I am glad you are making this available. When I returned home, someone fom the Lutheran church asked for my copy of his book. I will forward this link to them.
Professor Gagnon gave largely the same speech at the Lutheran CORE gathering during the Churchwide Assembly last August and got a standing ovation. He did not give us the personal story, though, which is very touching.
Prof Gagnon’s book is an excellent survey of ancient attitudes and same gender sexual behavior and also an excellent commentary on various passages of scripture that may or may not be relevant. Yet, his negative opinion is ultimately not scriptural at all; it is biology and natural law. This is his “complementarity” theory which posits that since male plumbing fits so well with female, we must conclude that is the only proper expression of sexuality. All in all, his excellent scholarship and research collapses in a heap of “make the evidence fit the preconception”. It is also interesting to see how the professor has created a veritable cottage industry of appearances to give intellectual cover to anti-LGBT fears and biases. If the “personal story” alluded to above is the same story of the gay man at his college alma mater who dallied with Gagnon’s Bible study group before finally turning his back on the group, it is indeed touching because it shows how a judgmental attitude is counterproductive to true evangelism.
While I have a background in argumentation and debate as a lawyer, I do not boast Dr Gagnon’s scholarly credentials as I am merely a lay theologian. We do, however, share Dartmouth as our undergraduate alma mater.
I note that you earlier referred to Dr. Gagnon’s presentation on behalf of Lutheran CORE at the 2009 ELCA churchwide assembly. I find it interesting that the other CORE presentation came from Exodus International, proponents of the decidedly unscientific and debunked practice of reparative therapy.
[blockquote]The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective. The report looks at 87 studies conducted between 1960 and 2007. In addition, the 138-page report — covering 87 peer-reviewed studies — said that such efforts may cause harm. [blockquote]
So, by coupling a scholar with Exodus, CORE used Dr. Gagnon to provide the intellectual cover for a decidedly unintellectual and scientifically repudiated group that perpetuates gay mythology.
I think it is absolutely funny that whenever people are opposed to homosexuality, the pro-homosexual group calls it fear. It is not fear. It is condemnation of a sinful act. I don’t see adulterers calling us fearful when we say that adultery is sin. I don’t see alcoholics doing it either. You should read our catechism. On page 848 of the BCP: “What is sin? Sin is the seeking of our own will instead of the will of God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other people, and with all creation.” The sinful act of taking the Episcopal Church’s focus from God and focusing it on condoning sin is not only repugnant, but it needs to cease immediately.
That is absolutely fallacious. We welcome all people into the Church. That will never change. No one is beyond God’s redeeming love. There is no exception. We should not allow homosexuals into the priesthood because they are living openly in sin and are not sorry for it. They show no signs of repentance. It is about sin, not the sinner. When we condone sin as righteousness, it is as if we were rebuking Christ for dying on the cross.
jric777
Are there any divorced and remarried clergy in your greater church body? Do they not continue in their sin of adultery according to Jesus’ own words? (Mark 10:11-12) What is that makes you squeamish about gay clergy but accepting of divorced and remarried clergy? I say again, fear. Gays are icky, and we don’t want their ickiness to contaminate our holiness.
May I take the liberty of paraphrasing your words? “We welcome all people into the church–as long as they change according to our demands.”
I also challenge your implication that those who think like me are proponents of cheap grace antinomianism (that sin doesn’t matter). Our starting point is different from yours. You assume without questioning that all homosexual behavior is sinful: even committed, lifelong, and monogamous relationships that offer mutual encouragement, nurture, and support. We differ. We believe that Christ calls us to a higher righteous that answers to the spirit of the law and not its letter, and the spirit of the law is summed up in the commands to love God and love the neighbor. “On these commands hang all the law and the prophets,” Jesus said. Christian ethics are based on a delicate balancing test and not merely a cookbook of moral recipes.
So, please don’t accuse us of “condoning sin as righteousness”. We have a different understanding of sin than you.
Undergroundpewster,
Not sure what conference you are referring to–I was present at the ELCA CWA09. The problem with reparative therapy theorists is that repressed sexuality is mischaracterized as a cure. Repressed sexuality is harmful because of the guilt that may be present and also because it is like a ticking time bomb. Rather than accept the anecdotal stories of those who have repressed their sexuality and claim they are cured, I think the overwhelming evidence behind the official position of the American Psychological Association is clear and convincing. Reparative therapy is ineffective to change sexual orientation and in many cases is actually harmful, notwithstanding the occasional testimonies of well-meaning folks like Mario Bergner whose wishes come across as achievements.
Thanks, everyone, for listening as I have come here and attempted to beard the lion in his den, but now I must go. God bless all as you wrestle, like Jacob at the Jabbok, with these sensitive issues.
