[asa] Re: homosexuality: recommended resource: Some comments on Gagnon

> From: "Tjalle T Vandergraaf" <ttveiv@mts.net>
> To: <jcannon@washjeff.edu>, <asa@calvin.edu>
>
> Last year, in preparation for the biannual convention of the ELCIC
> (Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada), a conservative group arranged for
> Prof. Robert Gagnon [Pittsburgh Theological Seminary] to give a series of
> talks in Edmonton. His presentations were made available on DVDs to
> individual congregations to study. I think he made a very convincing case
> against the homosexual practice. Just Googling his name led me to his web
> site, http://www.robgagnon.net/ArticlesOnline.htm and I notice that he has a
> response to one of David Myers' books on that website. I have not read it
> yet (it's 112 pages!) so I cannot comment but it's worth noting.
>
> Chuck
>

A while back a friend (who happens to be gay) gave me a copy of a
Gagnon article published in Theology Matters, "The Bible and
Homosexual Practice: Theology, Analogies, and Genes." I suspect it can
be found on the internet. I have pasted some of my comments to my
friend below. Before going to the comments, I should say that I found
(and alwasys find) Richard Hays in The Moral Vision of the New
Testament to be very fair and thorough on this. Although the position
at which he ends is similar to Gagnon (one I am becoming more
uncomfortable with), I do not sense the strong negative emotions in
Hays. In my opinion, a PC-USA's task force member accurately descrived
Gagnon as "a street-fighter kind of a theological guy."

For what its worth, here is the quickly typed response to Gagnon. It
refers (in the first paragraph) to another file he sent containing an
interview with Gagnon.

***************************************************

Gagnon feels like a prosecuting attorney that is emotionally involved
in his case (confirmed at the end of the 2nd file I read where he
expresses the fear of education, gay marriage, etc.). Many prosecutors
(and other attorneys) will put anything forward that will help their
case, whether true, prejudicial, or, in some cases, outright
false. There is a habit of throwing everything at the wall and seeing
what sticks. The solidly defensible and the useful suggestion that may
be accepted by a jury are offered in the same style. That is not a good
model for arriving at Christian truth, but that is the sense I get
from Gagnon.

Most of the points that he makes are legitimate and worth considering,
but

1) he clearly overstates on several issues (lack of ambiguity in
interpreting Leviticus, irrelevance of slavery, women, etc.--somewhere
somehow we need the integrity to acknowledge that these cases, not to
mention some of the real embarassing passages in the OT where babies
are killed, etc., relativize our confidence to make moral judgements
even if the situations are not 100% analagous) and that makes me think
that he likely does this a lot more. It undermines my hope that he
might be able to acknowledge counter-veiling arguments.

2) He also introduces prejudicial and irrelevant issues (gay
promiscuity---whether gays tend to have more partners or not is
irrelevant to the question of monogamous couples, and gay health
issues---if gays independent of straight folk had better health would
that be an argument for accepting this behavior---hardly), and seems
to confidently deal with social science data that I suspect goes well
beyond his expertise. He does this through highly polarized
spectacles---is it any surprise that self-reporting homosexuals
increase in friendly environments. It is not surprising and it is not
relevant that there are few self-reporting queer folk in the military
now. If he wants to build a case that acceptance encourages otherwise
straight people to act in queer ways, he ought to at least acknowledge
the obvious possibility the problem of freedom to report in
restrictive environments.

3) He fails to distinguish the theological purpose of the passages he
   uses and to allow that to inform how they are interpreted. The
   point of the Romans example is that we who condemn such activities
   are without excuse (at whatever point we pass judgement, we are
   judging ourselves because we who judge them do the same things)
   (Rom 2:1). Richard Hays calls this a sting operation where Paul
   invites the emotional response and turns it on the people that pass
   judgement. THis seems to have escaped Gagnon.

4) As for my emotional response to the excerpts, I might prefer heresy
   to being in a church with him (do you understand how I feel?). It
   feels like cold orthodoxy that views Christianity as a static set
   of truths to be affirmed. I have done too much of that (and do too
   much of that) to want to be encouraged in it by someone as skilled
   in it as Gagnon seems to be. Perhaps the polarized debate in a
   relatively liberal denomination has produced frustration, but I
   suspect that is not the real cause.

Guess I got a little carried away. I copied another short article
from Richard Hays who I am sure is much more biblically literate than
Gagnon that at least gives some reason for confidence in something
approaching objectivity. Will get it too you.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jun 15 16:41:41 2006