St. Vincent of Lerins, in 434 A.D., devised a method for evaluating truth claims in the Christian church.
He believed truth begins and ends with holy Scripture. Even in the fifth century, everyone didn’t agree on what holy writ said or meant.
He wrote about what is taught everywhere, what has always been taught and what everyone teaches.
There are many interpretations of any Scripture. Many of these are valid interpretations. But, not every interpretation of Scripture is not valid.
To me, this is axiomatic but it is not agreeable to many modern Liberals. They seem to insist that every interpretation is valid, or, at least, that their interpretation is valid.
I do not assume that MY interpretation is valid but that it is useful to me until it is proven other than valid. As I yield my opinion to doctors in medical affairs, so I yield my theology to history and to those who know the many considerations required to make a good interpretation of Holy Scripture.
There are many interpretations of any Scripture. Many of these are valid interpretations. But, not every interpretation of Scripture is valid.
To me, this is axiomatic but it is not agreeable to many modern Liberals. They seem to insist that every interpretation is valid, or, at least, that their interpretation is valid.
I do not assume that MY interpretation is valid but that it is useful to me until it is proven other than valid. As I yield my opinion to doctors in medical affairs, so I yield my theology to history and to those who know the many considerations required to make a good interpretation of Holy Scripture.
And the progressives are great about finding “scholars” to show anomalies. If somebody (no matter how eccentric), somewhere (no matter how geographically limited), sometime (no matter how short the duration) said, wrote or did anything contradictory to Scripture, it “proves” for them that the Vincentian canon does not apply.
Canon? Aren’t all canons holy? When did the ECUSA/TEC get to pick and choose canon? I like that ECUSA/TEC leaders and lawyers get to make up canons out of whole cloth on the witness stand. I like that canons are ignored at will. I like that General Convention dictates are ignored at will (see the Executive Council comments on the Draft covenant). What’s not to like in ECUSA/TEC? You can believe anything, anytime, anywhere with no need for logical consistency or consistency of any sort whatsoever. That’s the ECUSA/TECan canon (copyright)!
Although the justly famous Canon of St. Vincent involves a form of circular reasoning, it is still a very useful guide in practice. That is, while theoretically it PROVES nothing (since anything contrary to what has been supposedly taught everywhere, always, and by all is thrown out as by definition unorthodox, hence the charge of circular reasoning), it does create a strong presumption that the practically universal teaching of the Church is correct. Anything to the contrary must therefore be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, otherwise the historic teaching stands, a priori, as binding.
This is what makes the outrageous claims to new revelation of our Worthy Opponents so outrageous. It’s not just that they’re wrong, but that their whole argument is so flimsy. The scandal is how readily they dismiss the historic teaching of the universal Church and toss it cavalierly aside, simply because it’s become politically incorrect. As I’ve written elsewhere, this amounts to nothing less than “The Trivialization of Scripture.”
So I’ll repeat here the claim I advanced already in that initial essay I wrote a month after attending the disastrous Minneapolis General Convention of 2003. I’ve never had a liberal/reappraiser come close to refuting it. I believe it’s relatively easy to prove, and almost impossible to disprove. Here it is, in 32 carefully chosen words. The definitive refutation of the progressive argument in just one sentence. Ready for it?
“The clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned, as it has been, on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.”
Although I don’t presume the stature of St. Vincent of Lerins, that principle state above might be called the Handy Canon.
The easy part: proving that the teaching of Scripture and Tradition about homosexual behavior is “clear and consistent.” A growing number of liberal biblical scholars now readily admit that (including Walter Wink, Dan Via, and Bernadette Brooten). So Vincent’s Rule applies here.
The harder part: proving that the contrary evidence presented by our liberal foes from reason and experience is “dubious and conflicting.” Suffice to say here, the technical part is refuting the claims based on very dubious science that initially seemed to indicate that there might be some genetic basis for an irresistible and immutable attraction to the same sex. Our Worthy Opponents usually cite three such sets of studies from the early 1990s (the brain studies of Simon LeVay, the twin studies of Michael Bailey, and the supposed genetic marker found by Dean Hamer). Unfortunately for our foes, none of them have stood the test of time and all have been subjected to sharp and severe critique by fellow scientists and basically invalidated. Thus, the evidence from reason/science is dubious at best and unable to overthrow the ancient consensus.
And when it comes to the real heart of the debate from the progressive standpoint, namely the personal testimony of gay men and lesbians, all that need be said here is that whatever evidence they can present must be contrasted with the equally moving and at least as illuminating experience of the growing number of ex-gays whom God has miraculously healed and delivered from this form of bondage and sexual perversion. That is, at the very least, the primary evidence advanced by our progressive opponents, taken from the personal experience of those caught up in homosexual behavior, is contradicted by the conflicting evidence from the experience of ex-gays. Once again, this kind of dubious and conflicting evidence simply can’t come close to justifying the “gay is OK” delusion when the testimony of both Scripture and Tradition is massive, emphatic, and “clear and consistent.”