If anyone is interested, I have blogged extensively on these issues on my own blog, http://theliberalspirit.com
There are certainly divorced and remarried clergy. You must have overlooked Matthew 5:32 where Jesus said [b]except for marital unfaithfulness[/b]. Other forms of divorce mean that the marital party entered into this holy bond lightly. That is a sin. You cannot enter into a lifelong agreement lightly.
Once again, your use of the word fear only serves as a detriment to your cause. You resort to name-calling as a way to slander the other side’s ideals. That is certainly not going to help your argument any.
Once again, we welcome all people into the Church. Their welcome is not contingent upon their repentance, for if that were true, then salvation would not be through grace, but through works. What is important is that we all take steps towards Christ, and not towards the world. In our running to Christ, we need to begin to shed the things that hold us from him. That is, sin.
Homosexuality is all a form of sin. Sex outside of marriage is a sinful act. There is no denying that its place in Scripture. Homosexuals cannot be an exception to this rule just because they are different. That would mean that [b]you[/b] are choosing what is sin. Sounds a bit wrong to me.
The concept of following the spirit of the law would follow your line of thinking. I can see that. But that is a slippery slope. The idea of the “spirit of the law” means that you can interpret however whimsically you please what the Scriptures state. I want no part of that. Scripture states clearly that sin is sin.
As for your different conception of sin, I have clearly shown, according to the catechism of the Church, that sin is the seeking of your own will instead of the will of God. The Bible expresses the will of God. Where in the Bible is homosexuality condoned? Your “delicate balancing test” use the scales of Scripture.
The point is homosexuality is no different than any other sin. It is the seeking of one’s own will rather than the will of God, and it does distort their relationship with creation. You have no farther to look than the schism that has occurred in the Episcopal Church since ’03.
You really do need to watch it all as professor Gagnon’s final heart-rending story to accentuate his concluding point is the best part of the video.
Fabulous scholar and Christian, that man.
I am glad you are making this available. When I returned home, someone fom the Lutheran church asked for my copy of his book. I will forward this link to them.
Professor Gagnon gave largely the same speech at the Lutheran CORE gathering during the Churchwide Assembly last August and got a standing ovation. He did not give us the personal story, though, which is very touching.
Elves: I cannot pick up the sound tr5ack. Is there any other way I can read this? Larry
This was great! I loved what he had to say. That man is very smart.
Prof Gagnon’s book is an excellent survey of ancient attitudes and same gender sexual behavior and also an excellent commentary on various passages of scripture that may or may not be relevant. Yet, his negative opinion is ultimately not scriptural at all; it is biology and natural law. This is his “complementarity” theory which posits that since male plumbing fits so well with female, we must conclude that is the only proper expression of sexuality. All in all, his excellent scholarship and research collapses in a heap of “make the evidence fit the preconception”. It is also interesting to see how the professor has created a veritable cottage industry of appearances to give intellectual cover to anti-LGBT fears and biases. If the “personal story” alluded to above is the same story of the gay man at his college alma mater who dallied with Gagnon’s Bible study group before finally turning his back on the group, it is indeed touching because it shows how a judgmental attitude is counterproductive to true evangelism.
36 Obie,
Robert Gagnon said that is was becoming increasingly difficult to find anyone to debate with. Are you interested?
While I have a background in argumentation and debate as a lawyer, I do not boast Dr Gagnon’s scholarly credentials as I am merely a lay theologian. We do, however, share Dartmouth as our undergraduate alma mater.
I note that you earlier referred to Dr. Gagnon’s presentation on behalf of Lutheran CORE at the 2009 ELCA churchwide assembly. I find it interesting that the other CORE presentation came from Exodus International, proponents of the decidedly unscientific and debunked practice of reparative therapy.
[blockquote]The American Psychological Association concluded Wednesday that there is little evidence that efforts to change a person’s sexual orientation from gay or lesbian to heterosexual are effective. The report looks at 87 studies conducted between 1960 and 2007. In addition, the 138-page report — covering 87 peer-reviewed studies — said that such efforts may cause harm. [blockquote]
So, by coupling a scholar with Exodus, CORE used Dr. Gagnon to provide the intellectual cover for a decidedly unintellectual and scientifically repudiated group that perpetuates gay mythology.
Obie,
I think it is absolutely funny that whenever people are opposed to homosexuality, the pro-homosexual group calls it fear. It is not fear. It is condemnation of a sinful act. I don’t see adulterers calling us fearful when we say that adultery is sin. I don’t see alcoholics doing it either. You should read our catechism. On page 848 of the BCP: “What is sin? Sin is the seeking of our own will instead of the will of God, thus distorting our relationship with God, with other people, and with all creation.” The sinful act of taking the Episcopal Church’s focus from God and focusing it on condoning sin is not only repugnant, but it needs to cease immediately.
