“Is it about scripture, or is it about homophobia?” – Brad Drell

Written by

Anglican, Anglican Communion, Homosexuality

Brad Drell says that the new bishop-elect of the Diocese of Northern California is twice-divorced and is now on his third marriage. He says that, as a delegate to General Convention next month, he doesn’t think he’ll be voting to consent to the election. Explaining why, he says: "Now, I don’t want divorced people excommunicated, as I don’t want gay people to be excommunicated. As I’ve said in the case of Bishop Robinson, being a Bishop is, well different. I’m not going to rehash the reasons."

(My own view: It’s not a good sign when someone has been divorced twice. But whether this one thing should result in automatic, permanent disqualification for episcopal office, regardless of how the divorcé(e)’s life has changed in the meantime, is another matter.)

The intriguing part of Brad’s post is the questions he raises in his final paragraphs:

Twice divorced and a bishop? Doesn’t that violate a fair amount of scripture, including Jesus’ teaching on divorce and Paul’s admonitions? I wonder if the Anglican Communion will even notice. * * *

What I also wonder is whether the AAC [American Anglican Council] and the ACN [Anglican Communion Network] will take a stand on this issue. The AAC published a link to the Living Chrurch article on their blog, but mentioned nothing about the twice divorced mess. I wonder if they will? As an AAC member, I hope and pray that they will.

If they don’t, I will be left with a question: “Is it about scripture, or is it about homophobia?”

(Emphasis added.)

Traditionalists whom I admire have claimed that it’s about Scripture, with (homo)sexuality being merely the presenting issue. For a lot of trads, I’m sure that’s true. But for many others, I’ve long suspected it might be the other way around.

[ADDED:] I don’t agree with Brad about much in the way of theology or ecclesiology. But he gets full marks in my book for the intellectual integrity of this post.

Comments

11 responses to ““Is it about scripture, or is it about homophobia?” – Brad Drell”

2006-05-08

Karen J.

I disagree with Brad Drell about nearly everything (except for good Cajun food, I think), but in this case I’ll give him credit for being consistent.

Reply
2006-05-08

bls

“Traditionalists whom I admire have claimed that it’s about Scripture, with (homo)sexuality being merely the presenting issue. ”
Well, why is this any better, though? “Homosexuality” is only an “issue” for people it doesn’t affect personally in the least.
What these folks have forgotten is that there are living, breathing people involved, and those people aren’t objects to be disposed of as an “issue.” So I don’t see how this is any excuse, really, either.

Reply
2006-05-08

bls

(To put it another way: there’s no such thing as “homosexuality” detached from a human being. It’s not free-floating someplace out there; it’s attached to persons with lives to live.
This has been the big problem with all this “debate,” in fact; the people directly involved are never listened to, or taken seriously in any way. And guess what? As a result, I don’t take “traditionalists” seriously any longer, either.)

Reply
2006-05-08

D. C.

BLS writes: “Well, why is this any better, though? ‘Homosexuality’ is only an ‘issue’ for people it doesn’t affect personally in the least.”
BLS, remember, sauce for the goose . . . . You need to try to understand the traditionalists’ argument from their perspective. As near as I can figure it, the trads’ reasoning runs roughly as follows:
a) Scripture is supposedly the supreme, pre-emptive moral authority — if Scripture says something is immoral, that settles the matter;
b) Scripture supposedly establishes that homosexual activity is immoral;
c) Therefore, homosexual activity is immoral, QED.
You have to admit that if one buys the trads’ premises (a) and (b), then it’s utterly irrelevant “that there are living, breathing people involved, and those people aren’t objects to be disposed of as an ‘issue.’” That’s where the trads are coming from, it seems to me.
Challenging their premise (b), that Scripture says homosexual activity is immoral, is a tough sell. Such challenges strike many people as “spin.” You can argue all you want about slavery and shellfish, but a lot of people have a tough time getting past the blunt language of the OT.
In the long term, I suspect you’ve got a better shot at convincing people to be skeptical about the trads’ premise (a), that Scripture is allegedly the supreme, pre-emptive moral authority.

