Jeffrey Weiss wonders why the "gay issue" seems to have ignited such a vigorous and contentious debate. At one time in church history, people were agitated over dense and tricky subjects like trinitarian theology. At the time of the Arian controversy in the fourth century, it was not unknown for fist fights to break out over whether or not there was a time when the Christ did not exist. Legend has it that Bishop Nicholas--the inspiration for Santa Claus--punched Arius in the nose at the Council of Nicea. Even Santa lost his cool.
Today, it's the "gay issue." The "gay issue" is being discussed, and argued over, in virtually every mainline protestant denomination. It's an issue also in Roman Catholicism, though the opposition of the heirarchy tamps it down. (They've tried, unsuccessfully, to pin the clergy abuse scandal on homosexuals.) If it hasn't already, it will become an issue within at least some evangelical circles as well.
Partly, the argument is about Biblical interpretation. If you added together everything on the subject in the scriptures, you would have one short paragraph. Nevertheless, for those of an inerrantist and fundamentalist point of view, that scintilla of Biblical evidence, itself highly controverted, sets the absolute standard that must be maintained by all and everywhere.
An inerrantist regards all scripture as "pure" and "perfect." It is, quite literally, the word of God, as if God had written it word-for-word all by Himself. Since there are no gradations of "perfect"--one verse of scripture can't be "more perfect" than another--this, in effect, makes every sentence in the Bible equal.
Most people, however, do not hold Leviticus 3:16--"all fat is the Lord's!"--as being on the same level as John 3:16--"God so loved the world." Some parts of scripture clearly stand out as being more important, and critical for the Christian faith, than others. Those who argue for gay rights essentially argue from the "spirit" rather than the "letter" of the scriptures. It is inconceivable for them that Jesus, who never saw a line he didn't cross, would draw the line at gays.
Raising the issue of homophobia seems to be out-of-bounds in this debate. If homosexuality was "the love that dare not speak its name," then homophobia is the "fear that no one dare name." Yet, few would deny that some people do have a fear of homoerotic impulse. The now-famous 1996 University of Georgia study suggests that a person's conscious and overt rejection of homosexuality may be a way of tamping down and suppressing a homoerotic impulse within themselves.
That is not to name anyone in particular as being homophobic. Civility in debate, not to mention Luther's injunction to "put the best possible construction on your neighbor's action," requires attributing honest motivation to your opponent. Still, to deny that homophobia is involved somewhere, in at least some ways, denies psychological reality.
I'm afraid that secular prejudice, rather than spiritual enlightenment, underlines which bits of interpreted inerrancy one should follow.
Posted by: Malcolm Evison | October 26, 2009 at 03:00 PM
How convenient that one's Biblical interpretation so often dovetails completely with one's own personal view!
Posted by: John Petty | October 27, 2009 at 10:18 AM
well said john. you articulate this current "issue debate" well... and I say that over our many years in conversation together - going back to Montrose.
BTW I've *always* liked the Santa legend.
Sorry for my prolonged absence... I suppose PI is totally yours now.
Posted by: Todd von Gunten | October 27, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Yeah, you gotta love St. Nick going ballistic.
Posted by: John Petty | October 28, 2009 at 10:57 AM