CNN, the Seminary Grad, and Errors Galore
Filed under News, Sexuality & Gender on September 1st, 2011 by Michael L. BrownJonathan Dudley’s June 21 article on CNN’s Belief Blog, “Bible condemns a lot, so why focus on homosexuality?” has received over 6,000 comments and more than 31,000 Facebook recommendations. Unfortunately, the author has seriously misled his reading audience.
Dudley explains that as a result of his seminary studies at Yale, he cast off the evangelical faith of his youth, including the idea that the Bible clearly condemned homosexuality. He now claims that his “childhood community’s approach to gay rights—though well intentioned—is riddled with self-serving double standards.” And he exhorts his readers: “So let’s stop the charade and be honest. Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.”
Self-serving double standards? A charade? Could it be that Dudley still has something to learn? Could it be that, had he attended another seminary and studied with other scholars, he would have come to different conclusions? At the least, could it be that there is simply another side to the story?
Dudley’s views were influenced by Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin (whom Dudley failed to point out is openly gay and well-known for his gay-leaning interpretations), according to whom “today’s ‘pro-family’ activism . . . would have been considered ‘heresy’ for most of the church’s history.” Heresy? Really?
Dudley admits that the Apostle Paul felt that “male-male intercourse” was a sin (for the record, Paul said the same things about female-female relations), but he now believes that Paul was mistaken, meaning that Dudley has not only cast off the faith of his youth but also the faith of Paul. He claims that, Romans 1 is “the only passage in the Bible where a reason is explicitly given for opposing same-sex relations,” and in the chapter, Paul calls them ‘unnatural.’”
In point of fact, the Bible gives numerous explicit or implicit reasons why same-sex relations are wrong, including: 1) God created humankind in His image as male and female, and it is only when the two become one that His image is fully revealed; 2) there is a unique complementarity between a man and a woman, which is why men and women marry; 3) only heterosexuals unions can fulfill the divine command to “be fruitful and multiply”; 4) it is therefore detestable for a man to sexually penetrate another man.
What about saying these actions are “unnatural”? Dudley points out that in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul writes that nature teaches that long hair is degrading for a man but a glory to a woman. Do we uphold this teaching as well?
Actually, Paul never said that a man with long hair would not enter God’s kingdom, whereas he taught that practicing homosexuals would not enter, so one can hardly compare the two issues. Moreover, Paul used very strong language in his condemnation of same-sex practice in Romans 1, speaking of “shameful lusts” and “shameful acts,” among other terms.
With regard to long hair, Paul was most likely addressing the question of women wearing veils in Christian home gatherings, since it was the normal custom for married women to be veiled in public but not at home. Paul taught that they should be veiled when praying or speaking in the home gatherings, reinforcing his point with the analogy of nature, reminding the Corinthians that it is the common, cross-cultural pattern for women to have long hair and men to have short hair, the reverse being viewed as degrading. That’s it. (Although not mentioned by Paul, his argument is underscored by the fact that for men, baldness is common and not particularly devastating, whereas baldness for a woman is highly uncommon and quite devastating.)
Dudley next tackles the issue of celibacy, claiming that “the community opposed to gay marriage has itself revised the Christian tradition in a host of ways. For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy.”
Again, this is a gross overstatement, if not downright false. 1) The first followers of Jesus were all Jews, among whom marriage was highly prized and celibacy was the rare exception to the rule. 2) The New Testament actually presumed that a congregational leader would be married, stating that he must be the husband of only one wife. 3) Marriage is said to be an earthly picture of a sublime heavenly reality, namely the mystical union of Christ and the Church. 4) It was only over a period of centuries that celibacy became exalted, and at that, primarily for “clergy” (another later concept), while some parts of the Church protested the requirement that priests be celibate. But why quibble over facts?
Dudley’s case is weakened even further when he argues that “the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.” But debates about when life begins (which were largely philosophical, having to do with the nature of the soul) were hardly the issue (not to mention that many prominent, early Church leaders did claim that life began at conception). The real issue is that, for many centuries, the Church was known for its opposition to abortion (and infanticide, which it helped eradicate), beginning with early second-century documents like the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, which either condemned abortion or equated it with murder. This pattern was continued by the second-third century apologists, numerous church councils, and prominent fourth-fifth century leaders like Basil, Jerome, Augustine, and Chrysostom – just to focus on the first five centuries of Church history. So Dudley has misled his readers yet again.
The only time he is somewhat on target is when he claims that evangelicals have compromised the New Testament’s teaching on divorce. Sadly, there is some truth to this claim, but the solution is not to compromise biblical standards even further by sanctioning homosexual practice but rather to reclaim the high ethical ground of the New Testament when it comes to marriage and divorce.
Perhaps some further study would do Mr. Dudley well, this time in an evangelical seminary?
Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.
Tags: a queer thing happened to america, cnn, homosexuality, Scripture, seminary
Possibly Related Posts:
Good response Dr. Brown!
I agree also with you final comments, that we must call for a higher standard on the marriage / divorce issue.
Maybe one for another article sometime!
Blessings
Andrew
Your response contains numerous factual errors and misleading statements. To start, Dudley didn’t attend seminary at Princeton, he went to Yale, as he says at the start of the article (how carefully did you read it?).
Second, let’s examine this statement: “the Bible gives numerous explicit or implicit reasons why same-sex relations are wrong, including: 1) God created humankind in His image as male and female, and it is only when the two become one that His image is fully revealed; 2) there is a unique complementarity between a man and a woman, which is why men and women marry; 3) only heterosexuals unions can fulfill the divine command to “be fruitful and multiply”; 4) it is therefore detestable for a man to sexually penetrate another man.”
None of these are explicit reasons. If they are reasons at all, they would all be implicit or deduced from the passages with the help of some unacknowledged presuppositions. Yet Dudley is talking about explicit reasons.
Third, yes, actually, while it may not have been present immediately, the view that marriage was equal to celibacy was officially defined as “heresy” by Augustine, Jerome, and several popes and this was the official view of the Christian church until the 1500s/1600s. That you’re flabbergasted by Dudley making this suggestion only shows you are unaware of this fact in church history.
Fourth, while it’s true that early and mediaeval Christians opposed abortion, it is also true that they were opposed to all forms of contraception. They opposed abortions before they thought the fetus was a person because it was a form of contraception, which they thought was evil because it proved one had sex purely out of lust instead of for the more noble purpose of procreating. Many Christians theologians even viewed sterilization as worse that murder because it had the potential to prevent more than one life from coming into being. If you want to reaffirm early Christian opposition to early abortion, you also have to reaffirm the logic on which it was based and oppose all forms of contraception.
Fifth, you misunderstand Dudley’s argument regarding divorce and hair length. It’s not “we ignore these, so let’s ignore other stuff too.” Rather, it is that evangelicals are willing to consider legitimate theological and contextual “nuances and complicating considerations” when it comes to those other passages that they (unjustifiably) are not willing to consider when it comes to the (at least compared to divorce) fewer and more ambiguous condemnations of homosexuality.
Sixth, if you think the views of Dale Martin are invalid because he’s gay, then your views are invalid because you (at least presumably) are heterosexual, yet you failed to include that disclaimer at the start of the article.
One can only wonder if Michael Brown EVER stops his obsession with homosexuality, or his attack on others who are obviously much better equipped to discuss this from an objective (yes .. objective) view than he is? Over the years I have discovered, without fail, that there is a personal reason behind this sort of obsession; a very personal reason, and it would seem apparent that “the beat goes on” in this instance. Michael and his RedShirt Nazis would do so much better if they would choose to serve humanity in a meaningful way.
And this article becomes one more clarification that we do not preach ourselves but Christ and ourselves as servants for His sake. Seminary or not, the moment we become a law or message taking the authority for such beliefs as are examined above in error unto ourselves we depart from the faith into heresy. The insight, standard raised, and heart of the current watchman status of Michael Brown’s publication efforts on behalf of the Family are straightforward reminders of how subtle the enemy of our souls may be. Some have asserted a religious relativism as becoming a permissive lack of foundation for faith.
Let us alike not be deceived by any likes or dislikes, vanity, or personal preferences we may entertain as believed standing apart from the testimony of Christ and an abiding truth and grace in Him. Jesus is Lord, savior, and kinsman-redeemer of everyone calling on Him for their sufficiency, which the Seminarian, above, has miscomprehended to date. Let us pray for his awakening unto Christ.
Oh yeah, the NT writers were very pro-family.
Jesus (single all his life) said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters–yes, even his own life–he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
Paul said: “Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.”
Your “rebuttal” actually proves Dudley’s point. Many evangelicals interpret the Bible in a way that reinforces their pre-existing values.
Jackson,
Thanks so much for your detailed response. Much appreciated!
To respond to your points:
1) Yes, Princeton should be Yale! That was just a sloppy typo on my part, not a failure to read the article carefully, and we’ll fix it ASAP. (Perhaps before my response is even posted.)
2) Dudley does speak of explicit reasons, and I list both implicit and explicit reasons. I am quite sure, though, that in the biblical world, the implicit reasons were hardly subtle and, therefore, in many ways, they are the flip side of the negative prohibition. In other words, the male-female order and the foundational nature of that order made same-sex sexual relationships explicitly wrong. Thus, Lev 18:22 actually does give an explicit reason, while the other items on my list are, in some ways, explicit as well, and the entire Bible, from beginning to end, presumes heterosexual relationships (Honor your father and mother; husbands love your wives; etc.).
3) Regarding celibacy, you cite Church leaders from the fourth century on to support Dudley’s point, claiming that, “That you’re flabbergasted by Dudley making this suggestion only shows you are unaware of this fact in church history.” Actually, you refuted Dudley as well, since he wrote, “For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy.” That is utter and sheer nonsense, as you yourself acknowledge (although grudgingly) that the push for celibacy may “not have been present immediately.” Had Dudley said, “Over the centuries, the Church separated from its Jewish roots and the explicit teachings of the NT and exalted celibacy over marriage,” I would have had little argument. What he wrote, however, as if based on the NT, was false and misleading, which was the whole point of my rebuttal.
