It’s died down somewhat, but we still hear a lot of noise from some traditionalist Anglicans about the election of an openly-gay bishop by the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire. The basis of their argument is that homosexuality is supposedly condemned by the Bible, which supposedly is the ultimate standard by which all things moral and religious must be judged.
Some of my closest friends, people whom I respect and admire greatly, are traditionalist Christians. But the attitude of some traditionalists about the Bible seems tantamount to idolatry (or “bibliolatry“).
It seems to me that, if Scripture contained once-and-for-all answers to all moral questions, then we would still be stoning rebellious sons at the town gates, as commanded by Deut. 21:18-21. (I mentioned this point to my mother on the phone the other day. No doubt remembering me and my siblings in adolescence, she laughed and responded, “so?”)
Moreover, some traditionalists are, shall we say, selective in their reading of Scriptural rules —
- They believe that the Bible prohibits homosexual acts as “detestable,” (e.g., e.g., Lev. 15:18, 18:22.
- But they seem to have no problem with eating shrimp or crabs, which are likewise “detestable” because they have neither fins nor scales (see, e.g., Lev. 11:12).
- One wonders whether the men among them always refrain from sex during a woman’s menstrual period, which is one of the prohibited “detestable things” in a laundry list of sexual misconduct (see Lev. 18:19, 26).
- And let’s not forget that the Bible explicitly permitted God’s people to enslave foreigners (see Lev. 25:44-46), just as it prohibited punishing a slave-owner for beating his slave if the slave recovered in a day or two, “since the slave is his property” (see Lev. 21:20-21).
Some traditionalists try to explain away these particular Scriptural passages so that they can have it both ways. Their explanations have a house-of-cards feel to them.
It seems to me that the traditionalists have failed to make a convincing case why we should supposedly bow down before Scripture as the supreme moral authority.
As to the specific issues of gay clergy and gay marriage, personally I’m on the fence. I tend to favor both, but I don’t think we know enough yet to make any hard-and-fast rules. (For some thoughtful policy arguments why gay marriage would be a good thing, see some of Andrew Sullivan’s essays.)
I like the “local option” approach that was implicitly adopted by the Episcopal Church at its 2003 General Convention last month. If different dioceses cautiously experiment in this area, we’re likely to learn something useful about same-sex relationships in the real world. That would be far better than the endless arguments about Scripture we have been enduring.
Leave a Reply