Robert Gagnon, an associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice, addressed the argument that St. Paul condemned only exploitative or pederastic homosexual behavior and he knew nothing of homosexual orientation or partnerships among peers. Dr. Gagnon argued that both were well- known in ancient Greece and Rome, and ”” while tolerated ”” were often condemned even by pagan writers.
Edith Humphrey, the William F. Orr professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, critiqued the writings of three theologians: Carter Heyward, Sarah Coakley and Eugene F. Rogers, Jr. Dr. Humphrey was especially critical of Dr. Rogers’ comparing human sexual intimacy to the relationship among the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The Rev. Rev. Michael Nazir-Ali, recently retired bishop of the Church of England’s Diocese of Rochester, spoke on theological differences between Christianity and Islam. The bishop cited Yale scholar Lamin Sanneh, a convert from Islam, who argues that the Bible, in contrast to the Quran, has an innate “translatability,” and therefore impels believers to shape their own cultures. The Bible’s very plasticity invites engagement with each new culture rather than retreat.
It’s good to see a report on the conference. Hopefully, more details will be forthcoming.
How is Rob Gagnon as a speaker in front of an audience? How would he fare in a debate? He writes well, for sure.
In the Greek comedies, homosexual practice was the butt of many a crude joke. In modern English translations, these get edited beyond recognition, or deleted.
It was an excellent conference.
Robert Gagnon’s presentation included discussion of debates that he has participated in. After one particular debate, he said that it was 5 years before anyone would debate him again, and it will probably be another 5 years before anyone tries to take him on. He carried himself well in front of this audience and proved to be a witty, knowledgeable, effective communicator.
See also the chapter on Greek sex in Thomas Cahill’s Sailing the Wine Dark Sea.
Ralph (#1),
You might check out the short videos that Prof. Gagnon has made that sum up the key points from his big book. They are very, very well done. I think he’s just as good in person as he is in print (which admittedly isn’t true of all scholars). Just visit his website, http://www.robgagnon.net.
Like Ralph, I too look forward to fuller reports about this year’s conference. It had quite an amazing lineup of outstanding speakers.
I hope that recordings or transcripts will be made available eventually.
David Handy+
One wonders whether The Episcopal Church has anyone who would be able to debate him. Bp. Spong is a pseudo-intellectual, though he speaks well. Louie Crew, perhaps. Or, Countryman. Let Dis-Integrity put up its finest, and bring on the beer and popcorn.
I would contribute to the expenses.
P.S., as further confirmation of what the Pewster wrote about how Gagnon easily intimidates his opponents (see #2), another example is how the Two Views book that Gagnon did along with liberal (Episcopalian) NT scholar Dan Via ended up putting Prof. Via to shame. Gagnon completely trounced him. In a mere 50 pages, Gagnon summed up the best parts of his big book and then just demolished Via’s specious arguments. It’s marvelous stuff.
I’m talking about [b]Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views[/b] by Gagnon and Via, Fortress Press, 2003. They both set out their case, and then respond to each other’s argument. Via just gets annihilated in the process.
No wonder liberals don’t want to debate him.
David Handy+
Ralph (#5),
The best TEC has are Katherine Grieb who teaches NT at VTS (who is actually pretty moderate, though unfortunately she’s fallen for the pro-gay rhetoric), AK Adams (also moderate, who used to teach at Seabury-Western til it closed and last I knew was temporarily at Duke) and the more liberal and provocative Richard Pervo, who retired from teaching NT at Seabury-Western before Adams came. They are all fine biblical scholars, but would inevitably fare poorly in an honest debate with Gagnon, chiefly because of the poor hand they’ve been dealt in trying to defend an indefensible case. No matter how bright or well-prepared a debater may be, it’s hard to win a debate when you’re arguing for something intrinsically false and demonstrably wrong.
David Handy+
I was involved in planning the conference and put together one of the handouts, but alas had to be out of the country during the conference. I heard an early version of Dr. McHugh’s talk which, like everything else he has written, at least that I’ve seen, was excellent. I hope that tapes/CDs will be available. This is, as we all here know well, an important topic. It is one of the great sadnesses of our time that the great cause to which the current TEC leadership has dedicated itself and over which it is destroying Anglicanism in North America and possibly world-wide is such a vapid and unworthy one and it is important that more serious Christian scholars point this out.
