I learned a new phrase: "gender complementarity". Cool! I like new things like that. So ... um ... what does it mean? Well, "complementarity" is "The state or quality of being complementary". "Fine," you say, " ... so what in the world does that mean?" Well, obviously it's when you say nice things about people. No, kidding. "Complementary" (as opposed to "complimentary") means "completing" (in short). The idea is this. Presence A has these qualities and those shortcomings. Presence B has those qualities and these shortcomings. Put them together and what do you get? A complete, working model. The idea, then, behind gender complementarity is that men have these qualities and those shortcomings while women have those qualities and these shortcomings. Put them together and you've got a great working model. Apart, and you might hear, "It is not good for Man to be alone" or something like it. So where am I going with this?
Perhaps you've heard this before. "Children do best growing up in a home with a mother and a father." Now, I dare you ... toss that grenade out in an open forum and see what happens in the fallout. You see why, I assume. If we agree that "mother and father" are best for kids, then what do we do with "mother and mother" or "father and father" kids? You can likely see fairly quickly that the idea of same-sex couples raising children becomes questionable.
Of course, it will be instantly repudiated. But have you ever looked at the repudiation? Here are the types of responses you'll see. "Married couples are no better than other family forms at raising children." (An argument in a vacuum.) "Children do best in a family where the adult relationship is steady, stable and loving." (One of the all-time favorites.) "Abuse is rampant in the traditional family." (Similar to and related to the previous, but different.)
What's wrong with these repudiations? They're fair, aren't they? Well, not quite. Going in reverse, claiming "abuse is rampant" may or may not be a true statement, but in this argument it is irrelevant. (Wait for it.) In the same way, claiming that children "do best in a family where the adult relationship is steady, stable and loving" may (or may not) be true, but the claim is irrelevant. You see, these responses pose the conditions this way: "Which is better, adults who love each other or adults who don't? Which is better, adults who abuse the child or adults that don't?" See the problem? The way these responses are stated, the suggestion is "Married couples likely hate each other and abuse the children, while same-sex couples likely love each other and don't abuse the children." This argument, of course, is unsupportable. You see, we all agree that children do best in a family where the adult relationship is steady, stable, and loving. Who is saying otherwise? And we all agree that abusing children is bad. Who is saying it isn't? Further, the failure of some relationships (two gender or same gender) to be what they ought to be either toward each other or toward the children is not relevant to what is best for children. The question is this: Given a married mother and father who love each other and love their child(ren) and a same-sex couple who love each other and love their child(ren), which is better for the children? All that folderal about "loving couples" and "abusive parents" is smoke screen. Let's compare the choices under the same conditions.
Now, the argument would next be made, "Well, if 'Married couples are no better than other family forms at raising children' is an argument in a vacuum, then so is 'Children do best growing up in a home with a mother and a father'." And that is true. Is there any reason to say that a married mother and father who love their children are best for the children? Indeed!
First, the science. According to Patricia Morgan, sociologist, "We've had 20 years of very well-controlled statistics and all the time we get this repeated conclusion: children do best educationally, behaviorally and in every other sphere when raised by two original biological, married parents." Dr. A Dean Byrd reported "the results of decades of research showing that children need both a mother and a father in order to grow into emotionally mature adults." The good doctor says "There is no fact that has been established by social science literature more convincingly than the following: all variables considered, children are best served when reared in a home with a married mother and father." (I recommend reading the report. It is interesting and brings up many valid points.) Regardless of what you've been told, both tradition and science agree: "Children do best growing up in a home with a mother and a father."
Of course, I've got this whole thing backward at this point, but I did it just to demonstrate that that which is true is not necessarily only true in the Bible; it is most often also true in the secular world. But I, of course, am most convinced by Scripture. So what does Scripture say? Well, I've covered that at length in multiple other places. The Bible structures families as "man and wife", "father and mother". There are no "same sex couples" in biblical reference anywhere. Nowhere do you find a single command that hints "in the case of 'non-traditional' families I give these instructions". No, no. They are always instructions to fathers and mothers, husbands and wives. Someone might choose to argue, "Well, doesn't it say 'Children, obey your parents'? How is that 'gender complementarity'?" Well, let's think about that for must a moment. What does it take to make "parent" plural ("parents")? It takes ... two. Okay. How do you define "parent"? "One who begets, gives birth to, a child; a father or mother." If one parent is "mother", then two parents is "father and mother" (or vice versa). No same-sex couple can beget/give birth to a child. Of course, regardless of modern definition, "parent" in Scripture is abundantly clear. Children are commanded to "Honor your father and your mother" (Exo 20:12), not "parent-generic". Where children are told "be obedient to your parents in all things" (e.g., Col 3:20), the command is prefaced or followed with commands to husbands and wives (Col 3:18-19) and, interestingly, fathers (Col 3:21) (not mothers). (Compare with Eph 5:22-6:4.) Clearly the biblical (godly) plan is "husband and wife" who are parents to "children".
