To the editor of
www.Presbyweb.com,
Hal Porter’s letter yesterday,
in which he commends Rev. Krehbiel for saying, “What is of ultimate
importance is the trajectory of Jesus' own ministry,” prompts me to pick
up on Porter’s earlier response (Nov.
20). I had started to answer the latter but had to leave off
for holidays and other, more pressing and important matters.
Unfortunately, Porter’s Nov. 20 letter had failed to wrestle with my
analysis of Porter’s arguments in my “Viewpoint”
response of Nov. 15. My two responses to Krehbiel (February
5 and
February 12) pile on
additional material that can be used to refute Porter’s nearly identical
position. Obviously there is no “trajectory of Jesus’ own ministry” that
is at odds with rejecting a pro-homosex position.
On straining the
meaning of “new and old” in Matthew 13:52. Porter starts in his Nov.
20 letter by appealing again to a Jesus saying about the scribe for the
kingdom of heaven who brings forth new and old—a saying found only in
Matthew’s Gospel (13:52). He alleges that I “strain this text” when I
understand it in the larger context of Matthew’s Gospel, including the
programmatic statement of Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:17-48 where the
“new thing” that Jesus does is to close the law’s loopholes and intensify
its demands. Two of the six antitheses have to do with sex. Against the
broader context of Matthew’s Gospel in which Porter’s favorite saying is
found, Porter simply assumes that newness involves loosening existing
demands in the law of Moses. But as regards sexual matters the trend in
Jesus’ teaching is against loosening and toward intensification—certainly
in Matthew’s interpretation.
I would not accuse Porter
of “straining” at the saying about new and old because that would imply
that Porter is at least trying to fit it into its literary context.
Rather, he simply ignores the context altogether and makes it say whatever
he wants it to say.
Later in his letter
Porter has to acknowledge my point about Jesus’ intensified ethics. Yet he
suggests that Jesus really didn’t mean what he said or that Jesus said it
only to underscore that we are incapable of doing what he commands: “Yes,
Jesus intensified ethical behavior not lessened it, as Gagnon
appropriately points out, but Jesus did so because he joyfully makes plain
the norm for relationships that are celebrated in the Reign of God – a
norm we all fall short of.” There is no support in the context of
Matthew’s Gospel for asserting that it is permissible to violate this
“norm” or to discount repentance when the norm is violated.
Porter hijacks Scripture.
He alludes to it in order to give his statements more credibility. But the
reality is that he means something antithetical to its usage in context.
In the end, Porter knows
that he cannot justify his interpretation of the saying in context. So,
rather than show where my interpretation goes wrong, he makes what can
only be described as a childish remark: “Gagnon . . . seems to believe he
knows everything Jesus had in mind about what is old and new.” In effect:
“Cool off the level of intellectual rigor, it’s too hot in here.” As I
said in my first response, if Porter has a better argument, let him make
it. Otherwise, his declarations on what Scripture allows are meaningless.
Porter thinks that he “knows” that my respect for Scripture is idolatrous
and that my views on homosexual behavior—which are nothing less than the
views of Jesus, Paul, and the rest of Scripture’s authors—are “injurious.”
Porter “knows” the will of God on the issue of homosexual behavior. He is
as certain about his position as I am mine, but with far less reason for
being so. So, apparently, it is not certitude that bothers Porter but only
certitude that sides with Scripture and Jesus against Porter’s own
anti-scriptural convictions.
Rebutting Porter’s
other claims:
- The shape of
Porter’s appeal to Jesus is without merit. The historical evidence
shows that Jesus held to an other-sex prerequisite for sexual unions,
just as he held to prerequisites in terms of number of partners, degree
of blood relatedness of partners, and age of partners. At the same time,
Jesus’ stance on sexual ethics did not broaden the opportunities for
loving, committed unions but rather further narrowed an already limited
array of acceptable options given to him in Mosaic law. Porter
repeatedly assumes that Jesus’ outreach to sexual sinners included a
validation of their behavior. By this reasoning, Porter believes that
“sexual minorities” should have their behavior validated. As it is,
Jesus’ aggressive outreach to the “lost” and “sick,” including those
among sexual sinners, was motivated by the belief that, sans such
outreach, the offenders ran the risk of being cast into hell. Validation
of behavior was never at issue. Therefore, the proper approach to those
engaged in homosexual behavior is to reach out in love to deter them
from the very behavior that puts them at risk of not inheriting God’s
kingdom. The name “Jesus” functions for Porter as little more than a
cipher for whatever he wants to promote.
