidence can only be explained by
the fact that homoerotic practice of any sort was so strongly proscribed
and abhorred that committing it was out of the question. What Rev.
Krehbiel, Jack Rogers, and others would have us believe is that if two
adult men had come up to Paul—or to the writers of Leviticus 18 and 20,
or to Philo, or to Josephus, etc.—and said, “Hey, we want to be in a
committed, long-term sexual relationship,” the response would have been:
“Now that is a kind of male-male sexual union that I would be willing to
accept.” This is historical nonsense. I urge Rev. Krehbiel to read, for
starters, my seven-point argument for why the terms malakoi
(effeminate males who play the sexual role of females) and
arsenokoitai (men who lie with males) are correctly understood in
our contemporary context when they are applied to every conceivable type
of same-sex intercourse (The Bible and Homosexual Practice,
325-30). And not just read it but tell me where my arguments, all seven
of them, are flat wrong. Even Walter Wink has had to admit, based on my
arguments here, that “Paul wouldn’t accept [an adult, committed
homoerotic union] for a minute.”
-
In the pseudo-Lucianic Affairs of the Heart, a
Corinthian—of all persons—makes a case against all forms of same-sex
intercourse, committed or otherwise, by arguing something similar to
what I claim the authors of Scripture found offensive about same-sex
intercourse and which Rev. Krehbiel declares to be eisegesis. Charicles
contends that men who engage in sex with other males “transgress the
laws of nature” by looking “with the eyes at the male as (though) at a
female. . . . One nature came together in one bed. But seeing
themselves in one another they were ashamed neither of what they
were doing nor of what they were having done to them.” What does this
critique have to do with temple prostitution? Or lack of commitment and
love? Absolutely nothing. The issue is that of males finding sexual
completion in other males, in effect, erotic desire for what they
already are, “seeing themselves in one another.”
The above makes clear that the
eisegesis lies not with my analysis but with the analysis of Rev. Krehbiel.
8. On sexual orientation in
antiquity. Further confirmation for the fact that Rev. Krehbiel
has either not read or not understood my book is the following comment:
“No one is arguing that ancient people understood sexual orientation as
something rooted in a person’s being.” Obviously, Rev. Krehbiel has not
read pp. 380-95 where I argue something akin to what Rev. Krehbiel claims
no one is arguing. I now have a more extensive discussion of orientation
theory in antiquity and why modern theories would not have made any
difference to Paul’s critique: “Does the Bible Regard Same-Sex Intercourse
as Intrinsically Sinful?” in Christian Sexuality: Normative and
Pastoral Principles (ed. R. Saltzman; Kirk House, 2003), 106-55
(discussion of orientation on pp. 140-52). Even Bernadette Brooten, a New
Testament scholar who is also a self-professed lesbian, contends: “Paul
could have believed that . . . sexually unorthodox persons were born that
way and yet still condemn them as unnatural and shameful. . . . I see Paul
as condemning all forms of homoeroticism” (Love Between Women,
244).
Of course, too, the attempt to
see a “sexual orientation” as equivalent to the benign and 100% immutable,
genetic characteristic of race or ethnicity is completely bogus. Even the
Kinsey Institute has recognized that the vast majority of self-identified
homosexuals make one or more shifts along the 6-point Kinsey spectrum at
some point of life. Homoerotic desire is more akin to a predisposition to
pedophilia, ephebophilia, or alcoholism than it is to ethnicity, at least
in terms of development and susceptibility to micro- and marcocultural
influences.
Rev. Krehbiel excoriates nature
arguments and then appeals to (inaccurate) theories about homosexuals
being born homosexual and having an immutable, natural sexual orientation.
Doesn’t he realize the gross inconsistency?
9. On outdated purity codes.
Rev. Krehbiel bases his “biblical” argument for supporting committed
homoerotic relationships on Jesus’ resistance to purity codes. Strange,
though, that neither Jesus nor Paul (nor any other early Christian leader)
ever interpreted the commands against male-male intercourse as antiquated
purity legislation. Indeed, scholars of Levitical legislation—including
David P. Wright, Jacob Milgrom, and Jonathan Klawans (see the latter’s
recent book, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism [Oxford University
Press, 2000])—argue that the legislation in Leviticus 18 and 20 address
matters of moral impurity rather than purely ritual impurity. The
prohibition of male-male intercourse in Lev 18:22 and 20:13 bears none of
the characteristic features of legislation defining ritual, non-moral
purity. For further discussion see pp. 22-28 (“Ritual Impurity and Moral
Impurity Once More”) of my online rejoinder to Dan Via (pdf
or
html).