Since the Bible is clearly in favor of a married mother and father as parents to children, and since science "by coincidence" agrees, it would seem that there is no reason to deny that gender complementarity is God's ideal for children -- "in the best interest of the child". Now, I know that people will dispute it, but they do so against both science and Scripture and, from every argument I've seen, with bad logic.
31 comments:
Stan said...
If we agree that "mother and father" are best for kids, then what do we do with "mother and mother" or "father and father" kids? You can likely see fairly quickly that the idea of same-sex couples raising children becomes questionable.
The Big Question being IF we agree "mother and father" are best. Which begs the question, WHY would we agree to that notion?
1. The Bible no where suggests that gay parents can't be parents or can't be good parents. It is absent entirely from the Bible so one can't argue that the Bible is opposed to gay parents, since that is not the case.
That the Bible talks about straight married couples (and straight polygamous couples) does not suggest that straight monogamous and polygamous couples are the only good model. Isn't that a fair and logical statement?
2. The science on the topic has tended to suggest that there is no significant difference between gay and straight parents. The question - from studies - is how stable and loving the home is, not the gender of the parents. An unstable straight parent family is worse for a child than a stable gay parent family and an unstable gay parent family is worse for a child than a stable straight parent family.
While there are some studies that have mixed results (I believe they are often from sources with an agenda), I believe most studies support the notion that "children raised by gay or lesbian parents suffer no adverse effects in their psychosocial development."
[source, also here is what the APA has to say about it, based on scientific research]
As they note there:
American Psychological Association (APA) concluded in a 2005 study of lesbian and gay parenting that "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." The study also found that "the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth."
3. Anecdotally, I can testify because I have SEEN gay parents raising wonderful happy children. It DOES happen that gay parents have perfectly fine families and produce perfectly great kids.
So, IF the Bible does not condemn gay parenting and IF the science is, at best mixed but in general suggests that gay parent homes are fine for children, WHY would we oppose gay parents?
And while I fully understand (having been in that camp at one time) that some (many) religious types - Jews, Christians, Muslims - don't think gay marriage is moral or legitimate, many other religious types DO think gay marriage is moral, so, in a mixed, secular society such as ours, why would we listen to one group of religious folk over another when it comes to policy? I'd suggest we oughtn't.
In this great nation of ours, we are free to follow our conscience and have the liberty to pursue our best ideals, as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others.
So, I fully support your right to have an opinion that says gay marriage is wrong and I fully support your right not to enter a gay marriage or to have children within a gay marriage that you're not in. I hope you'll allow us the same liberty we allow you.
Dan
You remind me of the Pharaoh in Exodus who when faced with a miracle came up with his own duplication of the miracle. Stan produces scientific studies concluding that children are best raised in a family with a mother and a father and you produce your own studies that refute it. We must be careful lest people stop believing in science because there is disagreement in the truth that it reveals.
Dan, I am so tired of this "the Bible doesn't say" argument. Can you not see the nonsense of it? The Bible doesn't say that it's wrong to molest children. Therefore ...? The Bible doesn't say that it's wrong to run bicyclists (or, in your case, pedestrians) off the road. Therefore ...? "The Bible doesn't say" is an argument from the absence of an argument.
Has anyone ever made the case that same-gender parents were morally acceptable in biblical times? Ever? In any biblical times? I've seen the opposite (and relatively straightforward) argument -- that homosexual relations are sin. I've never seen anything (either in the Bible or in historical references) that suggests they were not. You see, if something is either moral or amoral, I can see that no one would make a comment. I see nothing in the Bible that argues that it's right to eat figs ... but I don't question the morality of eating figs. Conversely, if something is already deemed "immoral", then its corollary would also be immoral without comment. If it was held that "a man shall not lay with a man as with a woman", then it would require no further comment that said men could not be a valid couple raising children.
What does the Bible say? Without one single reference to same-gender parents and with every single reference to parents being male and female, can there really be any doubt as to the biblical intent? Well, obviously, in your mind ... yes.
So I offered the secular argument. You pointed out two studies that suggest "[n]ot a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents." Well, there you have it, folks. We have 20 years of studies that say that it's better for kids to have dual gender parents, but those are now invalid because ... well, because Dan (and the APA) says so! So ... why is it that I must submit to the study you offered and you needn't pay any attention to all the other studies I offered?