The ancient canon of St. Vincent is so important that it’s one Latin phrase that a lot more of us should know by heart. So here it is:
“Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est.”
“What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.”
David Handy, Ph.D. (in NT, but Patristics is my second love)
Thus, the evidence from reason/science is dubious at best and unable to overthrow the ancient consensus.
The evidence that homosexual attraction is genetically determined is dubious at best. But let’s say it is true. How do we make the leap that a genetic anomaly is desirable? There are scads of non-life threatening genetic anomalies that are “corrected” medically. I have never quite understood the logic of this argument.
Hope,
I wholeheartedly agree. Even if some genetic predisposition could later be established, it wouldn’t validate the acting on that impulse. After all, if there is someday clear evidence that some people are predisposed to be violent, that wouldn’t make murder or assault morally neutral. And as you suggest, there are many genetic “anomalies” that we don’t regard as a good thing, like a tendency/increased risk for heart disease or bipolar disorder etc.
In other words, that only raises the bar even higher that our foes have to get over to prove their case. The saddest part is that they don’t even really try to make their case using verifiable evidence and sound reasoning. They just rest their case of the appeal to personal experience (and rely on the rising tide of public opinion in our permissive, relativist culture to carry their cause to victory).
We have Scripture, Tradition, and Reason on our side. All three. All they’ve got is “dubious” evidence from personal experience that is contradicted by the “conflicting” evidence of the many ex-gays Christ has set free. It’s really a no-brainer. We’re right. They’re wrong. End of discussion.
David Handy, Ph.D.
New Ref. Adv. / David Handy [#5] challenges liberals/reappraisers top refute this claim: “The clear and consistent teaching of Scripture and Tradition must not be set aside and overturned, as it has been, on the basis of dubious and conflicting evidence from reason and experience.â€
People are probably weary of my proposing analogies to the law, but they’re often informative, not least because (apart from the military) the law is society’s premier institution for dealing with irreconcilable disputes.
We can easily analogize Dr. Handy’s proposal to the legal system’s use of presumptions. Under Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the existence of a presumption satisfies an asserter’s burden of coming forward with evidence to support his assertion. If the other side fails to offer non-trivial evidence to refute the assertion, the presumption requires the assertion to be accepted as true. BUT: A presumption doesn’t shift the burden of persuasion, sometimes called the risk of nonpersuasion. And that can make a big difference.
In this situation, the analogy would be applied roughly like this:
1. There’s a rebuttable presumption of the authority of Scripture and Tradition. That is, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, we should obey the lessons of Scripture and Tradition. (Yes, I know, many reasserters will vehemently dispute that the presumption is rebuttable; but stay with me.)
2. By and large, Western culture is founded on a rebuttable presumption in favor of personal liberty. Put simply, absent evidence of a reason to restrict personal liberty, that which isn’t prohibited is permitted. The degree of evidence required to overcome this presumption depends on the circumstances, such as the risk that the liberty in question will put others at risk (especially for example children).
3. So here we have competing presumptions: A) The rebuttable presumption that we should obey the lessons of Scripture and Tradition, versus B) the rebuttable presumption that we should not restrict personal liberty.
4. My guess is that without more, if forced to choose, many citizens of formerly-British countries (the US, UK, Canada, Oz, NZ) would feel compelled to give more weight to the presumption against restricting personal liberty.
5. Applying the foregoing to lifelong same-sex unions between consenting adults (“LLSSU” for short): Reasserters are proposing to continue a de facto restriction of personal liberty in this area, by prohibiting the blessing of LLSSUs and banning those in such relationships from the episcopacy. They base their proposal almost entirely on the presumption of authority of Scripture and Tradition.
7. But for many and perhaps most Episcopalians, the presumption against restricting personal liberty carries considerably more weight, especially in the absence of clear evidence of harm. To these folks, on the current state of the evidentiary record, that presumption carries the day.
What say you, Dr. Handy?
DC you write: “People are probably weary of my proposing analogies to the law, but they’re often informative, not least because (apart from the military) the law is society’s premier institution for dealing with irreconcilable disputes.”
That’s only because the law has the full power of the state to enforce it’s judgments. Whether a decision of law or a finding of face it right, wrong or indifferent, once made the state will enforce it regardless. As one justice said: “We are not final because we are infallible we are infallible because we are final.”