4) With regard to abortion, you wrote, “while it’s true that early and mediaeval Christians opposed abortion, it is also true that they were opposed to all forms of contraception.” Precisely, which gives a very different perspective then Dudley’s statement that, “Unbeknownst to most lay Christians, the vast majority of Christian theologians and saints throughout history have not believed life begins at conception.” That is actually a red herring, as you seem to know as well. You wrote, “If you want to reaffirm early Christian opposition to early abortion, you also have to reaffirm the logic on which it was based and oppose all forms of contraception.” Many pro-life Christians would agree with you here, but that’s another discussion entirely (although a worthy one), since I was simply correcting Dudley’s misstatement.
6) You claim that I “misunderstand Dudley’s argument regarding divorce and hair length,” failing to grasp that “evangelicals are willing to consider legitimate theological and contextual ‘nuances and complicating considerations’ when it comes to those other passages that they (unjustifiably) are not willing to consider when it comes to the (at least compared to divorce) fewer and more ambiguous condemnations of homosexuality.” Not at all. I recognize that, at times, we have compromised the clear NT teaching on divorce and that Dudley has confused an issue like hair length with the issue of homosexual practice. Moreover, no amount of “nuances and complicating considerations” can vitiate the explicit biblical prohibition against homosexual practice. William Webb’s in-depth hermeneutical study is worth reading this regard. http://www.amazon.com/Slaves-Women-Homosexuals-Exploring-Hermeneutics/dp/0830815619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315074837&sr=8-1.
6) With regard to Dale Martin, first, I assume my readers, especially on this website, are fully aware of my conservative Evangelical views on these matters and my opposition to most of the goals of gay activism. Second, and more importantly, Martin has written a whole polemical volume advocating the compatibility of homosexuality and Christianity, yet the vast majority of Dudley’s readers will not know that. Surely, as the one modern scholar whom he cites by name in a gay-slanted article, it would have been better to make this point. Ask yourself this question: How would the average reader evaluate Dudley’s statement had it read, “Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin, who is openly gay and who is known for his gay-slanted writings, has noted that today’s ‘pro-family’ activism, despite its pretense to be representing traditional Christian values, would have been considered ‘heresy’ for most of the church’s history”?
A final problem with Dudley’s article, not mentioned in my rebuttal, is that he mixes together two issues, which, for evangelicals, are really quite separate. First, What does the Bible say?, and second, What are some of the later developments of Church tradition?, thereby bringing further confusion to his argument.
Thanks again for your response, which is literate and appreciated, and should you respond to my response, time permitting, I’d be happy to continue to interact.
Right before my radio broadcast yesterday, one of our staff members forwarded me a funny comment on the Facebook page of local gay activist Matt Comer regarding this article. I enjoyed it so much I even made reference to it on the radio.
It was from Wes Jamison, himself a seminary grad. He posted:”From which seminary did the clearly ignorant author of this article graduate? He doesn’t list one on his website so he clearly is not an expert or is ashamed of the school that he attended.”
Well done, Wes! You brought a smile to my face and to the faces of my listeners too. Well, just FYI, you can go here. http://askdrbrown.org/about-dr-brown/academic-c-v for my background. Of course, this doesn’t make me right but it does make your post quite wrong. All the best to you in your continued studies!
Jason, so what do you with all the verses in the NT that completely contradict your position and give context to these other verses. And, based on your application of the words of Jesus in Luke 14:26, are you suggesting that He advocated suicide?
Jesus advocated ascetisim in the verse as well as diminishing the importance of the family (and funny how here you do the same thing you accuse Dudley of doing, saying “if we take Jesus seriously about the family, we also have to take him seriously about devaluing our own life and we don’t want to do that so let’s ignore what he says about the family’) and I wouldn’t grant your assertion that there are so many verses in the NT that advocate family values. To the extent that marriages and family are celebrated at all, they are rigidly patriarchal family structures. The bulk of the NT contradicts conservative Christian advocacy of modern family values. So Dudley is correct to trace the elevation of marriage over celibacy back 1500 years, latent in the NT itself and made increasingly explicit until the time of the Church Fathers.
*elevation of celibacy over marriage
And FYI: As long as we’re engaging in childish ad hominem attacks against Dale Martin (tenured professor and former chair of the Religious Studies department at Yale), you should include a disclaimer at the start of all your work that says: “It’s been almost thirty years since I finished my Ph.D. at a mid-to-low tier school for religious studies and I’ve failed to achieve tenure at any reputable university (or ANY university, for that matter!). My book on homosexuality was so reactionary that no mainstream publisher would accept it, even though mainstream publishers do publish other critiques of gay marriage. My main line of job is not as a professor or scholar but as an itinerant lecturer and radio-broadcaster.”
Ugly and mean, I know, but so is your suggestion that the work of a scholar head-and-shoulders above you in academic achievement is invalid because of his sexual orientation.
Jason, this is actually getting fun (and quite revealing in terms of the paucity of actual substance in your posts), but just for your information, you’ll need to be careful not to cross the line with personal attacks, since we don’t allow them against anyone on the posts here. To reply, though, just in case you have any interest in serious discussion:
With regard to post #8, yes, Jesus advocated asceticism but no, He absolutely did not advocate “diminishing the importance of the family.” To the contrary, He rebuked those religious leaders whose religious commitment stopped them from honoring their parents (see Mark 7), and as the gospel message spread in the ancient world, as anthropologist Rodney Stark and others have made so clear, it was liberating for women, deepened marital commitment, and aided the welfare of children.
You claim (with Dudley) that the NT doesn’t support conservative, evangelical family values. Really? Let’s go through the list: 1) Pro-life. That’s quite simple, with the full personhood of Jesus being assumed from the moment of conception and John the Immerser leaping in his mother’s womb when Miriam (Mary), the mother of Jesus and then pregnant with him, entered the home. 2) Sexual purity. Surely you know that the NT constantly speaks against adultery and all sexual activity outside of marriage in passage after passage, including explicit condemnation of homosexual practice. 3) Marriage. The NT speaks sets a high standard for divorce, and as mentioned, expects church leaders, with rare exception, to be married with children points to marriage as depicting the relationship between Christ and the Church. Of course, it’s easy to multiply citations and expand the list, but what you need to realize is that we get our values from the Scriptures.
With regard to post #10, I’m going to respond as if you’re serious. First, I have no idea if NYU is a mid-tier school for religious studies, since I wasn’t in religious studies there. My M.A. and Ph.D. were in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, and I studied with some of the world’s top Semitic scholars. (You are actually the first person I’ve dealt with in my entire life who actually spoke of NYU’s program with disdain.) Moreover, since when it is a fault to have earned a doctorate years ago? Do tenured professors keep going back to school in order to refresh their degrees? Certainly you can’t be serious.
As for my teaching career, I declined invitations to be a full-time professor at two leading seminaries because of other ministry and teaching commitments, which is why I’ve served as an adjunct or visiting professor at seven seminaries, fitting this in the midst of my other responsibilities. (This is, again, if you actually care to know.) As for teaching in a secular university, that was never my intent or goal. As for my personal academic resume, it’s quite fine, thanks. The publications speak for themselves and need no defense, and my most recent, full-length academic publications date to 2010. Not exactly ancient!
Re: your statement that, “My book on homosexuality was so reactionary that no mainstream publisher would accept it, even though mainstream publishers do publish other critiques of gay marriage,” actually, that’s not what publishers told me Were you unaware of that? It’s that they did not want to face the backlash they would get in publishing it, even though it was quite worthy. You also claimed that, “My main line of job is not as a professor or scholar but as an itinerant lecturer and radio-broadcaster.” In reality, I do all the above, by God’s grace and help, and it has been a joy to serve in these many different capacities.
That being said, which again, is if you actually care to know, you missed the whole point of my reference to Dale Martin. I said nothing about his scholarship or lack thereof. I simply stated that full disclosure would have been better for Dudley, not that his perspective “is invalid because of his sexual orientation.” The simple fact is that there could be bias in his perpsective, just as someone could accuse me of bias in the other direction, and other scholars have challenged his lack of bias when dealing with sexual-biblical issues. In the context of Dudley’s article, this should have been mentioned. For an enlightening exchange, see http://www.robgagnon.net/DaleMartinRobertGagnonExchange.htm; cf. also http://www.robgagnon.net/DaleMartinResponse.htm.
Reading Dr.Browns observation and correction of of Mr.Dudley’s article only strengthens my faith in the Holy Bible and what is clearly condemned in scripture (homosexuality;lying;adultery;murder;theft;covetousness etc.) .The bible is clear in understanding regarding sin including homosexuality,namely:
1. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God(e.i Repentance of sin;obedience;belief in all scripture)for they are foolishness to him,and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned.1 Co 2:14
2.The mind of sinful man is hostile to God.It cannot submit to God’s law,nor can it do so.Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.You,however are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit,if the Spirit of God lives in you.And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,he does not belong to Christ.
3.Nevertheless,God’s solid foundation stands firm,sealed with this inscription”The Lord knows those who are His”,and”Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness”(Sin;Lawlessness). 2 Tm 1:19
4.To the pure all things are pure,but to those who corrupt and do not believe,nothing is pure.In fact both their minds and consciences are corrupted.They claim to know God,but by their actions they deny Him.They are detestable,disobedient unfit for anything good. Titus 1:15,16
Jesus said only the sick need a doctor.People who don’t think that their is anything wrong with them or their lives and those who claim the grace of God in Christ in a freedom to sin will not seek God because they think their alright as they are.They won’t humble themselves in brokeness and contrition over sin or turn away.God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.The Gospel message is clear.Repentance from sin, now and forever(including homosexuality)and faith in Jesus Christ.And you will receive the promised gift of the Holy Spirit .Only then will be able to experience true freedom and a real life changing relationship with Jesus Christ as He is.Lord of all.