As you are so fond of pointing out, Dan, doesn't even simple logic defy your conclusion? Male and female, whatever you want to say about them, have different traits in some aspects. It would seem painfully obvious, then, that it is best for a girl to have the influence of a woman to teach her about certain aspects and the influence of a man to teach her about other aspects. (The same would be clearly true for a boy.) Can these "influences" be from outside the home? With effort, yes, but it seems plainly optimum to have it as a loving mother and a loving father. Am I saying that gay people cannot raise happy children? Don't be silly! That's apples and oranges (as I argued in the post). Given two couples -- a good, loving set of same-gender people as parents and a good, loving set of opposite gender people as parents, surely you would have to admit that the latter would be the best thing for the child.
Finally, let me see if I understand you correctly. Even though "Jews, Christians, Muslims don't think gay marriage is moral or legitimate", because of our "mixed, secular society" and because of "this great nation of ours", we should all be "free to follow our conscience." Is that right? So the Muslim that wants to be "free to follow his conscience" should be allowed to ... well, you see where that would go. My point ... is there no genuine, absolute moral values that should hold sway, or should we really, in you mind, surrender to individual beliefs?
Stan
Could you expand on what you mean by an argument made from a vacuum; perhaps, even, in an up coming post. I think I have noticed this phenomena while reading forums. Arguments appear to be made from nothing or no place at all and only levy criticisms. For example, the atheist says it is bad for Christians to impose their world view on the government and other people. This seems to be a vacuous argument because the critique has to borrow the word “bad” from the subject of its critique and is in fact self defeating. Is this what you mean by arguments made from a vacuum?
So ... why is it that I must submit to the study you offered and you needn't pay any attention to all the other studies I offered?
You needn't submit at all. There has never in all the history of humankind been anyone that wishes to force Stan to marry a guy if Stan does not wish to.
I'm just saying you are free to believe as you wish and you are free to not be involved in a gay marriage or raise children in a gay marriage, we just want the same freedom as we are allowing you to enjoy.
So the Muslim that wants to be "free to follow his conscience" should be allowed to ... well, you see where that would go
No. Where would that go?
But yes, a Muslim in our great nation is free to practice his/her religion in our nation as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. Will you allow us the same grace and liberty you enjoy? (Not that we're asking for your permission, mind you - our rights are God-given and people can't take those rights away.)
Stan said (and this gets to the other Dan's point, too)...
We have 20 years of studies that say that it's better for kids to have dual gender parents, but those are now invalid because ... well, because Dan (and the APA) says so!
No, we have many studies that suggest many things. The APA has concluded, based upon the available research, that there are no harmful effects associated with gay parenting - The APA being our resident group of experts on mental health. Does that mean they can't be wrong? Of course not. They could be wrong on any topic or study, just like James Dobson and his studies could be wrong.
The point is, given the bulk of unbiased research showing that there is no significant difference, why would we go with the minority viewpoint?
If 9/10 doctors say smoking is bad for you and 1/10 doctors (who happens to be funded by the cigarette companies) thinks that smoking is healthy, will you listen to the 9/10 experts or the one?
Even if you choose the one, can you understand how most of us will go with prevailing wisdom? Of course, the prevailing wisdom AND the minority wisdom could BOTH be wrong, but given what we know, doesn't it generally make sense to go with the consensus?
Stan asked:
My point ... is there no genuine, absolute moral values that should hold sway, or should we really, in you mind, surrender to individual beliefs?
As I have repeatedly pointed out specific, absolute moral values, I'm not sure if you're asking this of me or someone else? Clearly, it is ALWAYS wrong to commit genocide. Absolutely. It is ALWAYS wrong to slander or to bear false witness. It is ALWAYS wrong to kill children. For instance.
I have never said anything that suggests that I think it should be up to whatever anyone thinks free for all sort of morality.
In fact, is that not your gripe with me at times? That I am presuming to tell you it's wrong to bear false witness - which is a moral standard that I don't think Christians should break?
On the other hand, many ideals are not so clear. People may not always agree on whether we ought to have as many cars as possible, or if we should let some people drive but not others, or if we should create policies that strive to discourage personal driving and encourage mass transit and walking.
People don't always agree on whether a fetus is actually a full "person" with full rights of all humanity.
How do we live sustainably and fiscally responsibly? People don't always agree or even agree that we should.
In a mixed, free, secular gov't, we need the freedom to follow our conscious to best discern what's right, especially on matters that are more gray - as long as we're not interfering with the rights of others.
Stan said...
Can you not see the nonsense of it? The Bible doesn't say that it's wrong to molest children. Therefore ...? The Bible doesn't say that it's wrong to run bicyclists (or, in your case, pedestrians) off the road. Therefore ...?
But the Bible is clear that we are to protect innocents, that we are not to shed innocent blood and so we can come to reasonable conclusions on each of your examples, yes?
