Double Take (an apologetically lengthy blog entry with lots of quotes)

I have been reading a fascinating book recently. It has really challenged my way of thinking about a lot of things, especially about how I form my views of things, especially homosexuality (not necessarily the conclusions, but how I form my views). For example, read the following passages:

Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants…, elite literati…, and practitioners of realpolitik… who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society.

With increasing frequency as the national debate heated up, biblical defenders against homosexuality were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense against homosexuality as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Open and Affirming leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try homosexuality by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of love…”

The power of the anti-homosexual scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly condemned homosexuality… how could genuine Christians attack modern stances against homosexuality as an evil?

It was no coincidence that the biblical stance against homosexuality remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest… it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the anti-homosexual biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts…

In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense against homosexuality were largely overcome… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by… the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how prejudice against homosexuals could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism.

The primary reason that the biblical defense against homosexuality remained so strong was that many biblical defenses for homosexuality were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical defense of homosexuality were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical defenses of homosexuality offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, they were much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles.

Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical homosexuality argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.”

These passages fairly clearly lay out two distinct views of homosexuality. One is based on the Protestant and American principles of the primacy and accuracy of the Scripture and of reading Scripture individually and determining the meaning, while the other view is based more on the scope, or arc, of the Bible and the primary principles of mercy and justice. Which side are you on? Which side resonates with you, and which raises your hackles as a shiver runs down your spine? To be honest, I get a shiver of hesitation when I think about arguing not from specific passages but from the “big picture” when so many specific passages address the issue. In other words, I tend to resonate with the structural arguments against homosexuality presented here.

One problem, though. The above arguments were not made regarding homosexuality. They are only slightly modified quotes from Mark Noll’s book “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.” The arguments against homosexuality are constructed the same way that the arguments for slavery were constructed, while the proponents of the acceptance of homosexuality appeal in the same general way as the anti-slavery leaders of the 1800s, such as William Wilberforce.

Read the passages again, only this time unaltered:

By 1860 Americans who believed in the Scriptures as unquestioned divine revelation should have been troubled by the growing number of their fellow citizens who seemed willing to live without that belief. The most prominent among those coming to doubt the all-sufficiency of Scripture were savants like Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., elite literati like William Dean Howells, and practitioners of realpolitik like William Henry Trescot, who were turning aside from all a priori authorities, including the Bible. Instead, they were looking to scientific, legal, literary, business, or governmental substitutes to provide the necessary ballast required by what they hailed as an increasingly secular, consumer-oriented, and religiously pluralistic society. (p 31)

With increasing frequency as the sectional conflict heated up, biblical defenders of slavery were ever more likely to perceive doubt about the biblical defense of slavery as doubt about the authority of the Bible itself. In the words of Henry Van Dyke… from his pulpit in Brooklyn, “Abolitionism leads, in a multitude of cases, and by a logical process, to utter infidelity… One of its avowed principles is, that it does not try slavery by the Bible; but… it tries the Bible by the principles of freedom…” (p 32)

The power of the proslavery scriptural position – especially in a Protestant world of widespread intuitive belief in the plenary inspiration of the whole Bible- lay in its simplicity… Thompson’s message was straightforward: if God through divine revelation so clearly sanctioned slavery, and even the trade in “strangers,” how could genuine Christians attack modern slavery, or even the slave trade, as an evil? (p 33)

It was no coincidence that the biblical defense of slavery remained strongest in the United States, a place where democratic, antitraditional, and individualistic religion was also strongest. By the nineteenth century, it was an axiom of American public thought that free people should read, think, and reason for themselves. When such a populace, committed to republican and democratic principles, was also a Bible-reading populace, the proslavery biblical case never lacked persuasive resources… Protestants well schooled in reading the Scriptures for themselves also knew of many other relevant texts… (p 34)

Between… the early 1770s and the intensification of American debate over slavery six decades later, circumstances in the North Atlantic world shifted significantly. In Britain, with Bible-believing evangelicals in the lead, scruples supporting a scriptural defense of slavery were largely overcome as the Parliament first outlawed the slave trade… then banned slavery in all British territories… More generally, Western attachment to ideas of basic human rights, which ironically had been greatly stimulated by the founding of the United States of America, made it increasingly difficult to imagine how slavery could exist in a modern civilized polity… Christian humanitarianism was trumping biblical traditionalism. (p 35)

The primary reason that the biblical defense of slavery remained so strong was that many biblical attacks on slavery were so weak. To oversimplify a complicated picture, the most direct biblical attacks on slavery were ones that relied on common sense, the broadly accepted moral intuitions of American national ideology, and the weight of “self-evident truth…” More complicated, nuanced, and involved biblical attacks against slavery offered more formidable opposition. But because those arguments did not feature intuition, republican instinct, and common sense readings of individual texts, the wer much less effective in a public arena that had been so strongly shaped by intuitive, republican, and commonsensical intellectual principles. (p 40)

Although this debate is worth studying for many reasons, it is pertinent here for how Blanchard advanced the most popular form of the biblical antislavery argument… Blanchard returned repeatedly to “the broad principle of common equity and common sense” that he found in Scripture, to “the general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible,” where to him it was obvious that “ the principles of the Bible are justice and righteousness.” (p 41).

What!? Double take. You mean the same way I look to the simplicity of the Bible on the issue of homosexuality is the same way many defended slavery? And the way people advocate for acceptance of homosexuality is the same way people advocated for emancipation and human equality?

Obviously, this is an oversimplification of the issue. I encourage people to read Noll’s book not only for the insight in brings on the Civil War, but the intriguing light he shines on American theological development.

I’m not entirely comfortable with the idea of glossing over specific passages on homosexuality to fit some grand understanding of love and mercy and justice. And I’m certainly not comfortable with espousing a view that legitimates slavery in an effort to “plainly read” specific passages from the bible.

And before anyone says it, I know that the two issues are different (one is a sanction and one is a prohibition), and the issues are more thoroughly debatable on both sides. My goal is not to defend slavery or promote acceptance of homosexuality. Since it is not my purpose, I’m not even going to take a side. My motivation in sharing these quotes is to challenge us to realize how we form our beliefs and how we organize our arguments are just as important as what we believe and what we argue. We must be willing to look at not just our individual beliefs, but also our underlying cultural influences (as Noll points out repeatedly regarding the influence of American republican and democratic ideals on theological interpretations) that led us to those beliefs.