10. On making good analogies
and the case of adult incest. Unfortunately, Rev. Krehbiel never
stops to consider what constitutes a good analogy and what constitutes a
bad analogy. It’s really quite simple. A good analogy has many key
elements of correspondence with the thing being compared. It would be nice
if Rev. Krehbiel listed all the points of correspondence—not between
slavery arguments as badly used by pro-slavery forces in antebellum
America and anti-homosex arguments employed today but rather between the
Bible’s own view of slavery and the Bible’s own view of same-sex
intercourse. I guarantee that it will be a very short list.
Since Rev. Krehbiel likes analogies so much, it is interesting that he
chooses to ignore the analogy between the Bible’s view of incest and the
Bible’s view of same-sex intercourse. Clearly, the best analogies are
those that most closely correlate with the distinctive elements of the
Bible’s opposition to same-sex intercourse: consensual sexual behaviors
that are pervasively, absolutely, and severely proscribed in both
Testaments of Scripture, at least implicitly. Scripture’s stance on incest
is a particularly good analogy to its stance on same-sex intercourse. Both
incestuous relationships and homosexual relationships are: (1) regarded by
authors of Scripture with similar revulsion as extreme instances of sexual
immorality; (2) capable of being conducted in the context of adult,
consensual, long-term monogamous relationships; (3) wrong partly on the
assumption that they both involve two people who are too much alike; and
(4) wrong partly because of the disproportionately high incidence of
scientifically measurable, ancillary problems arising from many such
relationships. For further discussion, see my Homosexuality and the
Bible: Two Views, 48-50; or consult
my review essay of Homosexuality,
Science, and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture, part 1, pp.
191-95).
Rev. Krehbiel rejects what he
calls my “slippery slope” argument regarding the analogy to adult incest.
But it is more than a “slippery slope” argument—one can always pray that
people won’t draw the logical conclusions from their arguments for
committed, adult homosexual unions. My point is that, if Rev. Krehbiel is
inclined to argue from analogies, the analogy of the Bible’s stand on,
say, man-mother intercourse, is far closer to the Bible’s stand on
homoerotic relationships than is slavery. By what rationale does Rev.
Krehbiel choose the poorer analogy over the better one?
Rev. Krehbiel also claims, as
regards my comparisons with incest and polygamy, that there are “clear
distinctions between the nature of each of these relationships.” Well, of
course there are distinctions. If there were no distinctions we would no
longer be discussing analogies but the same entity. The issue is that the
very same arguments that Rev. Krehbiel employs for substantiating
homoerotic relationships—the unions can be consensual and committed,
people who engage in them are ostracized, scientifically measurable harm
does not accrue to the participants in all circumstances—can also be used
to validate adult incestuous and polygamous unions. So I ask Rev. Krehbiel:
What is so bad about these unions that you feel compelled to proscribe
them absolutely but not committed homoerotic relationships? Could it be
that some consensual and committed relationships are structurally
incompatible or unnatural in some way that we should preclude all of
them?
Rev. Krehbiel cites a 21-year
gay relationship that he knows of. So what? I have never denied in any of
my writings that such relationships can occur. But, as I noted in my first
response, even pro-homosex researchers recognize that the overwhelming
majority of male homosexual relationships will not be monogamous and
long-term (to say nothing of lifelong). In the end, the church will have
to validate the norm for the sake of the tiny exception—as both J. Michael
Bailey and Marvin Ellison (cited in my first response to Krehbiel) have
acknowledged. Even more importantly, a long-term monogamous relationship
no more validates a homoerotic union than it does an incestuous one. We
don’t want the relationship to be long-term and thereby regularize the sin
and distorted sexuality that arises from it. The problematic aspect of
same-sex intercourse—sex with a sexual same rather than with a sexual
counterpart—is not improved by making it long-term or even monogamous.