Hello All,
I agree with Ungerground pewter. It was an excellent conference. We definitely want to come again. Not only did I and my husband go to the conference but 5 other parishioners from our parish went as well. Alas, there was a lot more discussed than just sexuality. However, I would like to say some things about the speakers that were mentioned in Rev. Peter C.Moore’s article for the Living Church News Service and add comments about those speakers who were not mentioned in the article.
1) Dr.McHugh spoke during the Thursday evensong. Actually he read a paper of his. He called it- A challenge to Received Opinion. His arguments encompassed three viewpoints, Biological, Psychological, and the Sociological. Actually what Dr, McHugh said (in answer to a question) was that- he did not believe that a gay gene would be found. However, he did mention a particular marker on the X chromosome which has been found. Alas, only a minority go homosexual men possess this marker. It would be more accurate to state that Dr. McHugh believes that genes “incline but do not compel behavior”. Dr. McHugh believes that genes are one of many influences on behavior but not the most important. As one having a MS in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, I would agree genes are important but not the only determining cause of any behavior … or even of disease or pathology for that matter. Folks it just ain’t nature vs nurture anymore, it is both.
2) Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali was our first speaker on Friday Morning. While he did discuss the innate translatability of the Christian Gospel (I actually don’t remember him saying that…) I do remember him saying that Anglican liturgy is to be in a language to be understood by the people. In contrast to the Koran which is only read in Arabic. While this is a strength of Christianity in that it brings the word of God to the people of a culture and can engage their culture BUT it can also be weakness i.e. the tendency to capitulate to the culture. Bishop Nazir-Ali encouraged us to remain focused on mission, to guard against over institutilzation, and suggested two tactics:1) continue to campaign for public policy and 2) strengthen the christian community… be a light to the world.
3) Robert Gagnon, a presbyterian, did indeed make excellent arguments that the Ancient World did know of committed, homosexual relationships. However, he also did an excellent job of explaining some scripture passages including Gen1:26-27, Gen 7:9, Romans 1:24-27 and Romans 1:18-32. I agree with David Handy+ and Underground pewster that Rob Gagnon has debated liberal, progressives and has handily trouced them. He told a story of debating one fellow where he was the second speaker. Dr. Gagnon spoke and literally trounced the person’s arguments and the person still had the audacity to say- after Dr. Gagnon finished speaking — well…. I still believe that there were not committed homosexual relationships in the ancient world. Yes, but his audience got the message!!
4) Edith Humphrey– Not my favorite speaker but yes she did a excellent job of critiquing those three authors.
These three speakers were the Friday morning session.
5) The afternoon started with Archbishop Duncan. Alas, his “reflections” only concerned ACNA and how wonderful things were going, etc. I felt that his “reflections” were NOT on topic and the conference could have done without his “reflections”.
6) However the panel afterward Duncan++ was short but interesting as several people, William Dickinson+, Roberta Bayer (Prayerbook Society) William Murchison (journalist) Robert Munday+ (Dean of Nashotah House) and moderator Kendall Harmon+, gave their reflections/ideas on what is the fundamental reality that is being denied? SIN was the agreed upon answer! Desire to put ourself first. Kendall’s remarks were short and to the point- he said that we have lost the sense of our story. We have lost our capacity to think.
7) George Woodliff+, episcopal priest in the Diocese of MS (Yazoo City, MS) was asked by Bishop Allison to discuss his work at this conference. Woodliff+ tells the story of how he was asked to write a paper on homosexuality from the conservative viewpoint by his bishop decades ago. Two others were asked to write papers as well, one liberal and a moderate. Alas, one backed out and the bishop refused to publish any of three. So he was left with … where do I go from here? Well, he met up with Greg Griffith who said I will create a website for you and Stand Firm was born. Woodliff’s paper has had three thousand downloads since then. He went on to discuss many resources that were available to conference participants.
8) Mike and Harriet McManus were the next speakers. They discussed the Marriage Savers program. They presented evidence that showed how the change in divorce law has resulted in higher rates of cohabitation and divorce since that time. The focus of their program is on how involving the churches of a community can strengthen marriage and lower the cohabitation rate and divorce rate in the community. Some communities have lowered divorce rates by as much as 50%. They explained how their program has helped many couples avoid bad marriages and has saved many marriages in trouble. This program has been implemented in over 200 communities in the USA.
