Can One Be a "Gay
Evangelical"?
My answer to a
New York Times reporter and how she reported it
by
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Dec. 16, 2006
(For
a pdf version more suitable for printing, proper formatting, and
pagination, go here.)
On 11/29/06, Neela
Banerjee, religion reporter for The New York Times, emailed me to
ask my views on “gay evangelicals” and about whether I thought "such a
term can be honestly used." On the same day I emailed my response. She
took two quotes from my response for her article in the Times on
Tuesday, Dec. 12, entitled “Gay and Evangelical, Seeking Paths of
Acceptance” (front page, continued on p. 18; temporarily available on
the web
here). She
was pleasant in her email. However, her handling of my response merits
some comment and qualification. Here is the excerpt from the article
that quotes me, along with the immediate context of her article and with
boldface added to the quotations of my words:
But for most evangelicals, gay men and
lesbians cannot truly be considered Christian, let alone evangelical.
“If by gay evangelical is meant
someone who claims both to abide by the authority of Scripture and to
engage in a self-affirming manner in homosexual unions, then the concept
gay evangelical is a contradiction,”
Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh
Theological Seminary, said in an e-mail message.
“Scripture clearly, pervasively,
strongly, absolutely and counterculturally opposes all homosexual
practice,” Dr. Gagnon said.
“I trust that gay evangelicals would argue otherwise, but Christian
proponents of homosexual practice have not made their case from
Scripture.”
In fact, both sides look to Scripture.
The debate is largely over seven passages in the Bible about same-sex
couplings. Mr. Gagnon and other traditionalists say those passages
unequivocally condemn same-sex couplings.
Those who advocate acceptance of gay
people assert that the passages have to do with acts in the context of
idolatry, prostitution or violence. The Bible, they argue, says nothing
about homosexuality as it is largely understood today as an enduring
orientation, or about committed long-term, same-sex relationships.
For some gay evangelicals, their faith
in God helped them override the biblical restrictions people preached to
them. . . .
Here is the email that I
sent Ms. Banerjee, from which she extracted the quotes (I have placed
the quotations in boldface):
Dear Neela,
Are there “gay evangelicals”? Yes and
no.
YES: Well, there certainly are
self-described evangelicals who experience homosexual impulses and,
more, affirm these impulses as something good--just as there are
evangelicals who both experience various sinful impulses and sometimes
even wrongly attempt to justify these impulses from Scripture. For
example, there are evangelicals who attempt to justify sexual relations
outside the covenant bond of marriage (i.e., evangelicals who are also
fornicators). The apostle Paul’s “first” letter to the Corinthians
rebukes the Corinthian Christians for affirming an incestuous
relationship between a member of their community and his stepmother
(chap. 5) and later goes on to warn the Corinthian believers not to be
adulterers, men who have sex with other males, or men who have sex with
prostitutes lest they risk not inheriting the kingdom of God (chap. 6).
Such persons who are “one spirit” with Jesus scandalously involve Christ
in a sexually immoral “one flesh” union. So the phenomenon of Christians
acting in ways that are contrary to the call of the Christian gospel,
and even affirming such behavior, is as old as Christianity itself.
NO: But if by “gay evangelical” is
meant someone who claims both to abide by the authority of
Scripture and to engage in a self-affirming manner in homosexual
unions, then the concept “gay evangelical” is a contradiction in
terms--all the more if one understands “gay” to be a self-constructed
identity that seeks to justify and gratify preexisting homosexual
impulses. It is a contradiction in terms because Scripture clearly,
pervasively, strongly, absolutely, and counterculturally opposes all
homosexual practice. I trust that “gay evangelicals” would argue
otherwise but Christian proponents of homosexual practice have not made
their case from Scripture (see my website at
www.robgagnon.net for this; start with my critique of your
colleague Nicholas Kristof at
http://www.robgagnon.net/homoAPReporter.htm and work your way
to my critique of a recent book by Myers/Scanzoni at
http://www.westernsem.edu/files/westernsem/gagnon_autm05_0.pdf). So
to construct a self-identity around behavior that Scripture deems to be
an egregious instance of sexual immorality, all the while claiming to be
an evangelical Christian who upholds the authority of Scripture, is to
engage in a self-contradiction. At best one might speak of
“self-deceived gay evangelicals.”
Since Jesus himself would have found
any self-affirming, unrepentant homosexual activity to be appalling,
putting the perpetrator at risk of not inheriting the very kingdom of
God that he proclaimed (see pp. 56-62 in my article cited in the last
link above), he would have rejected any attempt to construct an identity
around the affirmation of homosexual impulses as incompatible with the
call to Christian discipleship. To be a true disciple (learner) of Jesus
one must (according to Jesus himself) take up one’s cross, deny oneself,
and lose one’s life. So the expression “gay Christian”--not just “gay
evangelical”--is a contradiction of terms, just as “self-affirming
polysexual Christian” or “self-affirming adulterous Christian” is a
contradiction of terms.
