A couple of years ago the Christian blogosphere was atwitter with articles about Genesis 1 – and specifically, the creation v science dichotomy that so many people seem so keen to establish when assessing Genesis (yes, I’m looking at you New Atheists, and at you Creation Scientists). Reading the Bible like a fundamentalist has its benefits. You’re much less likely to become a heretic. But it’s not the only valid way to read the Bible. The idea that actually trying to interpret the Bible alongside other disciplines like literary criticism, science, and history, will lead to apostacy is a slippery sloped fallacy.
This year, it seems like the hot-button issue is another that has its roots in Genesis 1, an issue firmly based in the created order and the first instruction recorded from God to mankind. This issue seems to be coming to a head because of a few external factors, and a few internal factors. It’s not new. And I can’t figure out why I’m reading so many articles about it all of a sudden when it’s an issue that has been on the agenda in some form for years. The Internet Monk essentially predicted that this would be the big issue for discussion online back in October.
A few weeks ago one of my favourite Christian blogs from the more liberal end of the spectrum – Jesus Needs New PR – took a wild stab at the writer of one of my favourite Christian blogs from the more moderate middle of the spectrum – Conversant Life. In particular at Sean McDowell, for the comments he made in this video.
Now, I have voiced some opinions on gay marriage before – which probably places me around the moderate area – but I’m by know means “moderate” on the issue when it comes to homosexuality within the church. My argument for gay marriage is that those who want to identify as homosexual should be as free to do so as we are to identify as Christians – and that our secular government should be preserving individual freedoms.
This video of Sean McDowell did the rounds of the atheist blogosphere where it attracted significant vitriol – including this post on the Friendly Atheist where I got involved in the discussion – one commenter there suggested that morality essentially follows love – and that arguing against gay marriage was the same as arguing against love – and thus, clearly immoral. Which opens up all sorts of possibilities – there are plenty of “loving relationships” that are still taboo – but more on that later…
I recognise that homosexuality is not a “choice” – it may well be that in some cases it is, but often it can be a natural predisposition, in other cases it can be a result of circumstances in one’s upbringing. That’s neither here nor there. Some would argue (and they have – see that Jesus Needs New PR comment thread) that just because something is natural it is right. Which I think does great injustice to the argument of Romans – which Paul begins in chapter 1 – that we can expect the stuff we think of as natural to actually be wrong – because we are born into sin. This makes life especially hard for Christians who struggle with same sex attraction (SSA). It’s a hard sin to struggle with. I suspect given our society’s propensity to make sexuality such a fundamental part of one’s identity makes it especially hard. But we all, when converting to Christianity, have to make a statement about our identity, and we all have to fight battles with the flesh. But I imagine, based on observation, that struggling with that SSA stuff sucks. Especially when there are bozos like the Westboro Baptists running around clouding the area for Christians who haven’t had any experience with Christian brothers and sisters struggling in this area.
There’s genuine hurt expressed in the comments on that Jesus Needs New PR thread, and we need to do a much better job at loving Christians who struggle in that area. But loving, and permitting, are two different things. Which is where McDowell was getting at. He posted a follow up to the criticism from Jesus Needs New PR on his own blog, where I’ve commented with what I think are the fundamental issues the pro-gay-in-the-church lobby are going wrong (in their legitimate bid to love these brothers and sisters)…
1. Jesus loves and saved sinners.
2. Sinners who turn to Christ find their identity in him – which replaces sexual identity – the whole idea of a Christian trying to have their identity based in their sexual desires seems to me to be a failure in the flesh v spirit battle.
3. Forgiveness for sins is linked to repentance – homosexuality is no worse than other sins – but you don’t hear practicing homosexuals accepting that what they are doing is sin.
4. There are many godly men and women who struggle with same sex attraction, as Christians we shouldn’t be surprised that science suggests homosexuality is a naturally occurring phenomena. We live in a world tainted by sin – and we are people who have, before birth, experienced that taint.
5. Christianity is a freedom that many of us enjoy thanks to the political systems we live under – and we should afford others (non-Christians) the same right to determine the path of their lives that we expect. Which is why I think we should actually, essentially, be for gay marriage (though I think we should also be seeking to ensure that the church can not recognise gay marriage without charges of discrimination etc). We can’t expect non-Christians to live as though they have the Holy Spirit.
6. I’m pretty driven by the desire to be as winsome as possible for Christ – and I don’t think standing up and preaching on, or against, particular sins is the way to do it. Better to preach Christ and him crucified. I think part of that is having a coherent position on all sorts of social issues that points to Jesus as the answer to the brokenness of this world and the brokenness of human relationships.
The problem with figuring out how to deal with an issue in our own backyard – the church – is then trying to figure out how to articulate that position in public policy. Looking at our neighbours yards. I think there’s a genuine concern that marriage be recognised as the ideal place for raising and nurturing children – and I’m confident that the life God calls his followers to lead is the life he wants his creation to lead. But we’re not dealing with a nation where everybody believes in God. So arguing for this view requires a bit of nuance. As I’ve said elsewhere (see the long discussion in that post with Mark Baddeley) – I think we’re at the point where we need to move the goalposts in the argument and start arguing for our right to disagree with government policy without fear of repercussions. In this case it would be arguing for the right to discriminate against gay marriages in the church – by refusing to conduct them, and refusing to recognise them.
