Sin of Arrogance
Over the years, I've noticed many constant themes and positions in the arguments, explanations, essays written by people who believe that homosexuality, or homosexual love-making, is a sin.
When challenged by evidence from the lives of GLBTQ people, or by challenges to the theology behind the condemnation, these authors consistently responded within the premise that their belief (homosexuality is condemned in the Bible) is unquestionably correct.
These authors practice for themselves an intrinsic superiority - what they believe is automatically correct, they cannot be wrong, anyone who disagrees with them cannot be correct.
The effort to even consider that their interpretation could be in error is simply not made.
Here, Homosexuality & the Church - Part 1 , for example, despite several well-written challenges to the assumptions about the lives of GLBTQ people, challenges that contradict the notion that our loving relationships are intrinsically sin, responders simply refused to even consider the possibility, engaging in rather strained versions of 'yes, but' to hold onto their condemnation. Despite a post that crticized the trend to reduce GLBTQ people to a mere subject, issue, problem; subsequent posts continue to dehumanize GLBTQ people.
This is arrogance in action, this unwillingness to look at evidence that challenges their pre-conceived position fairly.
Another example is available here:"A Strictly Christian Policy?" -- Linda Hirshman Strikes Again". Rather than actually address the substance of Linda Hirshman's remarks, Dr. Mohler dismisses her premise out of hand. According to Dr. Mohler's other blog entries, homosexuality just is a sin, that's all there is to it - and thus, there is no need for him to consider the point Ms. Hirshman raised.
Trouble is, she raised a good point:
"In most western moral systems, immorality requires an element of harm to, or disregard for, others. The obvious examples are robbery or murder--though even sexual conduct that some call immoral supposedly degrades the moral climate of the community. That's mostly nonsense; on the rare instances when sexual conduct should be an object of moral scrutiny, it involves harming another--as (in Pace's other example) adultery does--through a hurtful breach of trust. But no one is actually harmed--and no civil liberties are trampled--by homosexuality. "
Dr. Mohler summarily dismisses this, as well as projecting assumptions she did not make , despite a key Christian teaching - a definition of morality, lawfullness, from Jesus Christ.
Ironically, it contains no mention of homosexuality.
16Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"
17"Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments."
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
34Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
In Matthew 19: 16-22, and Matthew 22: 34-40, as well as in parallel accounts in Mark and Luke, Jesus gives a very concise and clear statement about what morality is. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians 5: 14, wrote:
"The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself." "
These passages clearly validate Ms. Hirshman's point, her position is scripturally sound. But because same-sex relationships, sexual expression, intimacy do not intrinsically violate either clause of what Christ called the Greatest commandments, side-stepping becomes necessary for those who argue that homosexuality is sin. People who are openly inflicting harm on gays and lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people have to reframe any discussion away from the concept of "an element of harm to, or disregard for, others" because that concept indites their position on homosexuality - the condemnation of homosexuality is intrinsically immoral.
Think that over for a moment. Those who condemn homosexuality based on the Bible, have an interpretation of a handful of passages, and there is in the same Bible, a statement by Jesus Christ that contradicts their interpretation.
Do they even re-evaluate their interpretation? Apparently not. Consistently, they chose their interpretation about homosexuality over direct statements from Jesus Christ.
To me, that qualifes as failing to Love God with your entire self. Further, because this behavior is used to justify and excuse persecuting and physically harming GLBTQ people, they are also violating 'love your neighbor as yourself' - and those of us whom they are harming, are allowed to invite the Dr. Mohler's of the world to repent of their sin against us. His email address is available on his website, let him know he owes you, or your family members, or your friends, an apology.
9 comments:
"This is arrogance in action, this unwillingness to look at evidence that challenges their pre-conceived position fairly."
Is this statement in reference to any one commenter in general or the author of the posts? I am curious how you know if they have or have not looked at the evidence. Genuine curiousity
Bill
Well, Bill,
The sentence you quoted is the summation of a chain of thought that began with "I've noticed many constant themes and positions in the arguments, explanations, essays written by people who believe that homosexuality, or homosexual love-making, is a sin."
It sums up years of experience.
What an odd thing to be curious about, though, Bill, since there are many ways by which one can conclude that someone has not looked at evidence. I'm surprized that you are challenging the accuracy of my observation, rather than the principle I wrote about.
In human conversation, for all kinds of subjects, it is usually very easy to tell when someone 'just isn't listening'. Parents recognize right away, with their children, when something is going 'in one ear and out the other'.
Understanding whether or not you are being taken seriously is an important part of the process of communicating, one that people learn very early in life.
When you explain something to your boss, how do you tell that he or she hasn't paid attention? If you told your kid why she can't get her belly-button pierced (or some such thing) - how would you know that she was tuning you out?
The same techniques apply.
GLBTQ people are just as capable of telling when they are being heard, as anyone else is.
Whoa now. You are jumping to conclusions here, friend. You said I was challenging the accuracy of you observation, rather than the principle you wrote about. Please try not to read into the question beyond the genuine desire to hear the answer.
I was simply trying to understand if you were referring, in that quote, specifically to the article you linked to in the paragraph above it. Since you said "This..." I presumed you were referring to the person who posted that article (or perhaps the commenters) and I simply wanted clarity.
Great blog, by the way.
Bill
"You are jumping to conclusions here, friend."