So, I can provide logical, moral reasons why we ought not harm children, bicyclists or pedestrians. Can you provide any logical, moral reasons why gay folk can't raise children or get married? Some reason why we should interfere with their rights?
Dan: "Could you expand on what you mean by an argument made from a vacuum?"
You describe a truly vacuous argument. When I used the phrase, I meant "without any support". It's just a claim ... you know, without air. (Or ... maybe ... just a lot of hot air?) :)
Dan Trabue: "The point is, given the bulk of unbiased research showing that there is no significant difference ..."
Now, if I made such a statement you'd accuse me of "bearing false witness". I don't think you can actually support the statement with genuine facts that "the bulk of unbiased research" says what you think. Maybe "the most recent". Maybe "the APA's". I don't even think you can demonstrably prove "unbiased".
Dan Trabue: "Clearly, it is ALWAYS wrong to commit genocide."
But ... why? It is "always wrong" from your particular religious or social or cultural viewpoint. Why is it always wrong -- for everyone? What makes that one "always wrong" but not others? How do you determine "always wrong"? I am not even arguing that it is or is not always wrong. I'm asking how you make the determination without imposing your view on someone else? People disagree about right and wrong ... on just about everything I can imagine. How do you determine what is truly right and/or wrong for everyone?
Dan Trabue: "Can you provide any logical, moral reasons why gay folk can't raise children or get married?"
Wrong question, Dan. I can and have. You simply dismissed them out of hand. So, the question you are asking is "Can you provide reasons that I will accept ...?" To that question the answer is, "No" because you will reject whatever claims I offer as "in the minority" or "extrabiblical" or "biased" or "too woodenly literal" or ... But, hey, you do get lots of points for creative dismissal!
So, Dan T., once again, man's scientific research trumps God's word perhaps?
Consider I Corinthians 10:23.
"All things are lawful for me, but not all things are expedient: all things are lawful for me but all things do not edify."
I am not quoting this verse insinuating that sodomy and other practices within homosexuality are "lawful" in the eyes of our Holy God, but just to say that people can do whatever they want, but it may not be THE BEST way or God's way at all.
Dan Trabue, are you still honestly arguing that it is NOT best for children to have both a mother and a father??? C'mon! Doesn't that diminish the value of your wife as a mother to your children just a bit?
Do you think she could pretty easily be replaced by a (another) loving dad for your son and daughter? Your girl isn't benefitting all that much by having another, older, and wiser female in her life and in your home? A man would be just as easy for your daughter to talk to about everything as a woman would?
Why are you always so quick to champion homosexuality?
On his deathbed, a friend's gay brother said to him, "I always knew it was wrong."
The "it" of which he was speaking was homosexuality.
I know... this is an account of only ONE person saying that. So big deal, right? Maybe he was deceived.
But... it was one person who, too late, was realizing his sin/willful actions had reaped for him HIV then AIDS, and he was dying young as a consequence of the "it" mentioned above. Might he have contracted AIDS not being a gay man? Yes. But he knew he got it via his choice to pursue sex with men whom had also had sex with men.
So, you just don't buy this thing dubbed "gender complementarity" as being something real and maybe even by design?
Stan said...
I'm asking how you make the determination without imposing your view on someone else? People disagree about right and wrong ... on just about everything I can imagine. How do you determine what is truly right and/or wrong for everyone?
I agree with St Thomas Aquinas and Thomas Jefferson, that some rights are self-evident, one of those rights being the right to life.
And so, because people have a right to life, not to be taken from them by force in an act of genocide.
I'm no great philosopher, but I think Natural Law theory has been adequately explained by wiser folk than me. You can look here for further info, if you so wish.
Do you disagree with the notion found in Natural Law theory and Aquinas that "the precepts of the natural law are universally binding by nature and that the precepts of the natural law are universally knowable by nature"?
Wrong question, Dan. I can and have. You simply dismissed them out of hand. So, the question you are asking is "Can you provide reasons that I will accept ...?"
Fair enough. It is true that I am not persuaded by your biblical arguments (since gay marriage and gay parenting is not mentioned AT ALL in the Bible) nor by your logical arguments nor by your studies. But, as far as I am concerned, brother, you are free to hold your positions.
Is it all right with you if I hold mine?
As to the vaccuum argument notion, in logic, we have a fallacy known as an argument from silence. That fallacy goes, if one argues that because (for instance) the Bible does not ever address gay marriage, then it must be wrong (or it must be right), then one is arguing from silence and making a logical error.
It MAY be true that something not discussed in the Bible (for instance) is wrong - the Bible never brings up running an airplane into a tower, for instance, but we agree that is wrong - but one can not conclusively decide that because a topic is not covered in the Bible that it is wrong (or right).