11. On sexual narcissism,
sexual self-deception, and psychology. Rev. Krehbiel says that
“nearly the entire psychological community rejects” the notion that
homoerotic desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. I don’t
doubt that the Committee on Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Concerns in the APA,
to which such matters would be referred, or their political supporters,
would reject the notion. But apart from their lack of credibility, neither
they nor any other psychologist can deny that a homoerotic desire is an
erotic attraction to what that person already is or has as a sexual being.
I mean, what else are homoerotically-inclined persons attracted to? Why
else would a person who experiences homoerotic desire, especially
exclusively so, desire specifically a person of the same sex rather
than a person of the other sex? And we are not talking here simply about a
friendship or admiration. We are talking about erotic attraction, a desire
to sexually merge and become one with a person who is not a
complementary sexual counterpart but a person of the same sex. That’s why
we call it “homosexual” intercourse (homo- for homoios,
“like” or “same”) and distinguish it from “heterosexual”
intercourse (hetero- for heteros, “other, different”). It is
patently a desire for the essential sexual self that one shares in common
with one’s partner. By definition it is sexual narcissism or sexual
self-deception. There is either a conscious recognition that one desires
in another what one already possesses as a sexual being (anatomy,
physiology, sex-based traits) or a self-delusion of sorts in which the
sexual same is perceived as some kind of sexual other. There are no other
alternatives.
Notice here that I am not
asserting, as Rev. Krehbiel seems to think, that two or more persons in a
homoerotic relationship can never exhibit care and compassion toward one
another. Such a claim would be absurd for virtually any proscribed form of
human sexuality. Rather, so far as the erotic dimension is concerned,
homoerotic desire is sexual narcissism or sexual self-deception. The
church has no objection to intimate, non-erotic same-sex relationships. We
call them friendships. It is only when an erotic dimension is introduced
to a same-sex relationship that problems develop. If one protests that
there is only a fine line between intimate and erotic,
another may respond: parents who do not maintain a clear distinction
between intimate and erotic in dealings with their own children are
candidates for criminal prosecution.
Mind you, I’m not talking merely
about what some pro-homosex advocates derisively refer to as an “obsession
with plumbing.” Quite clearly, though, most homosexuals, especially male
homosexuals, exhibit an obsession with the “plumbing” or anatomy of
persons of the same sex. The tremendous emphasis on “gay” pornography in
the male homosexual community, their significantly higher average rates of
sex partners, and gay bath houses are all striking testimony to this. To
say that distinctive, same-sex anatomical features are not critically
important to homosexual men would be like saying that most heterosexual
men experience only minor attraction to beautiful female anatomical
distinctives. At the same time, I am talking about something more than
“plumbing” or anatomy: a recognition of something holistic, an essential
maleness or essential femaleness. We have to ask: Why do about 99% of all
persons in the United States limit their selection of mates to persons of
a particular sex? The only reasonable answer is that sexual
differentiation is the primary consideration for mate selection. Either
people want a mate of the other sex (97% of us) or they want a mate of the
same sex (2%). No other criterion for mate selection comes even close to
this one consideration. Clearly, there is a basic human acknowledgement
that a person’s sex matters, that there is something essentially male and
essentially female that causes persons to rule out of consideration an
entire sex when they choose a sex partner. And it is precisely the erotic
attraction to the same essential sex that one already is, to the
distinctive sexual features that one already has, that can be labeled
sexual narcissism.
In this connection, too, it is
interesting that homosexual men, even those who bear effeminate traits,
usually desire very “masculine” men as their sex partners. Why?
Undoubtedly many desire what they see as lacking in themselves: a strong
masculine quality. Such a desire is really a form of self-delusion. In the
perspective of Scripture and indeed of science, they are already men,
already masculine. They are masculine by virtue of their sex, not by
virtue of possessing a social construct of masculinity that may or may not
reflect true masculinity. They need not seek completion in a sexual same.
Rather, they must come to terms with their essential masculinity.
As for scientifically measurable
mental health issues, no form of sinful behavior leads irresistibly to
mental distress and disease for all participants and in all circumstances.