Their is no ambiguity left.You cannot redifine the definitive.You either humbly accept the Bible.Or deny it outright deny it.
Reading Dr.Browns observation and needed correction of of Mr.Dudley’s article only strengthens my faith in the Holy Bible and what is clearly condemned in scripture (homosexuality;lying;adultery;murder;theft;covetousness etc.) .The bible is clear in understanding regarding sin including homosexuality,namely:
1. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God(e.i Repentance of sin;obedience;belief in all scripture)for they are foolishness to him,and he cannot understand them because they are spiritually discerned.1 Co 2:14
2.The mind of sinful man is hostile to God.It cannot submit to God’s law,nor can it do so.Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.You,however are not controlled by the sinful nature but by the Spirit,if the Spirit of God lives in you.And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ,he does not belong to Christ. Rom 8:9,10
3.Nevertheless,God’s solid foundation stands firm,sealed with this inscription”The Lord knows those who are His”,and”Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness”(Sin;Lawlessness). 2 Tm 1:19
4.To the pure all things are pure,but to those who corrupt and do not believe,nothing is pure.In fact both their minds and consciences are corrupted.They claim to know God,but by their actions they deny Him.They are detestable,disobedient unfit for anything good. Titus 1:15,16
Jesus said only the sick need a doctor.People who don’t think that their is anything wrong with them or their lives and those who claim the grace of God in Christ in a freedom to sin will not seek God because they think their alright as they are.They won’t humble themselves in brokeness and contrition over sin or turn away.God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.The Gospel message is clear.Repentance from sin, now and forever(including homosexuality)and faith in Jesus Christ.And you will receive the promised gift of the Holy Spirit .Only then will be able to experience true freedom and a real life changing relationship with Jesus Christ as He is.Lord of all.
Their is no ambiguity left.You cannot redifine the definitive.You either humbly accept the Bible.Or deny it outright deny it.
Dr.Brown continue to be encouraged.The people are listening,watching and writing to hear you lift up the Lord and preach and defend His Holy Word.Their is a remenant Bible believing Christians with whom you you have audience.
Joshua .. It’s so good to see that someone I don’t even know, is well aware of the things that you have so eloquently posted. One by one Michael is blocking all statements that bring into question his wild claims and supposed credibility … and I suppose I would do the same thing in his shoes. When I was still an evangelical, we had a Jewish man as our pastor for a short time who made the same sorts of bigger than life claims, and in his case the claims got so out of hand that someone finally started investigating, only to find that his credibility was only in his own mind, certainly not in the minds or records of the many important people who had “the nerve” to not publish his works or give him the time of day (think of a recent tizzy snit that was directed to The Charlotte Observer for not paying attention to an intruder at the Pride Festival there.) You wrote well and I applaud you, though this will likely never be seen here, I have at least written and shared it with others who also know the unfolding story of Michael Brown.
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for continuing the good work of reclaiming “the high ethical ground of the New Testament.” Another solid, clear, and concise word.
BP
Once you said the NT clearly teaches that life begins at conception, I lost any inkling I had that you might be a serious scholar. Here’s what Richard Hays, a legendary NT scholar, dean of Duke Divinity School, and himself an opponent of both gay marriage and abortion, says in his book The Moral Vision of the New Testament, named by Christianity Today as one of the most important books of the past century: “To extrapolate from this text [referring to Luke 1:44]–whose theological important is entirely christological–a general doctrine of the full personhood of the unborn is ridiculous and tendentious exegesis; indeed, it should not be dignified with the label ‘exegesis.’” I have it on good authority that his position is the mainstream position among Bible scholars on that verse. And the idea that the Bible says life begins at conception was not widespread among Christians until after the rise of the religious right in the late 1970s. Even serious evangelical scholars who oppose usually abortion admit, as does for example Willem VanGemeren at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, that “nothing [in the Bible] address abortion directly.”
And frankly it’s hard to understand how one could think Jesus didn’t downgrade the family when he says that anyone who doesn’t HATE (literal translation) his father, mother, sister, and brother CANNOT BE HIS DISCIPLE. I can’t imagine a more explicit statement that downplays the importance of the family. And that’s not to mention passages like Mark 3:33-35 where Jesus says “Who is my mother and who are my brothers? … Whoever does the will of God, that one is my brother and sister and mother.” Not to mention Jesus telling a potential follower (Luke 9:60) not to bother burying his father who just died. Oh yeah, Jesus was a real “family man.”
Far from demonstrating that the Bible is “pro-family values,” you’ve simply proved Dudley’s point yet again: evangelicals happily ignore verses that don’t fit with their political values (or engage in tendentious hermeneutical gymnastics to make them fit) and play up ones that do.
And of course, if your main concern was truly defending the Bible and defending marriage, then you would be focusing on combating not gay marriage but the growing prevalence of divorce (condemned more times and more unambiguously that same-sex intercourse).
A simple google search reveals several publications around the time you were shopping your manuscript around that oppose gay marriage.
Here’s one from the Harvard’s press (2010): http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155
Here’s one from Moody Press (2010): http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Same-Sex-Marriage-Things/dp/0802491774/ref=pd_sim_b_11
Here’s one from Crossway (2011): http://www.amazon.com/Out-Far-Country-Journey-Mothers/dp/0307729354/ref=pd_sim_b_19
Remember, you’re the one that opened up the ad hominem attacks by quite viciously dismissing the work of another scholar based on his sexual orientation. Your academic credentials will impress lay people who don’t know better but they wouldn’t impress any faculty member at a serious seminary or university. They reveal the career of a frustrated academic who’s never held more than an adjunct faculty position and who’s thus become a popularizer. That’s not why your arguments are wrong, of course, but as long as you want to engage in character assassination of others, you should be ready to take it yourself.
Jason, your last post might be removed by the site editors because of the personal attacks (in which case you should re-post your comments sans the closing attacks), but for the moment and for the benefit of other readers, and since you mention a good friend of mine for whom I have lectured and written scholarly articles (I’m speaking of Willem VanGemeren), here are some replies:
You wrote, “Once you said the NT clearly teaches that life begins at conception, I lost any inkling I had that you might be a serious scholar.” Jason, based on your earlier posts, you had already dismissed that possibility! All kidding aside, for the view that life begins at conception in the early Church, see the study of NT and Early Church professor Michael J. Gorman, Abortion and the Early Church (with a foreword by none other than the doyen of NT textual criticism, Bruce Metzger). Verses such as the ones I cited point evangelicals and others to the belief that life begins at conception. The fact that some scholars dispute this does not make it untrue — or are you unaware that some scholars believe that the Bible teaches something clearly while others dispute that?
You wrote, “And frankly it’s hard to understand how one could think Jesus didn’t downgrade the family when he says that anyone who doesn’t HATE (literal translation) his father, mother, sister, and brother CANNOT BE HIS DISCIPLE. I can’t imagine a more explicit statement that downplays the importance of the family.” You obviously missed the point of my first response to you, where I stated that based on your reading of this verse, you would have to say that Jesus advocated suicide. Was that the reason you left that crucial part of the verse out? What a remarkable omission on your part! Jesus said, “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, AND EVEN HIS OWN LIFE, he cannot be my disciple” (Luk 14:26 ESV). Was He calling for the renouncing of our own lives – as in suicide – just as He was, according to you, calling for the renouncing of our families? Certainly not. Rather, He was calling for the radical renunciation of all other holds and pulls and loves that would come before Him. Then, as His disciples (as we see through the entire NT), we live as exemplary fathers and mothers and husbands and wives and sons and daughters, to the point that Paul wrote, “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (1 Tim 5:8 ESV). I’d be happy to interact with the other verses you cited – in fact, I preach from some of them frequently – if you show integrity in dealing with the verse from Luke, which you conveniently edited in your citation here.
You wrote, “Far from demonstrating that the Bible is ‘pro-family values,’ you’ve simply proved Dudley’s point yet again: evangelicals happily ignore verses that don’t fit with their political values (or engage in tendentious hermeneutical gymnastics to make them fit) and play up ones that do.” Tell you what, Jason. Spend some time reading Proverbs 31:10-31 (in fact, read all of Proverbs while you’re at it) and Ephesians 5-6, to start, then come back and post again. Perhaps the “tendentious hermeneutical gymnastics” point to your approach of the Word when it states things that you differ with? And may I ask you if you take Jesus’ words seriously? I certainly do.
You wrote, “And of course, if your main concern was truly defending the Bible and defending marriage, then you would be focusing on combating not gay marriage but the growing prevalence of divorce (condemned more times and more unambiguously that same-sex intercourse).” Actually, I’ve been engaged in combatting groundless divorce for years, as have most of the pro-family ministries I know. But two wrongs don’t make a right, and we will also combat the radical redefining of marriage called for by gay activism.
With regard to the publication of my book, you wrote, “A simple google search reveals several publications around the time you were shopping your manuscript around that oppose gay marriage.” First, my book is not about gay marriage. What gave you that impression? Second, you cite a book like Christopher Yuan’s personal testimony (co-authored with his mother, Angela), a wonderfully moving book, by the way, and absolutely worth reading, but, for the most part, completely unrelated to the content of my book. In any case, are you accusing me of lying? Did I manufacture the correspondence with one respected publisher who noted that, “I will be an eager reader of the book [once it is finally published] and the subject matter is something I deeply care about,” but “Even publishing firms like mine that sympathize with a book like yours shy away, not out of some vague cultural fear, but because there would be a very concrete, though difficult to measure financial penalty to pay for publishing your book.”
Finally, you claimed that I’m “the one that opened up the ad hominem attacks by quite viciously dismissing the work of another scholar based on his sexual orientation.” Really? This is what I wrote, “Dudley’s views were influenced by Yale New Testament professor Dale B. Martin (whom Dudley failed to point out is openly gay and well-known for his gay-leaning interpretations).” That is “quite viciously dismissing the work of another scholar based on his sexual orientation”? Are you kidding me? Again, in an article ridiculing evangelicals and claiming that they have no biblical support for their positions, in particular their opposition to homosexual practice, it was ingenuous for Dudley not to mention this fact. (Did you take the time to read Gagnon’s sharp and yet fair critique of Martin’s work, linked in my response to others here, above?)