#6, D.C.,
Well, I’m not trained in legal argument, so in this matter I definitely speak as a layman/amateur. However, it seems to me that the crucial point might be your third one, i.e., that in a secular society like ours we have competing “presumptions” in direct conflict here. And while I’d have to agree with your take on how most secularized Americans would adjudicate those rival presumptions (in favor of personal liberty), my first substantive comment would be that this was not the audience I had in mind. I was speaking to those within the Christian tradition, indeed to those who claim to be within our Anglican tradition, hence the listing of the various authorities we appeal to in disputes (Scripture, Tradition, reason, experience).
Actually, your response illustrates beautifully how most of those on the “progressive”/reappraiser side think, in that their values do indeed seem to be driven by the secular standards of contemporary elite (godless) culture. BTW, I assume you were not advocating those values yourself, just calling our attention to how the average American might respond to my proposal (perhaps with a dismissive yawn of boredom it appears, if you’re right).
If I were to attempt a legal analogy, I think I’d say that my proposed single sentence argument is an attempt to persuade people that the heavy burden of proof lies on the reappaisers, i.e., they must PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt something so extremely dubious as something that flies directly against the combined weight of Scripture and Tradition. And secondly, I was asserting that the liberal side hasn’t even come close to doing so. Not within a mile.
It seems to me that you, D.C., are reminding us all of how there are indeed two clashing sets of axiomatic assumptions here, those of biblical religion and those of our secular society. For orthodox Christians, the authority of Scripture, especially when backed as in this case by the universal consensus of Church Tradition down through the ages, is innocent of error until proven guilty. Whereas, for most Americans, alas, inside or outside the Church (so secularized have we become), it is the assumption that whatever happens behind closed doors between two consenting adults is no one else’s business (even God’s!) that is presumed true and morally innocent, until proven otherwise.
If so, then when dealing with secularists, I’d have to argue in a different fashion, primarily relying on the natural law argument (i.e., as Paul says in Romans 1:24-27, that homosexual behavior is “contrary to nature”), and on its deleterious effects on both the individual (greatly increased medical risks, especialy for gay men), and on society as a whole (contributing to the breakdown of the family etc.).
David Handy+
DC, obedience to God trumps man’s law. It might cost everything up to and including your life in human law. But the resurrectio plan is unbeatable.
[i]By and large, Western culture is founded on a rebuttable presumption in favor of personal liberty.[/i]
But Catholic Christianity is not. Thus, your argument collapses. For Christians, the question is how does such a thing enrich the Kingdom? If your personal liberty does not enrich the Kingdom for some other purpose clearly laid out by God (go back to Scripture and Tradition) it is in violation of such. If values seem to clash within the Kingdom, we go back to the bulk of Scripture and the weight of Tradition, tempered by reason, to help discern.
Which is just what my good brother & former Nevadan Fr. Howard just wrote.
Nicely done, Howard+.
Addendum to my earlier post (#10),
Correction, my #10 was of course in response to that of #8 by D.C., not #6 (simple typo). But I’ll take the chance to offer a clarification and amplification of something I only touched on. Namely, in a secular society like ours that idolizes personal liberty, we have to use their language and in a way relevant to their interests. And that means, countering the follies of the “gay is OK” delusion by exposing what a powerful form of bondage results from repeated practice of sexual sins like homosexual behavior. There is such a thing as sexual addiction after all, which takes many forms, but one of the hardest to break is indulging in same-sex immorality.
And the horrific consequences for society as well as the individual are enormous. The social costs are very high. And that includes the literal financial costs, since gay men who indulge in promiscuous behavior (the rule, not the exception) are notoriously subject to devastating medical problems, quite apart from the threat of AIDS and STDs. It is a little known medical fact that the gay male community has a much reduced life expectancy, largely due to the serious infections that gay men are especially prone to developing on a frequent basis. Just as “friends don’t let friends drive drunk,” so also true friends don’t let gay or lesbian friends endanger themselves and others by the high risk behaviors that characterize homosexuality on the whole.
David Handy+
Br. Michael [#9] writes: “That’s only because the law has the full power of the state to enforce it’s judgments. Whether a decision of law or a finding of face it right, wrong or indifferent, once made the state will enforce it regardless.”
Over the long term, the apparatus of the state cannot enforce judgments opposed by a majority (and often just a sizable but passionate minority) of a free people. Score one for the ethic of personal liberty, which creates the environment in which this kind of societal self-correcting mechanism can function — you don’t see it happening in, say, most of the Middle East.
Thanks Margaret!
Application of the Vincentian Canon puts much of classic Protestatnism in question, doesn’t it?
In 434 AD, the proposition that collecting interest from fellow believers satisfied ALL of St. Vincent’s criteria: it is in holy scripture, had always been taught, was what everyone taught everywhere.
A thousand years later, that part of scripture gradually got, as we now say, reappraised.