We all sin and are regularly in need of
God’s grace and forgiveness. But there is a difference between this and
engaging in serial, unrepentant sin of a severe sort. Jesus
called the adulterous woman out of sin, “lest something worse
should happen” to her. The church should do the same in love for
self-professed “gay evangelicals.”
Hope this helps.
Rob
I
appreciate that Ms. Banerjee quoted parts of three of my sentences,
which is more than most scholars espousing a position against homosexual
practice could expect to get in a major newspaper heavily invested in
promoting homosexual relationships, like The New York Times. Yet
there are several corrections and comments worth noting here:
-
Ms. Banerjee
misconstrued my remark “Christian proponents of homosexual practice
have not made their case from Scripture” to mean that such proponents
in my view had not even tried to make a case from Scripture.
To this Ms. Banerjee responds in the article: “In fact, both sides
look to Scripture”—as if I were unaware of this obvious fact. She
then goes on to explain—again, as if I were unaware—that “those who
advocate acceptance of gay people assert that the passages have to do
with acts in the context of idolatry, prostitution or violence” and
not with acts in the context of “an enduring orientation, or about
committed long-term, same-sex relationships.”
Now it should have been obvious to
Ms. Banerjee that I knew about the frequent attempts on the part
of many to neutralize the Bible’s clear opposition to homosexual
practice. My publications on the subject of the Bible and homosexual
practice over the last 6 years have dealt with all of these arguments in
detail. Had Ms. Banerjee checked out the links that I provided her, or
read any of my print publications on the subject, she would have known
this. She would then have realized that my point was that Christian
proponents of homosexual relationships have failed to make a good and
convincing case from Scripture. (See the links above and, added
to these, my recent extensive critiques of Jack Rogers’s recent book on
the subject of the Bible and homosexuality, on my website; start
here and then proceed
here,
here,
here,
here, and
here.) The idea that Scripture says nothing against loving
homosexual behavior entered into by homosexually oriented persons is
akin to arguing that the Bible poses no obstacle to committed incestuous
unions engaged in by consenting adults or that the New Testament is open
to committed polyamorous (multiple-partner) unions entered into by
confirmed “polysexuals.”
To her credit, when I pointed out this
error, Ms. Banerjee acknowledged in an email that she had misunderstood
me and apologized. I appreciate that. I doubt, though, that the Times
will issue any public correction.
-
In answer to Ms.
Banerjee’s question about whether the term “gay evangelicals” can be
“honestly used,” I said “yes and no” and explained both responses. Ms.
Banerjee noted only the “no” part of my answer.
My response is considerably more nuanced than the Times
article would suggest. Of course, on an empirical level there are
people who claim to be both “gay” (involving a self-affirmed identity
around the acceptability of homosexual relationships) and
“evangelical” (involving a belief in Scripture’s supreme authority for
matters of faith and practice). But, since Scripture cannot be made
serviceable to the acceptance of homosexual practice, it is a
contradiction in terms to claim that one is an “evangelical” while
affirmingly constructing an identity based on behavior that would have
appalled all the authors of Scripture, to say nothing of Jesus.
-
Ms. Banerjee was
not quite accurate in characterizing my position as claiming that “gay
men and lesbians cannot truly be considered Christian, let alone
evangelical.” This way of wording things can convey a meaning
different from my stated position to her, namely, that the term “gay
Christian” is “a contradiction in terms”—“just
as,” so I noted in my email to her, “‘self-affirming polysexual
Christian’ or ‘self-affirming adulterous Christian’ is a contradiction
of terms.” First, I made clear in my email that I understood “gay” as
a label for someone who not merely experiences homosexual impulses but
who, more, “engages in a self-affirming manner in homosexual unions.”
Clearly, someone can be a Christian and experience homoerotic desires,
just as Christians experience an array of sinful desires on a daily
basis that ought not to rule their lives. Second, a person can even be
a Christian while engaging in a self-affirming manner in homosexual
practice, just as (again noted in my email) Paul dealt with the case
of an incestuous Christian in 1 Corinthians 5-6. However, such a
person would be a Christian at risk of exclusion from God’s kingdom (1
Cor 6:9-11 and often). So a “gay man” or “lesbian woman” who calls
him- or herself a Christian while engaging in serial, unrepentant, and
self-affirmed homosexual activity could be “considered” a Christian
who is at risk of not inheriting eternal life. There is an elementary
distinction here between being and behavior, where a Christian engages
in behavior that is not Christian.
On
Ms. Banerjee’s behalf I can say that I’ve seen far worse reporting on
this issue. At least Ms. Banerjee solicited my comments, was polite, and
actually used most of three of my sentences. Moreover, she ended her
article on the helpful note that relatives of one “gay Christian” in a
homosexual relationship tell him, “We love you, but we’re concerned.”
These features of her article and reporting should be applauded even as
we continue to seek improved reporting on the subject of Christianity
and homosexuality from the Times and other major media
publications.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is a
professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible
and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. He can be reached at
gagnon@pts.edu.