Unfortunately, in the grand finale of our post, you utterly implode: “Your academic credentials will impress lay people who don’t know better but they wouldn’t impress any faculty member at a serious seminary or university. They reveal the career of a frustrated academic who’s never held more than an adjunct faculty position and who’s thus become a popularizer. That’s not why your arguments are wrong, of course, but as long as you want to engage in character assassination of others, you should be ready to take it yourself.”
First, I’m not trying to impress anyone, but please let me know which of the credentials you’re speaking of, OK? My Ph.D. in Semitics from NYU? My 28 articles in the Oxford Dictionary of Jewish Religion? My numerous articles in VanGemeren’s New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis? My Zondervan monograph on Israel’s Divine Healer in the Studies in Old Testament and Biblical Theology series? My recent commentary for Zondervan on Jeremiah? My articles in Semitic publications like Ugarit Forschungen or MAARAV? And again, are you accusing me of lying when I write that I declined invitations on three different occasions to become a full-time seminary professor at some of the top schools in the nation, because of other ministry and teaching responsibilities? Am I making this up?
The fact is, my Ph.D. diploma is in a box in storage somewhere, and I didn’t attend the graduation ceremonies for any of my degrees after high school. And that’s why in my popular articles, I’m not identified as “Dr.” Michael Brown, nor is “Dr.” on the front cover of any of my books. This stuff, in itself, is utterly meaningless to me, and all the studies are simply tools to better do the work God has called me to.
In any case, your charges of “character assassination” (simply for observing that the one scholar Dudley cited by name was openly gay and known for his gay-slanted writings) are a (self-admitted) reflection of your own words and not mine. May the Lord help you in your journey.
Also for the record, this is the fuller context quoting Prof. VanGemeren in the NY Times in 2005:
“According to Mr. VanGemeren and many other evangelical Bible scholars, no single passage in the Bible clearly supports the anti-abortion stance, but they argue that the broad narrative of the Bible, with its themes of creation, God’s blessing on life and humanity bearing the image of God, speak against abortion.
“‘Of course, nothing addresses abortion directly,’ Mr. VanGemeren said, ‘but the biblical inference as accepted over the centuries is a witness that cannot be ignored.’”
The article also cites other respected biblical scholars who agree that the Bible points to life beginning at conception. See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/weekinreview/13luo.html?pagewanted=all (Prof. Gorman is cited there as well).
How can someone even get the idea that family is downgraded by reading the Scriptures? In Ephesians, it says “children submit to your parents, as this is well-pleasing to the Lord”.
I already addressed your argument that if we take Jesus seriously about “hating” our families, we also have to believe he taught his followers to commit suicide. You simply ignored it so here it is again:
“Jesus advocated asceticism in the verse as well as diminishing the importance of the family (and funny how here you do the same thing you accuse Dudley of doing, saying “if we take Jesus seriously about the family, we also have to take him seriously about devaluing our own life and we don’t want to do that so let’s ignore what he says about the family’).”
One can hate one’s own life without committing suicide and even if Jesus DID explicitly say: “Anyone who does not hate his father and mother, sister and brother–and indeed, who does not commit suicide–cannot be my disciple” that would still not change the fact that he said you must hate your family to follow him. Your argument is demonstrably fallacious and is also hypocritical given that it is essentially saying, “Hey, we ignore what Jesus said about hating your life so let’s also ignore what he said about the family”–the same thing you accused Dudley of doing with divorce.
With regards to publishers, I fully believe they rejected your manuscript and told you those things. But as the publication of other anti-gay material demonstrates, those things are not quite true. Publishers have a way of being tactful when declining material they think is bad.
I have actually read Gagnon’s responses to Dale Martin and found them neither sharp nor fair. I think Martin is entirely on target in saying that Gagnon doesn’t understand literary theory and was right to end the conversation when it became apparent it was going nowhere.
Your suggestion that Dudley should have mentioned Dale Martin’s sexual orientation, and that this somehow diminishes Martin’s credibility, is about as bigoted and offensive as dismissing Martin Luther King Jr.’s arguments because he is black.
You may advocate the idea–which was not widespread at any time in Christian history until the 1980s, after the religious right picked up the abortion issue–that the Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception. I was simply pointing out that it is a position at the extreme fringes of mainstream biblical scholarship and at odds with what the vast majority of theologians have believed throughout history. That one professor (not of the Bible!) at the right-wing Biola University agrees with you doesn’t change that fact.
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your reply. A few comments.
I would not actually grant that Dudley is wrong in saying marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy for the first 1500 years of Christianity. Just because it wasn’t officially formulated as “the teaching of the Church” until several hundred years after Christianity began does not mean the belief did not exist or was not a dominant one until that time. After all, the doctrine of the Trinity, and indeed, the Bible itself wasn’t “present immediately” either. Doctrines don’t emerge ex nihilo; they are the codification of previous thought. And no, I don’t grant that the position is against the explicit teaching the Bible. I think one can find a fair amount of material in the Bible to support the belief that celibacy is to be preferred to marriage (some of which has already been pointed out). Even if I did grant your argument here, it’s a trivial one; so maybe it was only for 1200 years of Christian history instead of 1500. So what? It has no impact on Dudley’s argument that the Church has believed celibacy to be superior to marriage for most of its history. And I don’t think noting that Dale Martin is gay has any relevance to whether or not this fact is true.
None of the reasons you give are explicit.
You acknowledge that past theologians opposed early abortion, not because they thought it was taking a person’s life, but because they opposed all contraception. Well, most Protestants don’t oppose all contraception today. You may, in which case you’d be right to claim the early theologians as holding your position. But for most protestants and even evangelicals, they’d be wrong to do so. The fact remains that their belief about when life begins is at odds with the dominant position on when life begins in historic Christianity.
I still think you misunderstand Dudley’s argument regarding divorce, and thus, your response to him fails. The fact is there are dozens of explicit teachings in the NT that evangelicals don’t follow today. That you (presumably) don’t think it’s sinful for men to have long hair doesn’t mean you think Paul is mistaken or that you’ve abandoned the faith of Paul, just that you see his statement as bound to a particular historical context. The same thing goes for Dudley’s statements on Paul’s other natural law argument in Romans 1.
You say “errors galore” in your title, which is sure to entice readers, but what I found in the body of your Op-Ed is simply differing interpretations of both the Bible and Christianity history. I don’t see any “errors” in Dudley’s Op-Ed. Nor do I find your response to him to be a generous reading of him or convincing.
And incidentally, you also mislead your readers by saying that Jerome and Augustine opposed abortion but neglecting to mention they rejected the idea that life begins at conception and only opposed early abortion because they oppose contraception. A convenient omission.
FYI: For the readers benefit, here is additional evidence that Michael Brown wrong and Dudley is right about celibacy. This is from the late J.N.D. Kelly, a professor who specialized in early Christian theology at Oxford University, who traces the devaluation of marriage relative to celibacy to the 2nd century:
“[F]rom the second century onwards a widening stream of such essays…expound, though with widely differing nuances, what is essentially the same doctrine. This is that marriage is, on the most favorable interpretation, a poor second best; virginity is the original state willed by God, and sexual intercourse came in only after the Fall. The underlying presuppositions are that the sexual act is intrinsically defiling, and that indulgence in it creates a barrier between the soul and God.” From Kelly’s book Jerome: His life, writings, and controversies (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), 102.
Jason,
I didn’t mean to ignore your response. Rather, I didn’t see your saying that Jesus advocated asceticism explained what He meant by “hate your life” if you were trying to make the parallel argument that “hating your family” meant renouncing family values. Your interpretation, in my view, was so inconsistent from one part of the verse to the next that I didn’t realize you meant it as a response. In short, as I stated earlier, Jesus called for radical discipleship and complete loyalty to Him, which issues out in the highest family values imaginable. And let’s remember: This is the same Jesus who commended His mother to John and him to her while in the agony of death by crucifixion; the same Jesus who spoke strongly against adultery and illegitimate divorce; the same Jesus who pointed to little children as exemplars of the kingdom.
With regard to publishers, I’ve published 20 books now and have dealt with plenty of publishers, and they have no need to use tact. We’re used to honest and forthright communication. In terms of the Queer Thing book, I have openly posted some of the responses (in fact, they are on the back of my book!). See here: http://aqueerthing.com/home. Not one of them questioned the level of scholarship or the soundness of the argumentation. For the bibliography of works cited in the endnotes (excluding multiplied hundreds of thousands of internet sources, see here: http://aqueerthing.com/content/bibliography-and-indexhttp://aqueerthing.com/content/bibliography-and-index. None of this makes my position right; it simply reinforces the fact that the book is based on serious scholarship, although written for a wider audience.
You write, “Your suggestion that Dudley should have mentioned Dale Martin’s sexual orientation, and that this somehow diminishes Martin’s credibility, is about as bigoted and offensive as dismissing Martin Luther King Jr.’s arguments because he is black.” Again, you’re missing the point. It is standard fare to quote someone like me and then to put in a qualifier. For example, in an article about whether Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, you can be sure that I would be identified as a Messianic Jewish scholar and apologist, and you can be quite sure that, in a secular (or gay) publication discussing what the Bible says about homosexuality, I would be quoted as being either conservative or evangelical or even “fundamentalist” or perhaps even “anti-gay,” to give context to (or even bias against) my interpretations. Using your example, let’s say Dudley was arguing that the Bible did not support segregation (to which I would say Amen!), and then he quoted the words of a certain Professor Martin Luther King, Jr. who argued that there was not a single verse in the Bible that supported the view that the black man was inferior to the white man – but the readers had no idea who King was. Would it be unexpected to suggest that Dudley should have said something like, “Prof. King, who is himself black and a famous advocate of black civil rights, states the following”? In point of fact, you do the very thing you accuse of me wrongly doing in your final paragraph, writing off the view of “one professor (not of the Bible!) at the right-wing Biola University.” You have overreacted to my simple statement about Martin, and full disclosure in a popular article like Dudley’s, one that bashes evangelicals as being willfully duplicitous, would have been helpful. With regard to the Gagnon-Martin exchange, I couldn’t disagree with you more on virtually every point you made, but we will obviously not convince one another on that.