But homosexuals experience a disproportionately high rate of such
problems, even in homosex-affirming areas such as San Francisco or the
Netherlands.
12. On ostracism. Rev.
Krehbiel’s ostracism argument is a complete red herring, for three
reasons. First, there are a number of persons, sexual or otherwise, that
receive equal or greater ostracism than persons engaged in homosexual
behavior (e.g., polygamists, prostitutes, persons engaged in incest,
pedophiles). The fact that some persons or groups of persons experience
some degree of societal disapproval or censure is no argument for
endorsing all behaviors, even behaviors that do not necessarily prove
scientifically measurable harm in all circumstances (few do, and none of
the sexual behaviors mentioned above). Second, the right Christian course
of action is, and must always be, to love the very persons who violate the
standards of God that we are called to uphold. This was Jesus’ approach to
economic exploiters (tax collectors) and to sexual sinners. It is the work
of the church in the world. At the same time, Christians who support
legally enforced, cultural incentives for homosexual behavior make a huge
mistake. They bring on themselves and on our children legal
marginalization and even persecution. This leads to my third point. The
real threat to lose of civil rights and freedoms in the Western world has
come with the advancement of homosexual civil “rights.” For example:
-
On Feb. 4, 2004 the British Columbia Supreme Court
ruled that Chris Kempling, a Christian school teacher, could be
suspended without pay from his job simply for writing to a local
newspaper a reasoned and compassionate defense of why homosexual
behavior should not be endorsed. This is not even a case where Kempling
was promulgating a critical view of homosexual behavior in the
classroom. He was acting as a private citizen, not as a civil
servant. According to Justice Ronald Holmes, “discriminatory speech is
incompatible with the search for the truth.” There is almost no end to how
this ruling could be applied. Anybody who has a white color job and
makes a statement critical of homosexual behavior, even outside the work
place, as a private citizen, could be terminated from employment.
Certainly, too, if “discriminatory speech is incompatible with the
search for the truth” and any statement critical of homosexual behavior
is treated as “discriminatory speech,” then no scholar or teacher at any
academic institution can be critical of societal approval of homosexual
behavior, at any time, and expect to remain employed.
-
This past year Cheryl Clark, a mother who, after
becoming Christian, had separated from her lesbian partner, was ordered
by Denver County Circuit Judge John Coughlin to “make sure that there is
nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is
exposed to that can be considered homophobic.” Her lesbian ex-partner,
who had no legal or biological relationship to the child but was
nonetheless granted joint custody by the judge, was not specifically
required to abstain from remarks critical of Cheryl Clark’s beliefs.
-
In 2001, AT&T Broadband ordered Albert A. Buonanno of
Denver to sign a “certificate of understanding” stating that he “values
the differences among us,” including “sexual orientation” differences.
When he and others refused, but still affirmed that they wouldn’t
discriminate or harass homosexuals, they were fired. The case is
currently under litigation.
-
In 2000, Kenneth P. Gee Sr., a Bureau of Reclamation
job training teacher in Nampa, Idaho, and a Mormon, was ordered by his
employer to “observe gay and lesbian pride.” Gee e-mailed his
supervisor, saying that he believed homosexual behavior was sinful and
did not want to celebrate it. Three supervisors told him that his e-mail
violated federal policies. He was warned not to express disagreements in
the workplace again or face termination. The case is currently under
litigation.
-
On Jan. 6, 2004 the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals ruled that the firing of Richard Peterson, a Christian
employee of Hewlett-Packard, for silently protesting homosexual activism
in the workplace, was justified. Peterson’s crime: responding to a
“diversity posters” celebrating homosexuality by posting two or three
Bible passages implicitly critical of homosexual behavior on the
overhead bin in his cubicle.
-
In 2002 a Christian British man holding up a sign
that equated homosexual behavior with immorality was surrounded by 30-40
angry persons who doused him with water and knocked him to the ground. A
British court convicted the beaten man of disturbing the peace.
In January 2004 Britain’s High Court ruled that the conviction and the
reaction of the crowd was justified.