Reply
2006-05-09

geek_boi

DC, just nitpicking here but my “trad argument” would look just like yours but with a few slight differences:
a) YHWH is the supreme, pre-emptive moral authority — if YHWH says something is immoral, that settles the matter;
b) Scripture is the only reliable means of discerning the nature and purposes of YHWH;
c) Scripture supposedly establishes that homosexual activity is immoral;
d) Therefore, homosexual activity is immoral, QED.
I think there are now a couple more ways to challenge their conclusion. You can now argue with “B” that YHWH might choose to open up a new line of communication with humanity, or perhaps even go for the jugular in “A” and argue that a Middle-Eastern tribal deity like YHWH is perhaps not the best choice for Final Arbiter of Universal Morality.

Reply
2006-05-09

D. C.

geek_boi, let me do another rev (how ’bout that: open-source polemics 🙂 ) of the trads’ argument. Here’s what the trads are saying, as I near as I can tell:
A) The Creator is the supreme, pre-emptive moral authority — if the Creator says something is immoral, that settles the matter;
B) Scripture (i) completely, and (ii) authoritatively, states the Creator’s views on any moral matter that arises in the life of humanity. Corollary: in any conflict between Scripture and another putative source of moral guidance, Scripture wins no matter what;
C) Scripture asserts that homosexual activity is immoral;
D) Therefore, homosexual activity is immoral, QED.
As to Point A, the supremacy of the Creator’s will: Personally I’m willing to accept that on faith. The epistemological problem, of course, lies in determining the Creator’s will concerning any given matter with sufficient reliability to warrant a given action or inaction. You also raise an intriguing question in asking why we should automatically accept the Creator’s will as binding. I don’t have a good answer, other than “just because,” which I realize isn’t intellectually satisfying.
Concerning Point C, I think the trads will win the argument with most people, for reasons I mentioned above.
Point B — the alleged supreme reliability of Scripture as a guide to the Creator’s will — is where I think the trads’ argument is the most vulnerable. I’ve written a lot about that, and have committed to writing a compendium of those vulnerabilities for a debate with Matt Kennedy+.

Reply
2006-05-09

David Huff

I’m with bls here. To treat real people as objects to be disposed of as an “issue” actually is bigotry just as surely as the nasty stuff Fred Phelps & Co. holler at folks. It’s just more “polite.”
I recall growing up in Texas before, and during, the Civil Rights struggles in the 60’s. People of “our sort” (i.e. middle-class, educated, White folks) never hurled racial slurs at Black folks, or rushed to beat them on the streets if they got “out of their place.” They were too “polite” for that. But that didn’t mean they weren’t just as bigoted as the people who did do such things.
So I don’t really buy the initial “I’m not X, I’m Y” arguement…

Reply
2006-05-09

Derek

Good thing that the traditionalists aren’t looking at the way that Jesus and the disciples are so free with Scripture; they might have to call those boys up and set ’em straight…
I keep hoping I’ll see a link to Brad’s post from T19… Haven’t seen one yet…

Reply
2006-05-09

Tobias Haller

Briefly to respond to Brad’s question as to why the ACN and AAC might soft-pedal this matter: were they to make too much of a fuss about divorced and remarried clergy they might find their own number coming under scrutiny. The best one normally sees in the “reasserter” line is a rather tepid, “we admit we’ve not been as consistent on this” or “yes, divorce is a terrible thing.” But then you see really wild _defenses_ of remarriage after divorce (such as Gagnon’s, “well, it really is heterosexual after all and it’s a “one off”…” [note, this is a paraphrase, but not far off the mark…]
This is not an area on which I expect to see much real action. Nor would I want to! I accept that some marriages do end in divorce — and ought to, particularly when one or both of the couple do not have the ability to remain faithful. (This is, I think, consistent with Jesus, or Matthew’s, “exception”). BUt it seems odd that folks like Gagnon find heterosexual infidelity less culpable than homosexual fidelity.

Reply
2006-05-10

bls

D.C., that’s exactly why I don’t care about what they say anymore. Any philosophy that cares so little about what happens to the human beings it sweeps aside isn’t worth bothering with.
(Biblical literalism is not really “Traditional,” anyway; it’s a modern reading of Scripture from a scientific point of view. That’s why it’s so hard-hearted.)

Reply
2006-05-11

David Huff

bls said, Biblical literalism is not really “Traditional,” anyway; it’s a modern reading of Scripture from a scientific point of view.
Now that would be the start of a worthwhile conversation. Esp. since the “neo-orthodox” are always trumpeting exactly the opposite. (e.g. “See ?! You reappraisers are arguing against [ponderous voice of doom] 2,000 years of Biblical tradition!)

Reply