Finally you claim that the idea “that the Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception . . . was not widespread at any time in Christian history until the 1980s, after the religious right picked up the abortion issue” is simply false. How many ancient sources would you like me to cite pointing to a different view on the subject? Again, if Dudley had not accused evangelicals of being self-serving and even dishonest with the Word, and if he had nuanced his arguments, I probably wouldn’t have taken the time to respond to him.
Thanks for the interaction (seriously), especially minus the invective. With the rarest of exceptions, I don’t interact in the comments section when I write on other website, but on our ministry’s websites, I try to interact when possible with substantive criticisms and comments. Again, thanks for taking the time to post.
Jackson,
Thanks for weighing in again. I was looking forward to your responses.
With regard to celibacy, you argued that: 1) the foundation for the exaltation of celibacy over marriage was found in the NT, even if it didn’t fully emerge for several hundred years; and 2) even if this viewpoint prevailed “only for 1200 years of Christian history instead of 1500,” the point is trivial. . . . It has no impact on Dudley’s argument that the Church has believed celibacy to be superior to marriage for most of its history. “ Here’s why I would differ: 1) I would argue that it is only by misinterpretation of the NT text that celibacy could be exalted to the degrading of marriage (as opposed to, say, belief in the Trinity, which you mention, which I would argue emerges from a right reading of the text). While the NT recognizes that some people are gifted with the calling and/or ability to be celibate, which allows them unfettered service to the Lord, this is not put forth as the norm (as I stated in my article), and Paul himself argued that he too had “ the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas” (1 Cor 9:5). Yes, the other apostles were married! 2) As a Messianic Jew, I, along with other, non-Jewish scholars, believe that many Church traditions, especially in the post-Constantinian era, were both detrimental and unbiblical, including the mandatory celibacy for leaders. 3) There were other streams of Christians outside of the “Catholic Church” (I put that in quotes because of the various ways it has been used and is used), and they often had very different views about some of these same subjects. For a larger overview (and a fascinating read), see http://www.amazon.com/Lost-History-Christianity-Thousand-Year-Asia–/dp/0061472816/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315188083&sr=8-1.
You wrote that, “I don’t think noting that Dale Martin is gay has any relevance” to the matter under discussion. Obviously, we differ here (see also my post, above, to Jason), but having read some of Martin’s related writings, it’s difficult for me to believe that his sexuality had no influence over his approach to Scripture (and note that I said he is openly gay as well as known for his gay-slanted writings; how about just pointing out the latter fact?). The bottom line, though, is this: If Dudley could not have mentioned this fact because it was detracted from his article, that is revealing. If readers would have gained a different overall impression had he mentioned this fact, that too is revealing.
You wrote, “You acknowledge that past theologians opposed early abortion, not because they thought it was taking a person’s life, but because they opposed all contraception.” Actually, that is not true. I agreed that SOME past theologians opposed abortion as part of a larger, pro-life position that also opposed abortion. I never said they didn’t equate their viewpoint with the prohibition of taking another life. More importantly, the earliest sources I have read forbade abortion for the very reason you downplay or deny. Thus the Didache states, “You shall not murder a child by abortion/destruction,” while the Epistle of Barnabas ties in the prohibition against abortion with the command to “love your neighbor as yourself.” The baby in the womb is your neighbor! These facts vitiate the rest of your objection.
You wrote, “I still think you misunderstand Dudley’s argument regarding divorce, and thus, your response to him fails. The fact is there are dozens of explicit teachings in the NT that evangelicals don’t follow today. That you (presumably) don’t think it’s sinful for men to have long hair doesn’t mean you think Paul is mistaken or that you’ve abandoned the faith of Paul, just that you see his statement as bound to a particular historical context.”
At the risk of going around in circles, I affirm Jesus’ teaching concerning divorce, as do countless thousands of other evangelical leaders, acknowledging where we have fallen short or tried to lower the standard of the Lord. This is inexcusable and demands our repentance. With regard to the long hair argument, it is a sub-argument by Paul in the context of a culturally-based issue of the day (married women no longer veil themselves), and one which he does in any way equate with homosexual practice, which was the only sin explicitly mentioned in Leviticus as being an abomination, and, moreover, the only in the Torah called an abomination and punishable by death, also part of a list of sins by Paul that include adultery and fornication, with the explicit statement that those who practiced such sins would not inherit God’s kingdom, and spoken against in the strongest imaginable terms in Romans 1 (to the point that Dudley has to disinherit Paul here!). I would contend that what you and Dudley have failed to do is perform a proper cultural and hermeneutical assessment of the text (hence my reference to Webb’s book) as well as recognize that there are some things of greater importance in God’s sight than others.
You close by writing, “You say ‘errors galore’ in your title, which is sure to entice readers, but what I found in the body of your Op-Ed is simply differing interpretations of both the Bible and Christianity history. I don’t see any ‘errors’ in Dudley’s Op-Ed. Nor do I find your response to him to be a generous reading of him or convincing.”
You are welcome, of course, to your evaluation of my article. In short, taking into account that Dudley is a young seminary grad, I take serious exception to his charge that my evangelical convictions are “riddled with self-serving double standards,” that we are putting on a “charade” and that instead we must “be honest.” He is the one who brought the serious charge that, “Opponents of gay marriage aren’t defending the Bible’s values. They’re using the Bible to defend their own.” That deserves a serious and equally public rebuke.
For the last forty years, it has been my delight to study God’s Word intensely and practically, and my life has been radically changed and constantly challenged by that holy Word. And base on inductive study of Scripture, I have changed a number of my views over the years, often at great personal cost. So be it. I am captive to my Father and His Word — joyfully so. And I have close friends and colleagues in other countries who have been beaten or threatened or tortured for their faith, with other ministry colleagues paying the ultimate price of martyrdom for their faith. Jackson, this is no charade here, nothing self-serving. And do you honestly think that someone who offers to help expectant moms before they enter an abortion clinic, facing ridicule and scorn and violence, is doing so in order to serve their own standards? The very thought of that is obscene.
So, not only was Dudley guilty of demeaning evangelicals, he was wrong on his statement about the prohibition of homosexual practice, wrong on his statement about the natural law argument in Romans 1 being analogous to the nature argument of 1 Corinthians 11, wrong in his statement about the history of celibacy over against marriage, and wrong in his statement about the Church’s opposition to abortion (either by failing to give a full picture or by changing the subject from the prohibition against abortion to the question of the when life begins in the womb). In short, with the exception of his statement about divorce, he was wrong on every single point he made, which qualifies as “errors galore.” His accusatory and misleading attack on evangelicals called for a clear statement of correction.
Jackson, in your next post you wrote, “And incidentally, you also mislead your readers by saying that Jerome and Augustine opposed abortion but neglecting to mention they rejected the idea that life begins at conception and only opposed early abortion because they oppose contraception. A convenient omission.”
There was no “convenient omission,” and again, you’re missing the forest for the trees. What is one of the main family values for evangelicals? They are pro-life. They oppose abortion. Dudley, however, fails to admit that through much of its history, for a number of reasons, the Church in its varied branches has opposed abortion, while, at the same time there was also debate about whether life began at conception. Instead, he painted a totally misleading picture while overstating the latter and completely omitting the former. Why? The answer is obvious, and that’s why I noted the views of Jerome and Augustine, also pointing out that, “debates about when life begins (which were largely philosophical, having to do with the nature of the soul) were hardly the issue.” In any case, I have quotes from Jerome equating abortion with murder, while Augustine’s greater issue had to do, as just stated, with his larger questions of the origin of life and the preexistence of the soul. In the end, in his Enchiridion he emphasized that all human life is “God’s own work,” and, as noted by Gorman, “Faced with human inability to ascertain when the fetus begins to live, Augustine chose to emphasize the value of all life, whether actual or potential” (Gorman, 72). Finally, there are pro-life groups, like Orthodox Jews, who do not believe that life begins at conception but are nevertheless against abortion, and that is the larger “family values” issue, as Dudley should have known and observed.
“Finally you claim that the idea “that the Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception . . . was not widespread at any time in Christian history until the 1980s, after the religious right picked up the abortion issue” is simply false.”
Please give your sources.
“Finally you claim that the idea “that the Bible clearly teaches that life begins at conception . . . was not widespread at any time in Christian history until the 1980s, after the religious right picked up the abortion issue” is simply false.”
Please give your sources
Jackson, in your final post, you cite “additional evidence that Michael Brown [is] wrong and Dudley is right about celibacy. This is from the late J.N.D. Kelly, a professor who specialized in early Christian theology at Oxford University, who traces the devaluation of marriage relative to celibacy to the 2nd century.” But Kelly’s quote hardly supports Dudley’s view that, “For the first 1500 years of Christianity, for example, marriage was deemed morally inferior to celibacy.” It only supports the fact that, little by little, beginning as early as the second century, this exaggerated exaltation of celibacy began to gain ground – again, making Dudley’s blanket statement wrong – but this was never the universal view (as I noted a few posts up), and it took quite some time before verses like Psalm 127:3-5 were rendered virtually meaningless in some Church circles: “Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one’s youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.” Of course, I could quote many other verses which the new teaching would have to override, such as Paul’s instructions concerning elders, namely that an elder must be “above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children . . . believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination” (Titus 1:6). Moreover, a cursory examination of the practice of celibacy in various branches of the early Church indicates that, even as the doctrine developed, it was hardly universal. Dudley simply misled his readers, and, as I’ve stated a number of times, had he avoided the false and unnecessary attacks on evangelicals and had he nuanced his arguments, I would not have bothered with a rebuttal.