-
On Nov. 19, 2002, Mary Stachowicz, a 51-year-old
wife, mother of four, and devout Catholic, was murdered by a 19-year-old
homosexual man when she asked him, “Why do you [have sex with] boys
instead of girls?” In a fit of rage, Nicholas Gutierrez punched, kicked,
stabbed, and strangled Mrs. Stachowicz; then stuffed her body into a
crawl space under the floor of his apartment, where it remained for two
days until he confessed to police. Not surprisingly, the news outlets
gave this story very little attention—the same course of action that
they followed in 1999 when 13-year-old Jesse Durkhising was sodomized
and killed by a sadomasochistic homosexual couple.
-
In 1998 Annie Coffey-Montes, a New York Bell Atlantic
employee for 20 years, was fired for attempting to remove herself from
the e-mail list of GLOBE (Gay and Lesbians of Bell Atlantic), which
advertised “gay pride” parades, “coming out” parties, and homosexual
dances. After a year of petitioning her supervisor to have her name
removed, she responded to one GLOBE e-mail with: “Please take me off
this email. I find it morally offensive. God bless you.” She ended by
citing Romans 1:27. Coffey-Montes was then fired for “creating a hostile
work environment.” She appealed to the New York State Department of
Health. The Department of Health dropped the case against New York Bell
even though New York Bell failed to show for all three hearings. The
decision to drop the case was not all that surprising, considering that
Coffey-Montes’ caseworker had pro-homosex posters on her office wall.
-
In October 2002, Rolf Szabo, a 23-year employee of
The Eastman Kodak Co., was fired when he responded to an e-mail
requiring supervisors to promote a “Coming Out Day” for gay, lesbian,
bisexual, and transgender employees with the following: “Please do not
send this type of information to me anymore, as I find it disgusting and
offensive. Thank you.”
-
On Dec. 11, 2002, the Court of Queen’s Bench in
Saskatchewan (Canada) validated a 2001 ruling of the Saskatchewan Human
Rights Commission that had ordered both the Saskatoon Star Phoenix
newspaper and Hugh Owens to pay $1500 to three homosexual activists. The
reason for the fine? Owens had paid for an ad that gave biblical
references against homosexual behavior; and the Star Phoenix published
it (chapter and verse numbers only). The court ruled that the ad, which
referenced Lev 18:22; 20:13; Rom 1, and 1 Cor 6:9-10, exposed
homosexuals to hatred and ridicule.
-
In 2000 Scott Brockie, owner of an Ontario print
shop, was fined $5000 by the Ontario Human Rights Commission for
refusing to print materials promoting homosexual activity given to him
by the Canadian Gay and Lesbian Archives.
-
In 1997 the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council
ruled that the airing of a James Dobson “Focus on the Family” program,
entitled “Homosexuality: Fact and Fiction,” violated the requirement
that opinion be presented in a way that is “full, fair, and proper.”
Focus on the Family Canada is no longer allowed to broadcast programs
that criticize homosexuality. Radio stations that broadcast such
programs will lose their licenses.
-
At some institutions of higher learning, Christian
groups such as Intervarsity Christian Fellowship have been barred from
campus and have lost school funding for not being willing to accept into
their leadership self-avowed practicing homosexuals.
These are
only the tip of the iceberg so far as denials of freedom of religion and
freedom of speech are concerned. For the rest of the iceberg, including
enforced indoctrination of children in many public schools from the first
grade on, see Alan Sears and Craig Osten, The Homosexual Agenda:
Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today (Broadman &
Holman, 2003). Rev. Krehbiel is not against ostracism per se. He wants to
promote ostracism so far as persons opposed to cultural endorsements of
homosexual behavior are concerned.
I don’t expect to convince
persons like Rev. Krehbiel. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter to him what
Scripture says or even what Jesus thought. His ideology and experience
trump Scripture no matter whether Scripture opposes some or all homosexual
practice, no matter whether Scripture views an other-sex partner as a
requirement for sexual unions or only a preference, and no matter whether
the prohibition of same-sex intercourse violates core values in the
Bible’s sexual ethics or violates only marginal concerns. Nevertheless,
there is still some value in showing those who care what Scripture says
and Jesus thought that they should not be misled by the false arguments
put forward by pro-homosex advocates, however well meaning such advocates
might be.
© 2004
Robert A. J. Gagnon