Sunday, October 30, 2005

Moments of Honesty Among Advocates of Homosexuality

The Ledger in Florida recently ran an article about a symposium on homosexuality at Florida Southern College. The article quotes scholars arguing against the traditional Christian view of homosexuality, without giving much of the other side. But one of the quotes from one the scholars was unusually revealing:

"With respect to homosexuality, Crenshaw said it is forbidden in the book of Leviticus, along with bestiality and cross-dressing. However, he said the biblical prohibitions should not necessarily be taken as final. 'We must reject at the outset any notion of the supreme authority of scripture. . . . Even those who take most literal interpretation of biblical texts, who claim to believe everything literally, nevertheless sit in judgment on their meaning at every juncture because readers determine meaning,' he said. As a result, Crenshaw said, 'those who practice alternative sexual lifestyles' should not be condemned. 'Is God more interested in our sex lives than in our integrity, our good deeds and our chaste thoughts?' he said."

The fact that one thing is more important than another wouldn't prove that the less important matter is to be ignored. Would bestiality, polygamy, and incest, for example, be included among the "alternative sexual lifestyles" that aren't to be condemned? Crenshaw's argument doesn't make sense.

But what I'm primarily concerned about here is his admission that "We must reject at the outset any notion of the supreme authority of scripture". More advocates of homosexuality should be so honest about their view of the Bible.

The thrust of The Ledger's article, though, leans in the direction of trying to reconcile homosexuality with scripture. For a refutation of that sort of argumentation, see here.