9) Next speaker was Rev. Mario Bergner. He discussed his mission, Redeemed Lives. This group deals with all sort of people who need healing from sexual (and other) problems not just homosexuals. He really did not just focus on his story but how many people have been changed/redeemed thru his ministry. He too has debated people from the homosexual community -mainly on college campuses. He did discuss how huge an industry the porn industry really is- $ 56 billion a year ! I was interested in how he was asked to speak to a European audience. He was there to convince them that Homosexuality can be changed and to please let people have the possibility of seeking help and pastoral care. As it is now, to speak against Homosexuality is considered hate speak in Europe. Quite shocking!!
After dinner, the speakers were John and Susan Yates. My husband and I did not stay for the friday evening or Saturday session. Mark Lawrence + preached on how God removes layer upon layer of sin from Christian’s lives in order to set them free. While we were not there, I don’t doubt that the sermon was very powerful.
In conclusion, those of us who attended from our parish were so excited about what we learned and experienced at the conference that we had a hour long discussion with our rector today. All in all, I learned a lot and would recommend going to this conference !
CD’s of the conference can be ordered through Mere Anglicanism, 126 Coming St, Charleston, SC 29403. Please memo Mere Anglicanism on your check.
OOPS! Sorry about the wrong name. This is SC Blu Cat lay writing but i did not realize that we were in T19 under my husband’s moniker, Blue Cat Man.
One more thing…. the price for the CD set is $65. Shipping and handling included.
Daniel Muth, the conference was excellent. Everyone involved in planning this conference should be proud of the result. Many thanks to those who planned this conference.
It looks like an interesting conference.
I wonder if there was any thought to inviting someone who thought differently. Or was it merely strengthening the already convinced? Perhaps, for example, James Alison or Tobias Haller. Or even Bert Harrill.
RE: “I wonder if there was any thought to inviting someone who thought differently. Or was it merely strengthening the already convinced?”
Hopefully the latter — and having worked on the first two conferences back in 06/07, that’s where I was with MA’s purposes.
It’s good to strengthen the arguments and knowledge of those who are already convinced, so that they can work with and persuade the unconvinced and the undecided, while recognizing that those who are opposed don’t share the same gospel or foundational worldviews enough to actually have a significant conversation.
There is no convincing the vast vast majority of those who hold the opposing view. They have different goals, values, and don’t even start with the same beliefs about Truth, much less all of the other foundational truths. It’s like trying to have a real conversation about the joys of private property between a convinced libertarian and a convinced Stalinist.
Convincing of those committed to a different gospel won’t really happen. Only [i]conversion[/i].
No, the target audience should almost always be the 1) already convinced of the truth who need more shoring up and good arguments, and 2) the undecided and unconvinced. Frankly, that accounts for a good 70-80% right there, with the remaining 10-20% of the radicals believing as they please.
Believing that there are two different world-views does express a particular perspective toward “truth.” It’s called relativism, and does reveal inescapability of the postmodern condition.
RE: “Believing that there are two different world-views does express a particular perspective toward “truth.â€
Not if one recognizes that one or more worldviews held by humans is false and not-Truth.
RE: “It’s called relativism, and does reveal inescapability of the postmodern condition.”
Now now, deconstructionists like you, John, shouldn’t be so bitter at being known as such. ; > )
Mr. Wilkins #12 – Mere Anglicanism involves in its planning and presentations people with many perspectives: Evangelicals, Anglo-Catholics, Orthodox, Roman Catholics and REC folks, to name a few. We have contemplated inviting Jewish presenters as well. We will even, to an extent, represent non-Christian perspectives. The handout I put together for this conference, for instance, was an annotated bibliography of literature related to the Christian understanding of homosexuality, including Progressive and even purely secular works where these aid in understanding.
The point of Mere Anglicanism isn’t to hear differing perspectives simply to hear differing perspectives. Where there are validly Christian positions held by thoughtful Anglicans and those friendly to Anglican Christianity, that have some clear connection, at the very least, with the Christian intellectual tradition, I would think these would be fair game for presentation. All presentations at the conferences with which I am familiar have met this admittedly minimal standard. However, those, such as the Progressive embrace of the definitions, understandings, and propositions of the homosexual movement, that demonstrate in no uncertain terms a complete estrangement from said Christian intellectual tradition are what Mere Anglicanism is intended to refute. I can see no reason to present them save via handouts such as the one I prepared.