The Sydney Anglican Church’s excellent Social Issues Executive have just weighed into this debate – predicting movements on the definition of marriage in Australia this year.
I’m generally a little wary about “slippery slope” arguments. Which that paper relies on:
“Each time one of these elements of marriage is removed, Western society crosses a kind of Rubicon. When gender difference is also removed, there is no reason to exclude any imagined candidate for ‘marriage’. In the United States, legalisation of gay marriage has led to calls for polygamy to be legalised, since polygamy can also be based on loving, consensual relationships. In December 2010, it was reported in Swiss and British newspapers that the upper house of the Swiss parliament is considering a law decriminalising incest (sex between consenting family members), saying that the laws are now ‘obsolete’ (since procreation is optional). Daniel Vischer, a Green party MP, was reported as saying that there was nothing wrong with two consenting adults having sex, even if they are related. On this logic, there remains little basis to exclude ‘marriage’ for minors, or between groups of friends, or for any combination where consent can be demonstrated.”
To some that would seem a little unlikely. But it’s actually not. Check out this list, another post from the Friendly Atheist, that essentially seeks to create a political platform for atheists who make all their decisions based on being enlightened, rational, freethinking “brights” – who like to tell you they’re atheists because they’re better educated than you. The comments in response to this thread are a little scary.
There are, of course, disagreements over what constitutes “harmless.” There are atheists who are pro-choice and atheists who see abortion as unethical and wrong. There are atheists who will defend the right of Muslims to speak freely and build mosques and atheists who see all of Islam as a violent, threatening force. Some issues are less clear-cut than others.
Let me suggest ten hypothetical rights below. (Note that these examples should all be considered consensual, adult situations.)
Some of them are already widely supported and acknowledged as rights, while others are not.
- The right to marry members of your own gender.
- The right to adopt children, whether you’re gay or straight, and whether you’re single or not.
- The right to smoke marijuana (with certain restrictions similar to those on alcohol and cigarettes).
- The right to choose euthanasia.
- The right to change sex or gender, whether through surgery, hormones, cross-dressing, or some combination.
- The right to marry multiple people.
- The right to have an elective abortion in the first or second trimester.
- The right to have an elective abortion in the third trimester.
- The right to engage in incest.
- The right to express belief in any religion or philosophy.
Is each right harmless to others or not? Should atheists (or at least introspective, involved atheists) logically support them? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.
Here’s what the Social Issues Executive has to say about that list – the paper also contains links to a bunch of other references.
The point here is simply to observe the inevitable logic of post-Christian society. Christians should not be too shocked by each of these erosions. In a way, they are to be expected. Christians don’t have any radical new arguments other than to continue to praise this particular and special relationship – that lifelong, opposite sex, faithful, procreative adventure we currently call ‘marriage’.
This, perhaps, is not the best way to go about preaching the gospel to homosexuals:
Related posts:
Hey Nathan,
Why don’t you like slippery slope arguments? Is it that you don’t like them in general or you don’t like some forms of them?
I think SSAs (slippery slope arguments, to confusingly re-purpose the same acronym from above) are valid in cases when the acceptance of one particular idea removes any logical basis for not also accepting another, even though the advocates of the first idea themselves really do not intend to advocate the second.
I think one case where SSAs have proven correct is abortion. Once early term abortion was accepted, soon so too was late term. Accepting the first removed the logical basis for rejecting the second. Now even partial-birth abortions are practised legally in some places. In fact, some bio-ethecists have advocated the validity of killing several-month-old infants who are unwanted because of disability. Their argument is that logically it is not really any different to killing the same baby in the womb.
The logical basis for not killing children was originally that they were simply human and so should not be killed. Early term abortion removed that logical basis. Yes, they might technically be human (e.g. in terms of DNA), but, so the argument goes, they are not sufficiently developed to count as a person independent of their mother. Obviously, the criterion “sufficiently developed to count as an independent person” is much more open to interpretation and movable than “human”. So, indeed, we can see how society not only will progress but in fact already has progressed with that original logical basis for not killing children having been rejected.
I think it’s easy to how a SSA might similarly be quite valid in regard to changes to marriage and in fact to all legal sanction of sex.
I don’t like them in general because they’re logical fallacies that make some mistakes in terms of attributing causation to a decision, rather than the agents of a decision.
The slippery slope example you’ve given is one such case – I’d say there were probably always people interested in late term abortions early in the project, but lobbying for abortions to be legal at all was their logical first step. Then they moved on to step two.
So, on one hand, it’s good to be pointing out the other logical conclusions that may be inferred from a change in policy – it’s a fallacy to suggest they are definitely going to happen as a result of entering the slippery slope.
I tend to agree with Jeremy. The thing that is important is time: what is the fringe for one generation easily becomes the centre for the next. Once the logical reason for not doing something wrong is removed, it is only the ‘yuck’ factor that holds people back, and that moves gradually over time mostly without our notice. In terms of agency, those who open the door often aren’t the ones who actually walk through it – for instance, Arius wasn’t nearly the Arian that so many of his followers became.