Jason, responding to #26, you’ll find a very accessible discussion in the book I cited by Gorman, with a solid overview of numerous early Church documents and sources. Do you have access to it? Also, if I cite some of the sources (if you can’t get to Gorman’s work or a similar one), will you then retract your argument?
Jason, just FYI, here are a few quotes from an easily accessible online source. (What follows is all quoted from that website, cited at the bottom of this post.)
Among the earliest testimonies that fetal development was irrelevant is that of St. Basil the Great, who wrote that “any hairsplitting distinction as to its being formed or unformed is inadmissible with us.” He also condemned suppliers of abortifacients, regardless of the stage of pregnancy: “‘Those who give potions for the destruction of a child conceived in the womb are murderers, as are those who take potions which kill the child.”
St. Basil’s brother, St. Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394), saw the fetus as a complete human being from the time of conception, and specifically rejected theories based upon formation or quickening: “There is no question about that which is bred in the uterus, both growing, and moving from place to place. It remains, therefore, that we must think that the point of commencement of existence is one and the same for body and soul.” Even Tertullian of Carthage (c.160-c.230), a prominent Latin ecclesiastical writer who seemed to accept the formed/unformed distinction as a biological matter, dismissed its moral importance: “Abortion is a precipitation of murder, nor does it matter whether or not one takes a life when formed, or drives it away when forming, for he is also a man who is about to be one.”
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/abortion.aspx
I cannot help but notice that those attacking the scholarship of Dr. Brown do not pick up the opportunity for soul to soul dialogue he maintains here, with respect. The man is virtually an open book of books with a warm heart fused into the presentation of one person. I, for one, rejoice at the Messianic material Dr. Brown has authored over the years by inspiration, insight, love, and scholarship. It is not only scholarly, it is delightful. It is a rare scholar who combines real life experience with a massive resource base, a passion for accuracy, and a heart of service to others. He is increasingly quoted in varied circles of faith and learning, by ministry communities and cadres of mindful pursuit: for his fidelity of devotion to the Kingdom of Heaven, through its regard of a cross section of the whole people of God, as such. The man has a passion for truthful precision and compassion all fluid in the same life motions.
It seems that a futile wisdom attempts to attack or question exactness of detail without getting first the big picture of whole life participation, contribution, and consequence within the testimony of a life which extends well beyond the boundaries of academia. Step back and see the level and type of commitment Michael Brown has embraced, the level of risk taking and personal investment in the Kingdom of God and His Christ, and the advancement of that Kingdom to faith communities and outreaches as to his contributions in literal fact. De gustibus non est disputandum.
The problem with the critics writing here is that they do not search the scriptures at all with intention of such a heartfelt discovery, or such a kindred spirit would be quickly acknowledged and recognized. Pursuit of what is behind the writings, histories, and prophecies seems disregarded other than for disputandum. What Jesus set out to accomplish, He did accomplish. And so, living as a man acquainted with sorrows who knew deeper joy, peace, passion and basic care as the person for all vital examination of the why and wherefore of debate, what is not shown in the approach to date of mention in these ill advised and inaccurate attacks? It is the wisdom from above which James informs us is about the very nature of He who came to our world from above.
Academia can be a vocation, or present a superior attitude which disregards why Jesus came and what He did. Michael Brown lays aside its relevancy before the prudence and wisdom Jesus described for the crowds known without a shepherd, coming to behold and find God in the Sermon on the Mount. Critics here have raised frankly no curiosity regarding the exploration of truth and grace being purposed with a purpose, as has the wonderful and curiously inclusive quality of Michael Brown’s rebuttal, starting with the article’s rebuttal. It seems, from the foci of objection to sound somehow smart that such comes across as unfounded, with a miniscule voice if compared to Dr. Brown’s careful communication.
Here in the article we find the object of what is wonderful about the framer’s foundation of family and family life as is unknown as a contemplative reality by the seminarian perspective assumed as true, when not of the more excellent Way of Jesus. Rebuttal here by Dr. Brown is of a lens which does not cast a cold eye on life and on death, but fills a consideration of possibilities for every soul to see the Kingdom, to rediscover its King, and develop a related conscience. Being filled with the love of God is not of poor academic modeling or credentialing, it offers balance to these in the case of Dr. Brown. He has not published in vain, but offers a mountain waterfall to behold as his examination indeed before the river of life which scripture holds.
Dr. Brown, I am familiar with the quotes and history you cite. What you say Gregory of Nyssa believed is misleading, if not flat out wrong, as he also said: ““It would not be possible to style the unformed embryo a human being, but only a potential one—assuming that it is completed so as to come forth to human birth, while so long as it is in this unformed state it is something other than a human.”
Basil may have condemned using poisons to procure an abortion as murder, but using poisons to produce sterility (or as any form of contraception) were widely condemned as murder at the time. I will grant that some documents, such as the Didache, and some thinkers, such as Tertullian, based their objections to abortion on the humanity of the fetus, but by and large, objections to early abortion were based on an ideology not shared by most protestant Christians today–namely, that sex without procreation is horribly wrong. And incidentally, the devaluation of sex underlying objections to early abortion among thinkers like Augustine and Jerome also led to their devaluation of marriage.
I don’t doubt that there was widespread belief that life begins at conception and abortion is murder among many early Christians. But my claim was not that Christians have never widely believed life begins at conception. My claim was: Christians have not widely believed that THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT life begins at conception at any time in Christian history until the 1980s. My point was that this interpretation, although held by some isolated figures in the past, has not become widespread among Christians until very recently. By and large, these early Christians didn’t believe abortion is murder from conception because they felt the Bible teaches it but for a variety of other reasons, many of them not shared by Christians today, including erroneous scientific beliefs in the case of Tertullian, mostly unknown reasons in the case of the Didache, and belief that sex is defiling in the case of the objections to early abortion held by thinkers like Augustine and Jerome. A related question is why, when for most of Christian history theologians have rejected the idea that life begins at conception, should Christians today only focus on the few hundred years where that was believed? Why do those years matter more than then next 1600-1700 years of Christian history?
And, yes, I will recant my position if you demonstrate it is wrong.
Jason,
Thanks for the continued, helpful interaction. Let me first review what got us here:
1) I took exception to Dudley’s claims that evangelicals were engaging in a dishonest, self-serving charade — a very serious (and quite false) charge.
2) To back this up, Dudley pointed to the issue of what the Church historically believed about life beginning at conception so as to undermine the strong pro-life views of evangelicals. Had Dudley said, “Now, we know that throughout Church history, there was widespread and, at times, even universal opposition to abortion, but it might surprise evangelicals to know that much of this opposition was not based on the view that life begins at conception, etc.”, I would have had little argument. Dudley, however, wanted to give his readers that evangelicals were being dishonest. In point of fact, I don’t recall hearing evangelicals say, “Look, the Church has always believed that life begins at conception,” but rather, “The Bible clearly points to life beginning at conception, and the Church has always been pro-life, opposing both abortion and infanticide.” (Think about this, Jason: Why did the Church oppose infanticide? Was it because of birth control issues, or was it because of the protection of innocent life? That, of course, is what impelled much of the sentiment against abortion.)
3) You then stated that the Bible (or, the NT) doesn’t support pro-family values, and I then quoted verses to support very beliefs, including those pointing to the full personhood of the babies in the womb. You then challenged me to support this view historically.
Now, here’s the interesting challenge. For me, as an evangelical, I believe the Church has been wrong on many fronts, specifically, wherever it deviated from Scripture. So, I have no problem rejecting Church (or, Jewish) tradition when it deviates from Scripture. Along with that, many of the Church leaders who denounced abortion and who believed life begins at conception did not cite the scriptural sources for their view (such as the Didache, as far as I recall). So, this will now require a new exercise (since Church history is not my primary field of expertise), namely, examining the commentaries that we have to key passages such as Jeremiah 1 or Luke 1 or Psalm 139, from which we can then begin to build a consensus, always being careful not to make an argument from silence.
In the end, it’s very possible that we’ll find this: 1) The Church consistently opposed abortion; 2) Many leaders believed life begins at conception; 3) Some of these leaders preserved comments on relevant scriptures supporting their views, while others did not give a scriptural reason for their view (which doesn’t mean they didn’t have one, again, the dangerous argument from silence). In the end, I might feel I supported my contention and you might not, but it’s worth a shot, time permitting. I’ll check the resources I have and you do the same, and let’s see what we come up with. Fair enough?
And just for the record, here’s what matters most to me: 1) I can support my pro-life views based on Scripture; 2) Dudley seriously misled his readers (I assume unintentionally) about the church’s position, as if questions about the origin of life (which were largely philosophical) made the Church’s opposition to abortion any less passionate. And now we move on to the specific question you’re pressing and to my response to it. Great, and totally fair.
BTW, I’m not responding to the other specific points you raised because of time constraints, but to my knowledge, there’s nothing misleading in any of the citations, although I’m happy to look into it more when able.
Sounds good. I will look forward to your response. I think you will find 1) that a few isolated figures did reference the Bible in discussing their positions (to give you more direction: I believe Tertullian references Jeremiah, Calvin mentions his opposition to abortion in discussing Exodus 21, and I believe Luther may also reference Jeremiah even though he maintains the formed/unformed distinction) and 2) The view that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception never became widespread among Christians until the mid-1970s and early 1980s, became popular as a result of the political efforts of the evangelical right, and is rejected by almost all professors today at the nation’s leading research seminaries and universities and 3) That evangelicals widely supported looser abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade and used the Bible (specifically Exodus 21) to argue that Catholics were “unbiblical” in thinking that life begins at conception. (for the latter, see the writing by pro-life evangelical Paul Fowler in his book Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus).
If I’m wrong, I will of course recant. And if you’re wrong, I’ll expect the same from you.
And I will add, though I realize you will disagree, that if I’m right, this fact is indeed significant, and an indicator of hypocrisy and double standards, for evangelicals who say they oppose gay marriage because it goes against “traditional interpretations of the Bible.”
