BHP journal: Introduction

"You ought to have your head examined." "What were you thinking?" Such expressions are used in American culture to express incredulity at the actions of another who puts him or herself needlessly at risk. Surely such expressions are never more apropos than when a seminary professor writes a book about the Bible passages that deal with homosexuality and the interpretation of these texts, and especially when one does so from the perspective taken in this book.

It was really disheartening to read this - the very first words of Gagnon's introduction to his book. He didn't start with a compassionate plea for understanding and working towards agreement on an issue which has divided families, churches, and ruined countless lives. He starts out with a list of seven reasons why he's being so bold writing this book.

I personally don't think his bravery compares to a young woman who tells her non-affirming family and church community that she's in love with another woman.

Then he jumps right in and begins mischaracterizing the debate:

One side appeals to the explicit statements in Scripture regarding same-sex intercourse, the structures of God's creation, principles of sexual holiness, two millennia of church tradition, the influence of environment on the development of homosexuality, the dearth of long-term and monogamous homosexual relationships, and the negative health effects of homosexual behavior. The other side points to genetic causation, the fruit of caring homosexual relationships, and antiquated worldview and obsolescence of other parts of Scripture, and such Christian virtues as tolerance and inclusion.

There are so many problems here I don't know where to begin, but I'll just start with, "no, you don't get to claim the faithful approach to scripture is on your side." There are many people who value scripture just as deeply as you do that are looking at the relevant texts and coming up with a different conclusion. And I'll finish, for now, with, "no, you also don't get to claim science, statistics and health are on your side." I'm sure we'll dive into this later.

Then particularly disappointing was this bizarre statement about violence against homosexuals,

If proponents of same-sex intercourse really have a paramount interest in curtailing acts of violence against homosexuals, the best thing for them to do is to hold up models of civil discourse among people who oppose same-sex intercourse.

Again, there are a number of problems here, but chief among them is, Is he serious? Does he recommend the same tactic for combating racist violence? Shall we hold up models of civil discourse by white supremacists? Even if he doesn't agree on sufficient equivalence of homophobia and racism (he wouldn't of course) the logic holds. The idea that a population being violently attacked is responsible to reduce the violence against them by promoting rhetoric that calmly devalues them is absurd.

And then there was this series of head-scratchers...

Statistically more significant than hate crimes against homosexuals are the harmful effects of various forms of homosexual behavior on homosexuals themselves: serious health risks (such as AIDS) associated with anal intercourse and rampant promiscuity; "pick-up murders," in which a gay man kills an anonymous sex partner; and high rates of domestic violence and sadomasochism among homosexual couples.

These consequences include matters of health (catastrophic rates of disease and shortened life expectancy) and morals (unstable and destabilizing patterns of sexual behavior where short-term and non-monogamous relationships constitute the rule rather than the exception).

None of this even touches the negative effects that homosexual behavior can have on a person's relationship with God.

Perhaps worst of all is the knowledge that a rigorous critique of same-sex intercourse can have the unintended effect of bringing personal pain to homosexuals, some of whom are already prone to self-loathing.

If this was not sad and dangerous, it would be comical. He seems to be setting up an argument that the biblical authors were aware of and prohibit even loving and committed same-sex relationships (regardless of whether they cause harm) and yet he paints this deeply disturbing picture of the gay community as obsessed with sex, diseased, incapable of commitment, short-lived, violent, murderous, abusive, perverse, criminal, God-haters and mentally unstable. It's a one-two punch that doesn't land.

I had to reach hard for something that I respected, and it was this,

The text must be read through a hermeneutical lens, the ancient context and contemporary currents must be considered, and some measure of openness must be given to the possibility that a given author or authors of a biblical text may be reflecting personal or cultural biases.

Agreed. And I'm looking forward to the debate. This introduction was a terrible start to the book, but this quote gives me hope that there will be some interesting and useful analysis contained within, and I'm going to keep an open mind to it.