Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Theoblogy

Home
Progressive Christian
Reading Gagnon: Two More Prejudices [Scot]

Reading Gagnon: Two More Prejudices [Scot]

Last updated on: March 13, 2015 at 4:51 pm by Scot Miller

Reading Gagnon: Two More Prejudices [Scot] 2015-03-13T16:51:47-05:00 Scot Miller

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

This week, Scot Miller is blogging about Robert Gagnon’s book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics, which many readers of this blog are sure will convince Scot and me that we’re wrong about the gays. -TJ

In my first post about reading Gagnon, I wanted to be clear about the prejudices I brought to my reading. The first prejudice was that fidelity to the biblical message is important to me. Here are two more of my prejudices:

Second: I am aware that the Bible can be misread in dangerous ways. The denomination in which I was saved and educated and ordained — the Southern Baptist Convention (or whatever it wants to call itself now) — was founded in 1845 because Baptist slave-holders in the South wanted both to be foreign missionaries and to keep their slaves. While Baptists in the North objected to appointing slave-holding missionaries, the Southern Baptists defended the practice of slavery by appealing to the Bible.

In a recent editorial, my former Church History professor Bill J. Leonard, gives an example of Southern Baptist rhetoric about slavery:

In an 1822 address to the South Carolina legislature, Baptist pastor Richard Furman insisted: “Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed, that the inspired Apostles, who feared no the faces of men, … would have tolerated it for a moment, in the Christian Church….” The biblical writers, Furman said, let the master/slave relationship “remain untouched, as being lawful and right.”

He concluded: “In proving this subject justifiable by Scriptural authority, its morality is also proved; for the Divine Law never sanctions immoral actions.” “Biblical defenses” of slavery flourished throughout the antebellum South.

Southern Baptists could defend the practice of slavery by appealing directly to the plain sense of scriptures like Ephesians 6:5-6: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.”

Southern Baptists could defend the practice of slavery by asking the abolitionists, “Where is the scriptural condemnation of slavery? Where does the Bible advocate the abolition of slavery?” Southern Baptists knew that there is no such scripture, and they could accuse the abolitionists of being unfaithful and disobedient to God’s plan as revealed in the Bible. The slave-holders, not the abolitionists, were those truly faithful to the Bible.

Southern Baptists were wrong.

The fact that Southern Baptists could confidently recognize that the Bible tolerates the practice of slavery and could make a logially consistent and coherent biblical argument for Christian slave-ownership does not mean their interpretation was correct.

So while I want to be faithful to the message of the Bible, I’m suspicious of the overconfidence some people have in identifying their own interpretations of scripture with the biblical message, just as I’m suspicious of people who have an absolutely clear moral vision.

My personal rule: anyone with biblical overconfidence and absolute moral clarity is probably overlooking something important.

To be clear, abolitionists like Daniel Goodwin and Frederick Douglass made a biblical case for the abolition of slavery, but their case was not made by appealing to specific passages that rejected slavery. Instead, the Christian abolitionists had to appeal to “the spirit and tendency of [the Bible’s] teaching,” which they could summarize in Jesus’ commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself” (see Jennifer Wright Knust, Unprotected Texts, p. 13).

Third: I am better trained as a philosopher than I am a biblical scholar. Although I majored in Bible as an undergraduate and graduated from seminary with classes in Greek and Hebrew exegesis, my doctoral work was in philosophy of religion.

I taught philosophy to undergraduates for 12 years, and the most frequently courses I taught were critical thinking and applied ethics. This means that I’m well aware of what makes for good and bad arguments, and I’m fairly well versed in moral theory and what it means to think ethically.

So my reading of Gagnon pays more attention to how Gagnon develops his argument than to his biblical scholarship. I’ll also be listening more closely to any moral arguments and justifications he uses as he discusses homosexuality and homosexual practice.

I also believe that my training in philosophy will help me be fair to Gagnon’s argument. When Tony originally announced that I would be blogging my review of Gagnon’s book, some people expressed their skepticism that I could be fair, especially since on Tony’s blog I have engaged in rather lengthy defenses of same-sex marriage and lengthier rejections of the “sin” of homosexuality.

(Frankly, I was surprised that no one was glad or even hopful that I was finally going to be exposed to overwhelming evidence from Gagnon which would devastate my support of the LGBTQ community and convert me to the biblical truth.)

But as I used to explain to my students, philosophers are trained to evaluate arguments and not the particular conclusions that people reach. Whether I happen to agree or disagree with someone’s conclusion is really irrelevant to the strength or weakness of the argument.

I can have high praise for someone who has a strong argument for a conclusion with which I disagree, and I can reject arguments which do a bad job at supporting my conclusion.

So these are three of my prejudices I bring to my reading of Gagnon. I have other prejudices, to be sure, but these three seem most important.

I suppose I should add that I am a happily married heterosexual, so I’m not as personally invested in the issue of homosexuality as others are.

I’m also not a church leader or political figure or opinion-maker or academic, so I don’t have an ax to grind or any obvious material interests to gain from taking a particular position.

I did perform a wedding ceremony for my niece and her same-sex partner, both of whom I love and respect with my whole heart.

Which reminds me that I hope I am prejudiced to value human beings over moral or theological principles.

When Jesus was caught breaking the Law by gathering grain on the sabbath, Jesus said to his accusers, “The sabbath was made for humankind, not humankind for the sabbath” (Mark 2:27).

In a similar way, I suspect that the Bible and moral principles are made for human beings, and not the other way around.

Previous Post

April 3, 2012

A Better Atonement: Maybe I Was Wrong about Original Sin

Next Post

April 4, 2012 A Better Atonement: Nothing Is Solved by Murder

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category bible blogging books christianity in america church church history dissertation divorce Dog Training education emergent church essay family funny glbt jopa productions ministry minnesota movies music parenting philosophy politics Prayer publishing Questions That Haunt random same sex marriage speaking spirituality Teaching technology television theology Travels Uncategorized writing youth ministry

Select a Month January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 June 2006 May 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 June 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 August 2004 February 2004 January 2004

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What was the primary light source in Biblical times?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Torch Oil lamp Candle Bonfire