*by “professors” in point 2, I mean Bible and theology professors.
Jason,
Yes, of course I’ll recant if anything I posted was in error. Absolutely! A few quick comments:
1) How do we define “leading” seminaries? I think we might have a very different view.
2) Exod 21, of course, is the subject of much historic interpretation, including halakhic debate within Judaism. It relates indirectly, though, to the question before us.
3) Re: gay “marriage,” I definitely don’t concur with your logic here, but we’ll leave that for now (for purposes of focus and, on my end, time). It is important, though, that you understand how evangelicals think: First and foremost, we base our views on Scripture; secondarily, we look for support through Church history.
I look forward to seeing what you come up with, and I’ll keep you posted on my end.
Jason,
Though Dr. Brown is keeping his interchanged focused on church history related to particular topics here, and did not go after other rabbit trails of your supposition (e.g., “protestant” think of sex as only about procreation), it seems you missed the Biblical instance of man and woman being joined as one flesh being carried from Genesis into the NT. I’d suggest you pick up a copy of “The Gift of Sex, a guide to sexual fulfillment” by Penner and Penner, a long best seller among Protestants. It deals adequately with the scriptural and practical aspects of being joined in physical intimacy as well as acknowledges the everyday challenges pressuring shared life among married couples. Because it has sold as continuously in publication for Christians since 1981, protestants cannot be pigeonholed by your assumptions. Further best selling material for believers on sexual communication and union include those by Ed Wheat, Gary Chapman, Saltsman, Bostwick, etc. In the Bible Soloman’s Song has been used as such a reference among orthodox Jewish communities for centuries FYI. None of these well considered sources cross any barriers beyond the sanctified man-woman marital relationship of Biblical reference.
Jason,
Continuing our discussion, the first references to abortion, as mentioned, occur in the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabas, and both base themselves on the “two ways” teaching, as you probably know, the way of life and the way of death. As noted in the Oxford Dictionary of the Early Church, the teaching is explicitly based on Deut 30:19-20, choose life or death, and abortion is to be rejected because it is choosing death, while other Church leaders — also cited in this article — also speak against all kinds of abortifacients, based on this same scriptural concept (some with explicit mention and others with reference to the concept of taking life). Clement of Alexandria finds support for his position based on Exod 23:19.
Although there’s a lot more to sift through, and I need to get to some Patristic commentaries, it’s interesting to see that there is often appeal to scripture to support the pro-life position. More to come, but enough said so far to indicate that evangelicals are thinking in terms similar to ancient Christian leaders when it comes to using the Bible to defend innocent life in the womb.
Thanks for sharing. If they are available, it would be helpful if you can provide direct quotes from the primary sources that demonstrate them referencing the Bible in support of their positions.
While we’re talking about the Hebrew Bible, here’s from the Mishna (Oholot 6,7), part of the Talmud:
“If a woman has difficulty in childbirth, one dismembers the embryo within her limb from limb because her life takes precedence over its life. Once its head (or the greater part) has emerged, it may not be touched, for we do not set aside one life for another.”
I read in several ideologically different secondary sources (unfortunately, cannot find direct quotes from the primary sources here) that this position is justified with respect to Exodus 21, which has frequently been interpreted throughout Christian and Jewish history as distinguishing between the mother and fetus (Hebrew) or the formed and unformed fetus (Greek), and also with respect to Genesis 2:7, which has been interpreted as teaching that Adam’s life began when he acquired the ability to breath. Thus, Jews, despite being opposed to most abortions, nevertheless think the Bible teaches life begins at birth.
Jason, The logic of your quotation does not lead to the conclusion you have made. In this instance of a health issue example given for the situation described as to preservation of the mother’s health, it in no way mentions when life begins or does not. King David, most honored among Jewish lineage and leadership–of past and future promise–described life beginning in the womb, formed of God, and wonderfully designed as made.
It is a poorly made case for when life begins. This is not a model for what is life, and what is death as to the condition of all infants as being at risk, nor is it a model or template for when life begins.
Jabez, yes it does. Once its head emerges it has a life equal to the mother and thus may not be killed but before its head emerges it may be killed. This is why Jews today, your tendentious interpretation of Psalm 139 aside, do actually believe that life begins at birth.
Jason, when you get into Jewish law and the interpretation of Exod 21, you are now getting into fields of expertise for me — but they are a tangent for the moment (in particular, Jewish law; Exod 21 does relate on some level).
For some primary sources, start with Didache 15-17; Epistle of Barnabas 19, 5 (see also 20; again, always remembering where the “two path” comes from — and that is Scripture); Clement of Alexandria, Strom, 2, 18 (using Exod 23:19); and note the concepts behind statements by leaders such as Minucius Felix (Octavius, 30,2) and Basil (Epist 188,2).
I am attempting some address of other matters of life and death, though perhaps not on topic here, as Dr. Brown has proclaimed. As for Jewish communities recognizing life on birth and breath, it is so, and so too as a sacred “plant” of life growing in the womb. The faith in the anointed One sent is a path of life, not a justification ever for human actions of infanticide; the quote given is about the life of the mother in certain instances as taking precedent over the life in the womb. For that to be mercifully so determined in ancient days it would have to be very apparent, for no xray, nor other more modern means of looking into the womb existed (ultrasound imaging, etc.). So we have to draw the conclusion that other indicators from the mother’s ill health experience would be apparent before such a choice as expelling a premature pregnancy’s object of sacred appointment for life would come into focus for the sanctified community’s regard. And this applies only peripherally to the topic at hand, where, indeed God’s order of life, blessed in normal events and appointments for the nuclear family, extends all grace for life from the Family of God, now in Christ. The quote you raised here, Jason, underscores the regard of the man and woman relationship from days of old.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to those primary sources so can only see the relevant passages if you provide quotes. It is interesting information you are sharing, though also indirectly related. To say that the Didache, Basil and others understood their social agenda with reference to the Exodus “two paths” verse, and that opposing abortion was part of that broader agenda, still doesn’t show (as I challenged you to do above) Christians arguing that “the Bible teaches that life begins at conception.” It shows them assuming it does, for still unclear reasons, and bringing that verse to bear in light of that assumption. It’s hard to see how one can move from from God enjoining the Israel’s to choose life to the conclusion that fetal personhood begins at conception.
In fact, I would happily grant the assertion made by Michael Gorman in the NYTimes article mentioned previously (“There’s an impetus in the Bible toward the protection of the innocent, protection for the weak, respect for life, respect for God’s creation.”). But in order for this to have relevance to abortion, one has to have some other reason for thinking that we should consider the embryo to be analogous to the weak, innocent humans those verses are referring to. I’m waiting to see that case made.
Jason, I mean no insult here, but how can you be arguing these issues without even having access to the primary sources? In that case, every argument you have is secondary, at best. I actually thought you had studied these issues firsthand and, based on those studies, took issue with some of my statements. That is not the case?
Re: the “two paths,” that’s based on Deut 30; the Exod passage has to do with something else entirely (by all means, look it up, and you’ll see it ties in directly with my point).
In short, here’s what we will find: 1) Most all the Church leaders condemned abortion; 2) Many of them taught that life begins at conception; 3) Many of them taught that killing the baby at any stage of development is murder; 4) Some of them gave explicit scripture support for their views, including the call to choose life; to love your neighbor; and to protect the innocent.
Putting all this together supports my contention, while it is difficult or impossible to prove the opposite. In any case, this is somewhat tangential to my main point about the misleading nature of Dudley’s article, which remains intact.
I have studied the issues firsthand, but alas, don’t currently have access to the library I once did. I find your reasoning tendentious and can only take your increasingly shrill tone as the desperation of one who senses he hasn’t and can’t make his case. It’s quite surprising that you are so confident in your interpretations of the Bible when you can’t name a single past theologian who shared them, and indeed, must hunker down to rummage through the Christian tradition to find one–unsuccessfully so far.
Recall, I challenged you to refute two assertions above: “2) The view that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception never became widespread among Christians until the mid-1970s and early 1980s, became popular as a result of the political efforts of the evangelical right, and is rejected by almost all professors today at the nation’s leading research seminaries and universities and 3) That evangelicals widely supported looser abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade and used the Bible (specifically Exodus 21) to argue that Catholics were “unbiblical” in thinking that life begins at conception.”
You’ve failed to refute, or even address, either of them.
In the face of a Christian tradition where 1) the vast majority of theologians have rejected the idea that life begins at conception 2) Set out explicit conditions that must be acquired for the developing fetus to acquire a soul 3) Opposed early abortion for the same reason they made marriage inferior to celibacy and opposed all contraception 4) gave explicit scriptural support, both in the Jewish and Christian tradition (based largely on Exodus 21) for believing “the Bible says” life does not being at conception and 5) often downplayed the moral significance of early abortion based on their readings of the Bible, with the evangelical community widely supporting looser abortion laws prior to Roe v. Wade based on what they thought was the “clear teaching of the Bible” …. you’ve chosen to focus on the handful of relatively unimportant theologians during one slice of Christian history who share your position (giving no reason for doing so and without even knowing why they held that belief and whether you’d accept their reasons for holding it); to appropriate the later condemnations of early abortion while simply ignoring their anti-sex, anti-marriage, anti-contraception rationale; to ignore the fact that, thus far, you are incapable of providing a single example of a theologian who shared your belief that “the Bible says life begins at conception.”
Your use of the Christian tradition is just as selective, tendentious, and detached from mainstream scholarship as your use of the Bible. You appear to have no sense of the ideological context in which ideas are formed, and thus, feel comfortable plucking a conclusion out of Christian history to support your view without even knowing why past theologians held it. It is clear that you identify yourself as a right-wing culture warrior first and then rummage through the Bible and Christian tradition to find whatever you can that will support your beliefs. In the end, you yourself are a perfect demonstration of what Dudley is talking about. Far from refuting his assertions, you provide an illustration for them.