For my part, I merely point to the reality that gay marriage and gay parenting is not addressed in the Bible, that the Bible is silent on the topic. My reasons for supporting gay marriage and gay parenting has more to do with logical deduction and moral reasoning (ie, natural law) outside the Bible. Which we ALL have to do anytime a topic (like gay marriage) is not addressed in the Bible. Otherwise, we're arguing from silence.
Dan Trabue: "It is true that I am not persuaded by your biblical arguments ..."
Dan, I've offered biblical arguments and I've offered secular arguments. It's apparent, however, that you're not paying attention.
But, trust me ... I don't plan to walk over there and rip your beliefs out of your head. Feel free to hold your own beliefs.
Sherry asked...
So, Dan T., once again, man's scientific research trumps God's word perhaps?
No, 1000 times, no! Man's reason is as filthy rags as compared to God's Truth. I don't know how I can be more clear on the point.
Are we clear on this point now, Sherry? No, research does not trump God's word.
But, since God's word is silent on gay marriage (ie, gay marriage/parenting is not once ever discussed negatively or positively in the Bible), then I have to use my God-given reasoning to help sort out the good from the bad.
Are we agreed on that point?
Sherry also said...
are you still honestly arguing that it is NOT best for children to have both a mother and a father??? C'mon! Doesn't that diminish the value of your wife as a mother to your children just a bit?
Yes - that is, research does not support the notion that children are in any way harmed by being brought up by gay parents.
And, no. Not any more than I think it diminishes me.
I have SEEN gay parents tend to their children and know that some gay parents are magnificent parents. Why would my acknowledging that diminish my or my wife's role as parent?
Do you think she could pretty easily be replaced by a (another) loving dad for your son and daughter? Your girl isn't benefiting all that much by having another, older, and wiser female in her life and in your home? A man would be just as easy for your daughter to talk to about everything as a woman would?
To be sure, there are some advantages to having men around and there are some advantages to having women around. Does that mean that I think that a same sex couple can't be good parents? No. I've seen it in action.
Have you? Do you know any loving, gay parents or are you arguing from a point of never having experienced this?
Stan said...
Dan, I've offered biblical arguments and I've offered secular arguments. It's apparent, however, that you're not paying attention.
Don't you think that is an unfair presentation of reality? Do you think it entirely impossible that someone could listen to the wisdom of Stan and come to a conclusion different than the one he has? (That was lightly biting sarcasm, by the way, not an attack or calling you a liar or anything of the sort).
In truth, you have offered your opinion and I disagree with it and I have offered my opinion and you disagree with it, is this not the case?
No need to suggest I have not been paying attention, which seems to imply that if I had ONLY listened to you, THEN I'd be wiser.
Right?
And thanks for allowing me to hold my positions...
Dan Trabue: "In truth, you have offered your opinion and I disagree with it ..."
In truth you are bearing false witness. No, no, I don't mean that. I'm just using your approach. I offered biblical references and I offered documented research. Why on earth would I offer my simple opinion? We already know what that's worth to you.
When I said you weren't paying attention, it wasn't to imply "If you were you'd have changed your mind." It was to suggest "If you were you'd have known what I was talking about." You don't. Which means you weren't.
Dan T, you seem to only want to automatically gainsay anything anyone has to say in these posts. Stan brings in the Bible (which you claim to believe in) and you say, no no, that's what YOU THINK the Bible says, but you're wrong, or you say, well, here's what secular man says. Then someone accuses you of raising man's wisdom above God's, and you deny it saying man's thoughts are as filthy rags. You have absolutely no basis for anything you have to say other than what you feel or think. That "freedom" makes conversation impossible. You say that by some means there are moral absolutes, but the only thing you can point to is nature, and Natural Law theory (which is a bunch of bunk if you actually think about it and what it says about what God has to say).
By the way, the Bible says quite clearly and multiple times that homosexuality is a sin, so if that is true, how in God's name could same-sex marriage not be wrong?
Sherry, I don't think Dan T is married to a woman, seeing as he called himself gay early in these comments.
Dan T said,"I'm just saying you are free to believe as you wish and you are free to not be involved in a gay marriage or raise children in a gay marriage, we just want the same freedom as we are allowing you to enjoy."
Dan T, you said that many Christians are guilty of making the Bible into an idol. I disagree, but since nothing anyone has to say means anything to you, there's no point in telling you why.
If all you're going to do is argue with Stan and his commentors and not have any basis for your position other than what you feel, please do everyone, including yourself, the favor of just reading the post and moving on. Nothing edifying ever comes from what you say. All you ever want Stan to do is to agree to disagree, but he can't do that because he's not a post-modernist like you. Two people with OPPOSING bases (pronounced bas-ees) of reality can not have a meaningful conversation. I pray that God helps you in the ways you need to be helped, but you are not contributing anything useful to these conversations.
David asked...