Sorry, but no 'jumping to conclusions' there at all. I was replying to the implicit meaning of the sentence. I look at text, not only on a word for word basis, but within nested layers of context - sentence to sentence relationships, paragraph to paragraph, document to document.
The order that people introduce concepts is often very revealing, as much as what concepts they introduce, and what concepts they pass by. Even such clues as which interrogative (how, why, what, etc)is used conveys information about what matters to the writer.
For example, there is a signficant difference between asking somehow 'how do you know x' and 'what information led you to conclude x'. The first questions what "you" did, the second questions the data. It the difference between process and substance.
That kind of analysis, which perhaps not everyone consciously employs, reveals a great deal.
Another very useful tool is to look at what someone doesn't say, what words they don't use. In his letters to the Corinthians, Paul, writing in greek, didn't use the two ordinary, greek words of his time that mean 'men who have sex with men' - he used two different words, and that is significant. In "Hamlet", Shakespeare didn't write 'To live or not to live', he used the broader 'to be' and that makes a difference, it vastly changes the meaning and expands the scope.
So, with all that in mind -
"You said I was challenging the accuracy of you observation, rather than the principle you wrote about."
You asked "how you know" - that is a question about methodology behind my statement that implicitly challenges the accuracy of what I did.
One of the very common patterns I've encountered in my long years of debating, discussing, studying, the particular set of issues ensnarled around homosexuality, is that there is a great deal more interest in what GLBTQ people do (how questions for example) compared to the interest in what we know. So while we are explaining what we know - our experiences, the data we've found, etc., others are more interested in the 'how' - how do we know we are feeling love, how do we know we are harmed, etc - all of which challenges what we do with the experiences and data, rather than consider the experiences and data themselves.
Personally, I think that the focus on process (style, appearances, acts) over substance (data, experiences, knowledge, facts) is one of the largest obstacles to overcoming any prejudice or pre-conceived conclusion.
One that that has really struck me, Bill, is that the majority of commentary about my post on arrogance, here and at another blog, has focused on a very minor point, rather than on key points like
"Consistently, they chose their interpretation about homosexuality over direct statements from Jesus Christ."
It surprizes me that the contradiction between what Christ taught, and the interpretation 'homosexuality is sin' is apparently so uninteresting to people. Oh well.
Wait, you are saying that, despite my clarification to the contrary, you know my intentions in the question better than me? Your analysis of my words revealed a meaning that either I am lying to you about, lying to myself about, or in denial about? Dude, I seriously am on your side in this whole issue and just wanted to ask a genuine question.
I may not be the master of logic and word-smithing you are, but I know my own heart and intentions. All I ask is for the common courtesy to be given the benefit of the doubt and taken at my word.
Listen, it is obvious you are an extremely intelligent guy, someone I could learn a great from. If my years could offer you any wisdom it is this- don't presume to know a persons intention better than their own. You talk about what you "know" eloquently, ask people to listen and trust that knowledge. I ask you for the same courtesy. It was a genuine question, nothing more. Fair enough?
Bill
"Wait, you are saying that, despite my clarification to the contrary, you know my intentions in the question better than me? "
That's not what I'm saying at all. I forgive you though for putting words in my mouth.
My analysis of the word simply indicates what the word means. It may or may not be the meaning your intended to convey. I said nothing about lying, though the fact that you have introduced the concept is curious.
But that was an interesting accusation, Bill, regarding 'knowing intentions'. Since you are the author of
"You are jumping to conclusions here, friend. - - - Please try not to read into the question beyond the genuine desire to hear the answer."
- perhaps it isn't an accusation that will help you much. I tend not to consider advice from people who do not live it themselves first.
Though you ask for the common of courtesy of being given the benefit of the doubt, you have not extended that courtesy to me, nor have you taken me at my word. I have to wonder about the double-standard.
After all, I stated that I did not 'jump to conclusions' but rather, engaged in careful analysis, and you are leveling accusations in response. Though I focus on concepts, you've posted sentence after sentence about me as a person.
Taking you at your word that your question was genuine, I made a very fair and genuine effort to address how I arrived at the conclusion I posted.
You have not commented on the methodology or data I employed. Instead, your response has been accusative and laced with innuendo. I have demonstrated the common courtesy of explaining quite carefully what was involved in my conclusions, you have not posted evidence of a matching level of effort.
But I forgive you.
Bill,
I declined to publish your last two posts because of their content.
In my opinion, too much of internet discussion is wasted on unproductive chatter about appearance, illusion, guesses, and style. The overwhelming majority of such side-trips serve only to avoid real questions and issues, or as attempts to summarily discredit an entire line of reasoning without engaging in analysis or rebuttal.
There is a world wide web of places for such chatter, Bill, this blog need not be one as well. To the best of my ability, it won't be.
With that stated goal of minimizing unproductive chatter, I probably should have simply rejected both your April 14th posts. Instead, I addressed your remarks appropriately and fully.
And I invited you to discuss the subject matter of my blog instead.
Neither of the subsequent two posts from you addressed any of the talking points in my post "The Sin of Arrogance" so I've declined to publish them in keeping with my above stated goals here.
Once again, I invite you to share regarding "chose their interpretation about homosexuality over direct statements from Jesus Christ" or any of the other themes raised here.
Bill
Posts that consistently entirely or predominantly of personal attack will not be published on this blog.
Thus, your last submission was rejected as well. You are still welcome to post about the topic.
Future unpublishable comments from you will simply be rejected without explanation.
Post a Comment