Jason, please. I’ve sought to engage you in a serious discussion, despite your ridiculous and ugly attacks in your early posts. I politely asked you a question (read my words again), to which you write, “I find your reasoning tendentious and can only take your increasingly shrill tone as the desperation of one who senses he hasn’t and can’t make his case.”
If you’re ready to drop the rhetoric, I’m happy to continue the dialogue as time permits. If you’re unable to, let me know.
I’d like to make one observation from Jewish tradition. The passage in Ohalot 7:6 implies that the unborn is to be protected and can only be chopped up if the mother’s life was in danger. If the Mishnaic authors did not consider the unborn to be a person, why the restriction? If the unborn is not a person, then an abortion is no different than having liposuction. As for the distinction, I would speculate that in ancient times one could not be sure that the birth was live or a stillbirth until the head popped out.
In fact, Sanhedrin 31b rules that anyone who kills the unborn is guilty of murder. Maimonedes (the Rambam) agreed with this ruling as have the sages after him.
Despite its abuse by liberals, the Mishna does not give support for the abortion on demand position of modern liberals.
Yes, please do respond to my arguments.
One can still think abortion is wrong even if one doesn’t think the fetus is a person. And it’s an uncontroversial fact that Jews believe life begins at birth.
Jason,
Re: #35 and what is lingering. Michael Brown, PhD, is the foremost Professor of Messianic Theology in the USA, perhaps internationally as well. He has built upon his studies of years ago with ever-increasing scholarship, and original research. But this has not ended his contributions to the body of Christ on earth. This, coupled with the Holy Spirit’s cooperation, has advanced the Kingdom of God and His Christ in our generation by original works sore needed in our time for God’s people.
He has shown his patience with your emphatic approach to the issues and matters raised. I request of Him his informed opinion on what scripture says, and the related Jewish community says, on when life begins. So far your own credentials and approach seem lacking.
Jason, I was actually looking forward to responding to your questions, but it looks like you’ve retracted your previous commitment to refrain from your ridiculous attacks. I do wish you well in your search for truth.
Jason,
I see the editor has removed your last post, which saddened on reading it indeed. If you read nothing else by Dr. Brown I would suggest ‘Our Hands are Stained with Blood’. It seemed from reading that now editor removed response in my connected e-mail to this comment section that connection to the ongoing Kingdom of God and His Christ is not in focus for you, as to your own lack of presented balanced Biblical values, that some unrealisitic perceived ideal of academia is in your view as being some higher form of human perfectability than has ever been the case over time.
Such a view represents a distortion of understanding that we live in a fallen world, where any theological pursuit apart from a focus on the reality of Jesus Christ as a living Lord of Universal proportions, framing the very time we live in, is frankly futile. If it was Dr. Brown’s ambition to be a tenured theology Professor, Chair, or revered stake, as such, it could happen with a phone call. As it stands, he has been solicited by multiple world class Seminaries as a guest Professor, not lecturer, per se. Why? Because there simply are no substitutes for what he has developed and authored over time. Graciously he has consented to share what has been wrought over time and experience fior a wide inquiry over this great Nation. Consider what Jesus claimed of His critics as being blasphemy, and Dr. Brown’s own humility and openness of approachability for
such interchange as permitted here. There remain certain boundaries of possibility for being enlarged by
the encounter graciously extended here, which, sadly, you have disrespected.
So you’re just going to ignore all of his challenges because, as you do in your original article, he mixes them with ad hominem attacks?
Jackson, as soon as I have time, I do plan to reply to some of the remaining points Jason made (which, in any event, have no impact on the points I made in my article), but there will be on ongoing dialogue because of his continual violation of our policies here. (If he had attacked anyone else the way he attacked me, the moderators would have pulled his initial posts immediately, but we gave him more space because he was attacking me.)
My first reaction was to move on to other things, both because of Jason’s lack of restraint and my time constraints, hence post #52, but I actually did want to answer the points, and I appreciate you raising the issues again (although you could work a bit on your tone too). :)
Sorry, should be “no ongoing dialogue” rather than “on ongoing dialogue.”
The Freedoms once known have been revoked in many ways, not only by the Obama administration.
From the Christian Post.
Court Hears Appeal of Grad Student Expelled for Religious Beliefs on Homosexuality
http://www.christianpost.com
——————————————————————————–
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Tuesday heard the appeal of a former Eastern Michigan University graduate student who was expelled over her refusal to counsel a homosexual patient.
Julie Ward enrolled in a counseling practicum course at EMU in 2009 in order to fulfill the requirements for her graduate degree. A few credits shy of finishing her degree, she was assigned a potential client who was seeking assistance regarding a homosexual relationship.
However, as a Christian, Ward felt her values and beliefs on homosexuality and extra-marital affairs would not allow her to counsel the patient.
Ward sought the advice of a supervisor.
“She went to her supervisor and said, ‘I may not be the right person for this particular client,” her attorney, Jeremy Tedesco of the Alliance Defense Fund, told The Christian Post.
Consistent with ethical and professional standards on patient referral, Ward was advised to assign the patient to another counselor. But that’s when her trouble began.
Soon thereafter, Ward was informed the only way she could remain in the program was if she agreed to undergo a “remediation” program, with the sole purpose to help her “see the error of her ways” and change her “belief system,” as it related to homosexual relationships.
After Ward refused, a disciplinary hearing was held, whereby an EMU faculty denigrated Ward’s Christian beliefs, leading another faculty member to ask Ward if she viewed her “brand” of Christianity as “superior” to that of other Christians. As a result of the hearing, Ward was dismissed from the counseling program and after appealing to the dean of the College of Education, her expulsion was upheld.
EMU, located in Ypsilanti, Mich., has an enrollment of about 23,000 students in both undergraduate and graduate programs. The school’s website states:
“We believe that wisdom, sound judgment, acceptance and respect for other persons, cultures and ideas are characteristics of an educated person. We seek to demonstrate, through all programs, activities and services, an appreciation of human diversity and an atmosphere of mutual respect and support for individual differences.”
Tedesco, who is handling the case on behalf of ADF with Senior Counsel David Cortman, said the case was unfortunate from beginning to end.
“The disciplinary process is the key here. Counseling clients seemed to feel they would be judged more if the counselor is a Christian. That’s certainly not the case here. The school was asking Ms. Ward to affirm a relationship that would have violated her beliefs and that is the foundation of this case.”
A federal district court granted a summary judgment on all accounts on behalf of EMU in July of 2010.
The ADF is seeking an injunction of relief and damages and that Ward be readmitted to the program.
“The harsh and drastic nature of the reaction was unnecessary given that referrals are a common practice with counseling,” Tedesco added. “Instead they (EMU) kicked her out of the program and chastised her for her religious beliefs on the way out the door.”
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ three-judge panel is expected to rule in the next four to six months.
“Unfortunately, I believe we’ll see more cases such as this one, even from professionals who are in a counseling practice in the years ahead, said Tedesco
Despite all the attempts to render the Bible as having no coherent sexual ethic, or at least as regards homosexual relations, the issue is really quite clear. From beginning to end marriage is sanctioned, and fornication is condemned. God is shown creating man and women uniquely compatible and complimentary, after having illustrated that nothing else would do for a help mate, and only joined them in marriage, opposite genders being specified by both Genesis and by Jesus Christ. (Gn. 2:18-24; Mt. 19:4)
In no place does the Bible sanction marriage between same genders, despite attempts to extrapolate it, and it only condemns homosexual relations – by design and decree, in principle and by precept – and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent moral laws. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27) All homosexual relations are rendered fornication, and that of a most perverse kind.
The idea that either Moses or Paul were only condemning certain forms of homosexual activity based own motive or association with idolatry, while sanctioning “loving caring” homosexual relations is as untenable as supposing that bestiality or adultery was only forbidden within a certain context. Motive is never the determinative factor in laws against illicit sexual relations, while idolatry is the mother of all sins, more than just homosexual relations. (Rm. 1:28-32)
An extensive examination and refutation of such attempts can be seen here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html
PBJ (is there any other consistent source for peace?),
Thanks for the post here, a clear response of the foundations lain on the matter of human sexual relations and what is consecrated, and what isn’t. It is refreshing to find that the considered efforts on this issue by Dr. M.B. are not isolated efforts among the whole people of God in Christ. Indeed, it would also be refreshing to find a Christian fiction novel written on the coming Kingdom augmenting the blessings of marriage and family as inclusive of its future. The Satan works at beguiling both truth and grace, while the Spirit of God, in Christ, works at continuously clarifying foundations lain. Each day’s challenges to walk in Christ are difficult enough in this world without obsfucating basic foundations lain by creation.
Father in Heaven, in the name of Jesus I pray you protect and watch over Michael Brown. May your wisdom and knowledge, which can only be found in Christ Jesus, continue to rest upon him, guiding him to continue standing for the Your Truth. May Your Holy Spirit work through his ministry in this battle to bring down the strongholds which have come fast upon a church that claims to be Christian, but walks in gross error. Let Your light shine into the darkness of this world, and bring revelation of Jesus in every corner of every heart that seeks to serve you whatsoever. amen, amen…
Hey Dr. Brown,
I just wanted to thank you and commend you for taking a stand for truth and righteousness. Although not easy to do true love does not hide from the truth or the proclaiming there of. What most pro-gay people fail to realize is, as Christians, just because we disagree with your lifestyle does not mean we hate or dont love you. We also don’t agree with adulterers, thieves, idolatry, or any other sin practice defined in the Bible. Sin is sin no matter what you practice and true love will always try to correct.
So from all of the hate mail you get I hope this encourages you that there are many others who stand for truth and pray that people repent, turn from their wicked ways, and follow Christ! We all have fell short and need a Savior and Jesus can help break any bonds of wickedness. In my opinion one of the great fallacies of the modern Church and generations is that God thinks like us which isnt the case. That is creating our own God in our image and not a reflection of the one true Living God.
So keep bearing the torch and may many gay people as well as others come to Jesus through your works.
Bless you Brother.