You have absolutely no basis for anything you have to say other than what you feel or think. That "freedom" makes conversation impossible.
And thanks for the questions and the chance to clarify. I DO hope you'd respond in kind, I think that helps.
I think I have the same bases as any of us on how we decide what is right and wrong: We use our reasoning. It's all we have. When we read the Bible, we have to first use our reasoning to figure out how to interpret what it means. You do that, I do that. It's how we work as humans, aren't we agreed on that point?
I mean, it's not like God speaks in your ear and you know all things perfectly, right? (That doesn't work for me, anyway.) We have the Bible which we Christians believe to be God's revelation to us, and we have all of creation as a testimony to us and we have God working in God's Spirit in us and amongst us, but we have to use our reason to sort all of that out, right?
I don't think Dan T is married to a woman, seeing as he called himself gay early in these comments.
I've been married to one woman for nearly 25 years now. I have not said I'm gay, but I have often used the term "WE" when talking about those who are supportive of gay marriage, which extends beyond just gay folk.
David asked...
the Bible says quite clearly and multiple times that homosexuality is a sin, so if that is true, how in God's name could same-sex marriage not be wrong?
Well, that's the question, isn't it? The Bible no where says that homosexuality is sin. Not one place. There are a handful of places that talk about some form of homosexual behavior ("men laying with men," for instance) but what's in question is WHAT behavior? Is it the promiscuity and attempted rape of the Sodomites? I disagree with such behavior. OR, is it a loving, committed gay relationship - which is never mentioned in the Bible.
Gay marriage is not discussed in the Bible and it is up in the air as to whether or not ALL gay behavior is condemned in the handful of places the Bible talks about it (that being what you think) or just certain TYPES of gay behavior (promiscuity, for instance), which is what I think God is talking about in those handful of places.
David said...
If all you're going to do is argue with Stan and his commentors and not have any basis for your position other than what you feel, please do everyone, including yourself, the favor of just reading the post and moving on. Nothing edifying ever comes from what you say...
Two people with OPPOSING bases... of reality can not have a meaningful conversation.
If that is what Stan would like, I'll be glad to do so, all he has to do is tell me so. I think there is a great deal to gain in these sorts of conversations. I know I learn more with each discussion here.
I AM sorry that you feel nothing edifying comes from what I say (not even when I agree with Stan and say "Amen!"? Surely you don't find fault with me for doing that?)
From my point of view, I'm not only "argue with Stan and his commentors," I'm discussing matters of importance to Christianity and humanity, offering up another opinion from another Christian's point of view.
I think it very helpful for those of us in the body of Christ who don't always agree to have these sorts of discussions to better understand one another and to help make "the others" a real person, not just some caricature to demonize.
And I don't think we have different bases of reality. There is only one reality, this one we're in? We share the same earth, the same nation, many of the same foibles and problems, the same DNA, many of the same traditions and habits... we have a GREAT DEAL in common. Beyond that, we share the same Lord, for there is only One God, and have faith in the same Son, Jesus, by whose grace we are saved.
We disagree on how to read the Bible (who doesn't?), we disagree about some sins/behaviors (again, who doesn't?), we disagree on some human traditional interpretations, like the Atonenment (and Christendom has had many disagreements on how to interpret this over the years). These are in house disagreements.
We can discuss them and not come to any agreement but still love each other as brothers/sisters in Christ, yes?
David said...
...and not have any basis
But I DO have a bases for my positions, just as you do. We base our positions on our best understanding of God's Will. Sometimes, doggone it, I'll be wrong. And sometimes, unfortunately, you and Stan will be wrong. Thus is life in this world. Still, we can talk these things out, can't we?
If you don't wish to talk to me, then by all means, don't read my comments or ask me questions. If you do ask me questions, I am glad to answer them the best as I can, brother. My intention is only conversation and if anyone does not wish to converse, I will not force it on them, I wouldn't want to be a stumbling block.
Still, as Stan noted in an earlier post, we can strive to educate one another when we have a chance, and that's a good thing, yes?
Oh, and David, by the way, I'm not really a post modernist. I'm more of an anabaptist with post-modern leanings (perhaps, I'm not especially familiar with what po-mo means in theological terms - I could find no good definition, how do YOU define it, David?), but I got to where I am from immersing myself in the Bible and prayer seeking to follow in the fundamentals of the early church and Christ's teachings. Honestly.
I was a traditional Southern Baptist growing up and they taught me to respect the Bible and take it EXTREMELY seriously and I have sought to do so. The more I've done so, the more I've moved in this PRE-modernist anabaptist direction, in most ways (ie, believing in a simple life, in a peaceful life, in following the teachings of Jesus pretty literally - especially the Sermon on the Mount, being anti-consumerism/hyper-consumption, etc).
