[As this series continues, I want to remind readers that what follows is a continuation of an essay I drafted in 2003 in protest of the imminent confirmation of then-candidate for Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson. This series begins at this link; it addresses homosexuality in the context of the Episcopal Church's theology. This series is not about homosexuality in general, or its place in society at large. And I would add that any major changes or additions to the original essay will appear between []. Peace. BG]
What's Left of the Triumvirate? (cont.)
II. Call it the Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance
[Hermeneutics is the "science (or theory) of interpretation". In this case, we are referring to the interpretation of Holy Scripture.]
The Fallacy of Hermeneutical Arrogance (if you will permit me to be overly didactic), is the fallacy employed to denigrate the arguments of those who cite Biblical or scriptural references allegedly condemning homosexuality. It is as common as sleep. In fact, one could recite it in one’s dreams. Here it is: scriptural texts are so imbedded in their respective milieus that one cannot take them at face value. Using all the modern techniques available to critique biblical passages, it becomes clear that passages traditionally or prima facie interpreted as condemning homosexuality in fact do not condemn homosexuality per se. That they appear to is solely due to our ignorance of certain cultural biases inherent in the original writers’ worldviews. Thus, certain passages in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, for example, prima facie condemn homosexuality, but a closer look reveals no such thing. Instead, Romans condemns heterosexuals who go against their pure natures and commit homosexual acts. As for loving, monogamous homosexual relationships, not only is the Bible generally silent about such relationships, it even seems to support them; love, commitment, and covenantal fidelity are requisites for Godly relations. Surely gay men and women can be “covenantal” in their relations with their life partners, no? The long and short of it is that certain biblical passages are so embedded in the cultural predilections of their time that one might even say that the lens through which the original writers drafted those passages was significantly distorted. [After all, what did ancients know of nature, psychology, sexuality and biology?]
Of course, the fallacy is immediately evident: the Church of 2003 is embedded in a particular milieu. The Church of 2003 -- in 1000 years (for example) -- will be looked upon as one "blinded by certain cultural presumptions" (let’s not forget that some day these very years will be called the Middle Ages). Hence, if the Church of today is embedded in a culture, and that culture has its own predilections for certain things, then the modern Church can neither absolutize its frame of reference nor can it be certain it understands the original biblical texts regarding relevant matters. For if St. Paul’s lens was distorted, perhaps our lens is also distorted (as surely it must be); if that is the case, then perhaps the distortion we see in Paul’s lens is actually the distortion of our own lens as we look at Paul! Perhaps Paul’s lens is quite clear, free of astigmatism!
Moreover, why is Paul (and the early Church) deemed biased, and even untrustworthy, in understanding homosexuality, and yet he is reliable when speaking about matters of fidelity, covenant and equality? [What about Paul's cultural bias when it comes to his understanding of covenant and love?] What conundrums such arguments create! But there is more that is damnable in the argument as posited. For if the Epistle to the Romans condemns heterosexuals who act against their true nature and perform homosexual acts, why would God condemn such a thing, if homosexuality is indeed morally acceptable? And what would be gained if God did create people with "different natures"? If the homosexual acts are permissible, what does it matter if one is created a certain way or not? If it is lovely to say “God bless you”, what is to be condemned if a man, born mute, nonetheless tries to say “God bless you” against his nature? If the act can’t be condemned, then what does one’s propensity have to do with it? A baseball player that is naturally right-handed in fact is commended if he learns to bat from both sides of the plate. This for no other reason than that people realize that if an action is commendable, there is no genetic proclivity that requires that someone must abstain from that act to be true to nature. Plus, where does this all lead us when discussing Mr. Robinson? Here’s a man who once submitted to the Sacament of Holy Matrimony, who consummated that sacrament, fathering two children with a lovely wife. Eventually, he rejected his sacramental vows, divorced his wife, and moved in with a man that was neither husband nor wife. Was Mr. Robinson not a heterosexual at one time? Is he not a homosexual now? What, then, is his true nature? Is he condemned as a straight man who strayed from his true nature in homosexuality? Or was he gay to begin with?
That we cannot ever answer these questions about Mr. Robinson is rather clear. What is also clear is that the reconstructed view of Paul’s argument in Romans can be used by anyone slipping between straight and gay sex, invoking what Mr. Robinson himself must have invoked, that such a person is merely “trying to find [my] true nature.” What does the Church have to offer to help people discover their true natures, if Mr. Robinson himself jumped from side to side, apparently confused? Or does the Church let people decide such an important matter for themselves? If that is the case, then why would Paul condemn shifting sexual allegiances, if people must decide for themselves? Either Mr. Robinson is a straight man who should be condemned for acting gay, or he is a gay man who determined his true nature with no help from Scripture, Tradition, or the Church regarding who he “really is.” If the latter, then there is no way Paul condemns homosexuality under ANY conditions regarding "natures"! Forget bi-sexuals: They’ve apparently got no true nature. If the reconstructionists supporting Mr. Robinson are right, there is no room in the kingdom for bi-sexual people. [And if St. Paul condemns those who act against their true heterosexual nature and act homosexually, would he condemn homosexuals who act against their "true" nature and enter heterosexual relations? And if one's nature determines how one must behave, then how are bi-sexuals supposed to behave, if they have either two natures or can't determine which "one" is their true nature? And what of the man who claims that nature has endowed him with a powerful predilection for having sex with a different woman every night; that his promiscuity is entirely natural to him? Where do we turn for Christian guidance in these matters? Is heterosexual marriage strictly for those whose nature inclines them toward that sacrament?]
Also, what of the related argument, that Jesus is curiously silent on the matter of homosexuality? How is it that He could ignore such a thing if homosexuality is such a big deal? If Jesus was silent, it seems that not only was homosexuality not a big deal to Him, it was probably something with which He was rather comfortable. The only sexual thing that He does condemn is divorce, and there is plenty of that around today's Church and society!
There is only one thing to say about this twist on the hermeneutic argument: Fallacious! Jesus was silent on, what, about 100,000 moral questions? For He is dishearteningly silent on the environment, drunk driving, hand guns, prison reform, and cannibalism. He is silent on abortion, LSD, airplane pollution, global warming and pornography. He is silent about pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality. What, pray tell, shall we infer from His deafening silence on these issues?
(Tomorrow, the Fallacy of the Ignorance of Tradition.)
Peace.
©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
Part V of this series begins here.
Technorati tags: Episcopal Church, Anglican Communion, ECUSA, Gay Rights, Homosexuality, Identity Politics, sacraments, sacramentalism, marriage, consecration, Gene Robinson, Gay Bishop, Act-Up, hermeneutics, bi-sexuality
No comments:
Post a Comment