6. Obie,
Since you missed the conference, you missed the Rev. Mario Bergner’s presentation as well. You can also learn more at RedeemedLives.org.
Ah, but you are afraid. You afraid that gays will pollute your holy church.
Obie,
That is absolutely fallacious. We welcome all people into the Church. That will never change. No one is beyond God’s redeeming love. There is no exception. We should not allow homosexuals into the priesthood because they are living openly in sin and are not sorry for it. They show no signs of repentance. It is about sin, not the sinner. When we condone sin as righteousness, it is as if we were rebuking Christ for dying on the cross.
jric777
Are there any divorced and remarried clergy in your greater church body? Do they not continue in their sin of adultery according to Jesus’ own words? (Mark 10:11-12) What is that makes you squeamish about gay clergy but accepting of divorced and remarried clergy? I say again, fear. Gays are icky, and we don’t want their ickiness to contaminate our holiness.
May I take the liberty of paraphrasing your words? “We welcome all people into the church–as long as they change according to our demands.”
I also challenge your implication that those who think like me are proponents of cheap grace antinomianism (that sin doesn’t matter). Our starting point is different from yours. You assume without questioning that all homosexual behavior is sinful: even committed, lifelong, and monogamous relationships that offer mutual encouragement, nurture, and support. We differ. We believe that Christ calls us to a higher righteous that answers to the spirit of the law and not its letter, and the spirit of the law is summed up in the commands to love God and love the neighbor. “On these commands hang all the law and the prophets,” Jesus said. Christian ethics are based on a delicate balancing test and not merely a cookbook of moral recipes.
So, please don’t accuse us of “condoning sin as righteousness”. We have a different understanding of sin than you.
Undergroundpewster,
Not sure what conference you are referring to–I was present at the ELCA CWA09. The problem with reparative therapy theorists is that repressed sexuality is mischaracterized as a cure. Repressed sexuality is harmful because of the guilt that may be present and also because it is like a ticking time bomb. Rather than accept the anecdotal stories of those who have repressed their sexuality and claim they are cured, I think the overwhelming evidence behind the official position of the American Psychological Association is clear and convincing. Reparative therapy is ineffective to change sexual orientation and in many cases is actually harmful, notwithstanding the occasional testimonies of well-meaning folks like Mario Bergner whose wishes come across as achievements.
Thanks, everyone, for listening as I have come here and attempted to beard the lion in his den, but now I must go. God bless all as you wrestle, like Jacob at the Jabbok, with these sensitive issues.
If anyone is interested, I have blogged extensively on these issues on my own blog, http://theliberalspirit.com
Obie,
There are certainly divorced and remarried clergy. You must have overlooked Matthew 5:32 where Jesus said [b]except for marital unfaithfulness[/b]. Other forms of divorce mean that the marital party entered into this holy bond lightly. That is a sin. You cannot enter into a lifelong agreement lightly.
Once again, your use of the word fear only serves as a detriment to your cause. You resort to name-calling as a way to slander the other side’s ideals. That is certainly not going to help your argument any.
Once again, we welcome all people into the Church. Their welcome is not contingent upon their repentance, for if that were true, then salvation would not be through grace, but through works. What is important is that we all take steps towards Christ, and not towards the world. In our running to Christ, we need to begin to shed the things that hold us from him. That is, sin.
Homosexuality is all a form of sin. Sex outside of marriage is a sinful act. There is no denying that its place in Scripture. Homosexuals cannot be an exception to this rule just because they are different. That would mean that [b]you[/b] are choosing what is sin. Sounds a bit wrong to me.
The concept of following the spirit of the law would follow your line of thinking. I can see that. But that is a slippery slope. The idea of the “spirit of the law” means that you can interpret however whimsically you please what the Scriptures state. I want no part of that. Scripture states clearly that sin is sin.
As for your different conception of sin, I have clearly shown, according to the catechism of the Church, that sin is the seeking of your own will instead of the will of God. The Bible expresses the will of God. Where in the Bible is homosexuality condoned? Your “delicate balancing test” use the scales of Scripture.
The point is homosexuality is no different than any other sin. It is the seeking of one’s own will rather than the will of God, and it does distort their relationship with creation. You have no farther to look than the schism that has occurred in the Episcopal Church since ’03.
*The sentence in the fifth paragraph of #15 should read “Your ‘delicate balancing test’ should use the scales of Scripture.”