For what it's worth.
Dan T, you say we use our reasoning primarily to decide right and wrong. But does it really take much reasoning to say the obeying the Ten Commandments are right, and disobeying the Ten Commandments is wrong. Without much reasoning, I can know that sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, and lieing are all wrong, because God said it quite clearly in Scripture. It takes prayer and consideration to discern some of the more hidden concepts in Scripture, like Atonement, but most of the "right and wrong"'s in Scripture are clear.
You say the Bible doesn't have ANYTHING to say about homosexuality. What about 1 Cor 6:9-"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,"(ESV) If it's talking about being promiscuous, that would fall under sexually immoral or adulterer (covers married infidelity and unmarried fornication), why would it repeat itself in the same sentence? If you can point out a gay couple that is in a loving, committed relationship, and are not having sex, then I will acquiesce.(There are others like this, but you said there are none and I showed one).
I misspoke by using the term "reality", but meant truth. From what I've read from you, you believe that Scripture is not inerrant. You seem to believe that Scripture was written by fallen men and are thus open for interpretation or removal. I (and Stan) believe that Scripture is the inerrant Word of God by which He speaks through fallen men to tell His story, and He is faithful to keep His story intact. This is what I meant by a different basis of reality. If neither of us have common ground to stand on, we can't agree to disagree, because we have no equal basis on which to stake our claims.
In short, a post-modernist says that two opposing theories can be equally right. If you truly believe something, and I truly believe the opposite, we're both right, and can just let bygones be bygones. Post-modern thinking says "Can't we all just be friends?" It is a wholly un-biblical ideology, because time and again we are told to correct our brothers of their errors. If we are told to correct errors, then there must be errors to be corrected, we can't all be right. If we don't attempt to correct the wrong in others, we are held responsible for staying out of it. Post-modernism is more in-depth and broader, but that was my reference.
David asked...
What about 1 Cor 6:9
Homosexual is not the literal translation of that word. IF we are concerned about understanding the Bible, we must begin with a good translation.
Although "homosexual" is a very common translation in that location, it is almost certain to be inaccurate:
* If Paul wanted to refer to homosexual behavior, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males.
* The second term is "arsenokoitai" in Greek. The exact meaning of this word is lost. It seems to have been a term created by Paul for this verse. "Arsen" means "man" in Greek. "Koite" means bed. "Lying with a man," then, seems to be what it's saying literally, not homosexuality. Could it be referring to homosexuality? Possibly, but probably not or Paul would have used the word for homosexuality.
Could it be referring to male prostitutes? Possibly. Could Paul be referring to Temple sex rituals, as he is in Romans? Possibly. The thing is, we don't know what the word means because Paul made it up and left it undefined.
But this is off topic, David, we probably ought not belabor the point or Stan may be more unhappy with me than he already is.
David also noted that there are many parts of the Bible that seem quite easy to understand. And I agree wholeheartedly! See? We CAN and DO agree at times.
There are MANY parts of the Bible that are quite clear. Jesus quite literally said, "Blessed are the poor, woe to you who are rich," and, given this is a repeated theme in the Bible, I think it is abundantly clear that it means just what it literally says.
Jesus tells us to love our enemies, Paul tells us to overcome evil with good, etc, and given the clear and constant theme in the Bible, I think it abundantly clear.
We are repeatedly told not to steal, nor to cheat - especially the poor, who are more at risk of being cheated and economically oppressed. It IS abundantly clear.
That's one of the great things about God's Word: There are HUGELY consistent and clear themes throughout the Bible and having those clear points helps extremely in striving to discern God's Will. We agree.
BUT, as you rightly note, not every point is as clear.
Homosexuality is one of those.
You mentioned...
There are others like this, but you said there are none and I showed one
And this is one area where we see that it is unclear. You thought that homosexuality was mentioned in the Bible, but it's not, not by that name, anywhere at all in the Greek or Hebrew text. The Greek word for "homosexual" does not appear at all - zero times. I could be wrong, but I don't believe the Hebrews had a word for "homosexual." For what it's worth.
Beyond that, there are quite literally maybe two handfuls of places where SOME sort of homosexual behavior either is or appears to be mentioned. But it's not specifically saying "ANY AND ALL gay behavior," in those places.
MOST of the places in the bible where homosexual behavior shows up is in the context of gang rape/promiscuity (story of Sodom) or male prostitution. So, while to SOME (me, at one time) it appears to be a clear issue, the more you dig, the less clear it is.
So, what do we do in cases where it isn't crystal clear? We use our reason to sort it all out. Are we agreed?
David said...
From what I've read from you, you believe that Scripture is not inerrant.
* As I have said, I believe the Bible is a book of Truths. Those Truths are without error.