- Why is Porter
against faithful and committed adult incestuous unions and polygamous
unions? I am still waiting for Porter, or anyone, to tell me why
a man-mother or brother-sister union is wrong when conducted in the
context of mutual love, consent, and commitment and otherwise exhibiting
no scientifically verifiable negative effects (e.g., no personal
distress or disease). Likewise, I am still waiting for Porter, or
anyone, to tell me why we shouldn’t bless and grant full marriage
rights to three or more sexual partners who are committed to one
another. The whole logic for restricting the number of sex partners at
any one time to two is based on the existence of two sexes. If sexual
differentiation is irrelevant for mate selection—of course, it’s not
irrelevant but Porter thinks it is—why hold on to the number two
as a sacrosanct, inviolable prerequisite?
- Getting “straight”
why Scripture rejects homoeroticism. Porter assumes over and over
again that the reason for the Bible’s indictment of homosexual practice
was the absence of “fidelity and commitment”; consequently, that the
presence of fidelity and commitment should validate homosexual unions.
As it is, a dearth of fidelity and commitment is not the primary
reason for the Bible’s indictment of homoeroticism. The basis for the
indictment was always the compromise of gender integrity in attempting
to merge with a sexual same or like rather than with one’s sexual
complement—producing a distorted sexual half rather than a sexual whole.
The fact that Porter thinks—without a shred of evidence to substantiate
his thought—that Paul today would add to Gal 3:28 that “there is neither
gay nor straight” underscores how deeply Porter misunderstands Paul’s
reason for objecting strenuously to same-sex intercourse. I have laid
out some of the evidence in my second response to Krehbiel.
Porter
says that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be held to the same
requirements. What Porter overlooks, of course, is that an other-sex
requirement is one of the requirements that all persons are held to,
irrespective of whether homoerotic desires exist in conjunction with
some heterosexual functioning or are exclusive, temporary or lifelong,
mild or intense. Saying that homosexuals and heterosexuals should be
“held to the same standards”—minus the standard that there be a male and
female to restore the original sexual whole—is like saying that those
who want to establish an adult incestuous union and those who do not, or
“polyphiles” and monogamists, or pedophiles and those attracted to
adults, should be “held to the same standards.” Porter quotes
approvingly from the discredited study document, “Presbyterians and
Human Sexuality” (1991): “Gays and lesbians are capable of sustaining
relationships of fidelity and commitment, as are heterosexuals.” So are
persons who experience incestuous, polyamorous, and pedophilic desires.
So what? Jesus certainly did not believe that “fidelity and commitment”
were the only requirements for valid sexual unions. Incestuous desires
violate the prerequisite for non-kin relationships. Polyamorous desires
violate the prerequisite that a sexual relationship be limited to two
persons. Pedophilic desires violate an age requirement. And homoerotic
desires violate the prerequisite of a sexual complement to achieve a
sexual whole, if sex is to be had.
This
truncating of sexual prerequisites to “fidelity and commitment” and the
concomitant abolition of any natural, structural prerequisites for
sexual unions is one of the most dangerous corollaries of the push for
validating homosexual unions. And it is why the ACLU now files briefs
for polygamy (based on the recent Supreme Court decision on sodomy) and
why Presbyterian ethicist and homosexual, Marvin Ellison (of Bangor
Theological Seminary), can ask, “How exactly does the number of partners
affect the moral quality of a relationship?”
Sincerely,
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Assoc. Prof. of New Testament
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
© 2004
Robert A. J. Gagnon