* So, in my mind, to call the Bible "inerrant" is missing the point, if you're talking about whether or not it ever has mistaken facts.
* The Bible itself does not claim to be inerrant and so, since I respect the Bible, I would not make a claim about it that it (or, more importantly, God) makes about itself. Does that seem reasonable?
Do you think we ought to make a claim about the Bible that it does not make?
David said:
This is what I meant by a different basis of reality. If neither of us have common ground to stand on, we can't agree to disagree, because we have no equal basis on which to stake our claims.
We have reality. We have our logic/reasoning. We have our common humanity. I suggest we have a great deal of common ground.
Is it your opinion that you can't successfully have a conversation with someone on important topics unless they agree with you on how to interpret the Bible? On what basis would you make that claim, I don't believe there is a biblical basis for making that sort of claim.
David said...
a post-modernist says that two opposing theories can be equally right. If you truly believe something, and I truly believe the opposite, we're both right, and can just let bygones be bygones. Post-modern thinking says "Can't we all just be friends?"
1. Again, having hardly ever read anything about po-mo theology, I could be wrong, but I don't believe they would define it that way.
2. Speaking for myself, I clearly don't think that two opposing theories will always be right (I suppose it can happen, but for our topics here, it's a moot point). I quite clearly and (apparently) rudely have pointed out areas where I think you all are wrong (as well as areas where I agree with you all). When I point out that you are mistaken, it's not because I think both my idea and yours are equally valid. I point out the error because I believe you are in error.
3. So, I guess by your definition, I'm not Po-Mo after all?
Finally, David said...
If we don't attempt to correct the wrong in others
Sooo, if I think you all are wrong, I have an obligation to strive to correct you, is that what you're saying? If so, that would be yet another area where we agree.
Thanks for the extra communication, I hope you can address some of these questions. Thanks!
One more quickie. David said...
You say the Bible doesn't have ANYTHING to say about homosexuality.
Actually, what I said was...
The Bible no where says that homosexuality is sin.
You see how easy it is to make a mistake? What I pointed out that the reality that no where in the Bible does it condemn all homosexual practices. You "heard" me say that the Bible doesn't say anything about homosexuality, but I didn't say that.
That's another reason why I think these conversations are good. It's really easy to miss a simple little line like that and presume "Well, what he's saying is X" when he never said X at all.
So, what do you think? Are these conversations good or a waste of time? or somewhere in between (ie, both a waste of time, but maybe somewhat good...)? (and I know, that's a little like saying BOTH are right and that might be too po-mo for all of us here...)
David originally said...
If all you're going to do is argue with Stan and his commentors and not have any basis for your position other than what you feel, please do everyone, including yourself, the favor of just reading the post and moving on.
But then followed up by telling me...
It is a wholly un-biblical ideology, because time and again we are told to correct our brothers of their errors.
So, since he hasn't responded yet (I am sure he may just be busy, I sure have been), I'll assume for the time being that he is telling me that he wants me to keep bringing these conversations on in an effort to better correct all our errors and misunderstandings. That seems to be what he is saying here - he can correct me if I'm mistaken - so I'll keep noting when I think something is in error and keep saying "amen" when I think something is right.
Thanks, David! Let me know if I'm reading you wrongly.
And don't worry about the misstating my position. Just a mistake, it happens to all of us, no hard feelings.
Dan Trabue: "I'll assume for the time being that he is telling me that he wants me to keep bringing these conversations on in an effort to better correct all our errors and misunderstandings."
Actually, Dan, I want you to keep bringing these conversations because they provide such a rich field from which to write posts and a very clear canvas on which to paint the difference between liberal Christianity and biblical Christianity.
As you provide a very clear canvas to paint the difference between faith in Jesus and faith in some human traditions, logic be damned.
Thanks.
Okay, let me think about this. I believe you classify yourself as "liberal Christianity". I believe you actually embrace it. Conversely, you prefer a "less wooden" interpretation of the Bible. So ... I get my version. I don't see how "liberal Christianity" would be insulting to you.
Okay, now for yours. Nope ... can't seem to see that as anything but unkind and rude. I use Scripture, logic, historical Christianity ... well, I guess we're clear on this.
Stan, I suggest you read Bible, Gender, Sexuality by James Brownson. You'd get a good understanding of the historical context of gender complementarity.
Thanks. No. Brownson is all in favor of rereading the Bible to come to new conclusions and is perfectly happy concluding, for instance, that all those things in Scripture regarding homosexual sex as sin are all wrong, outdated, not right. "We've figured it out!!" I am not comfortable with the idea that the Holy Spirit failed for 2000 years to get this across and no one else figured it out before Brownson. He used "revising women's roles in church" and Evolution as examples of how we've had to revise Scripture in the past. I wholly disagree.
Post a Comment