Robert A. Gagnon, associate professor of NT theology at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, wrote a tremendous article on the topic of homosexuality and same-sex marriage titled “Why the Disagreement Over the Biblical Witness of Homosexual Practice?” The article is a response to David G. Myers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni’s 2005 book, What God Has Joined Together? A Christian Case for Gay Marriage.
I must say that this was the single most informative, thoughtful, articulate article on homosexuality I have read to date. It is 130 pages long, so it is no small read, but it is well worth the time. Gagnon does a thorough job debunking the pro-homosexual interpretation of the Bible, makes excellent and articulate arguments against homosexuality in general, and same-sex marriage in particular. If you want to have a well-rounded argument to present to an increasingly pro-homosexual culture, this article is a must read.
Thinking to Believe 
April 25, 2007 at 6:20 am
The Bible consists of very different books depending on the Christian group in question. The oldest Christian denominations – Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox – have similar sets of books, very different from the Prostant Bible (but even they cannot agree!) The shifting sands of Scripture eventually led to the Protestant Bible, a truncated version of the Christian Bible that removes books that early Protestants disliked.
The Bible, with the books and verses currently said to constitute Scripture, opposes all forms of premarital sex and provides no opposition to any form of married relations.
Because gay marriage did not exist in Biblical times, gay relations were considered impermissible in their culture. The Bible is silent on gay relations between married people, but it’s reasonable to assume that it would be permissible, if not applauded.
There is also Jesus’s example with the naked man in the Gospel of Mark, which was later redacted by the church because of ideological reasons. Known as the Secret Gospel of Mark, a majority of scholars recognize that it’s genuine Scripture.
LikeLike
April 25, 2007 at 7:44 am
I disagree with the article’s author. The OT clearly supports polygamy. The NT does not oppose polygamy; in fact, it clearly and strongly supports it.
1 Tim 3:1-7 notes ideal characteristics for a bishop, things that would distinguish a good potential bishop from the average Christians. Among those characteristics is having “one wife.” Obviously, then, it was acceptable for Christians to have multiple spouses, but having one wife is ideal for a bishop.
LikeLike
April 25, 2007 at 11:01 am
Who is anonymous? It is obvious that you have either watched or read a great deal of the current nonsense being published by skeptics and liberal scholars concerning the history of Christianity but it is also obvious that you accept what they say without question and without considering opposing views. Responsible thinking on any issue means asking the hard questions of all positions, not simply favored ones.
I would like to see you back a single claim that you have made. Or rather, perhaps it would have been more helpful for you to make a single claim and support it rather than use the shotgun effect to throw a dozen counter-claims against the blog and the article here in question.
First, your understanding of the Christian canon is rather simplistic. The main set of books in question were those in the Apocrypha and these were constantly debated. But such books as the Secret Gospel of Mark were never seriously considered, if at all, in these debates. The question of what’s in the canon or not in the canon doesn’t really effect the question of homosexuality anyhow. Conservative Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants all hold similar positions on homosexuality and marriage in general. In fact, it could be argued that some conservative Catholics are far more serious about this than Protestants, especially liberal Protestans, who feel free to somehow affirm the Bible while disagreeing with most of it.
Second, marriage by definition is between one man and one woman. That is in Scripture (Gen. 2:19-25). To say that it provides no opposition to “any” from of married relations is ridiculous. The OT is pretty clear on what marriage is regardless of what happened in the actual lives of OT figures. And the OT is against both premarital and extramarital sex.
Third, marriage is by definition between a man and a woman. To claim that calling a relationship between two gay men a marriage changes the permissibility of such a relationship is to play funny word games. Either marriage means marriage or it does not. This would be like agreeing that the word “equal” means different things for different people. I believe that that is an idea that a lot of people died to disprove.
Word games do not change morality.
Furthermore, it is not that “gay marriage did not exist in Biblical times..” thus “…gay relations were considered impermissible in theier culture.” Rather, gay marriage did not exist because gay relations were considered impermissible. You have it backwards.
Also, you need to re-read history because while homosexuality was considered immoral in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures it was not necessarily so in the rest of Mediterranean and Near Eastern societies during the “bible” times. To claim that the homosexual relationships between homosexuals today have no parallel in the “bible” times and therefore the biblical injunctions against them are irrelevant is simply ridiculous. What exactly do you think those biblical injunctions were against? Again…language games.
Fourth, I would like to know which scholars you are referring to that recognize the Secret Gospel of Mark as “genuine Scripture.” Most of these scholars giving so much attention to these “secret” Christian writings don’t even believe in the idea of Scripture, that is that some set of human documents are also God’s Word to humanity. So show me a scholar who attempts to live by the Secret Gospel of Mark like Christians attempt to live by the Bible.
Fifth, one must acknowledge the difference between what the Bible supports and what it reports. They are not the same. By the way, show me how Paul’s discussion of marriage in his epistles could fit inside the concept of polygamy. When he is discussing Christian marriage he states that the husband’s body belongs to the wife, and the wife’s to the husband, does he really mean “wives?” (1 Corinthians 7). The same goes for Ephesians 5. Furthermore, bishops, deacons, and elders all were to have one wife (1 Timothy 3, Titus 1). Obviously a pattern of approved morality going on here…
LikeLike
April 25, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Chad…
You are mistaken concerning the “Apocrypha.” Those books have been a part of the Christian canon since the earliest of times. The claim that they were added into the canon by the Catholics in response to the Protestant Reformation is disproven by the fact that the Orthodox, separated from the Catholic Church since 1054, continue to recognize all of the “Apocrypha” as canonical Scripture.
Moreover, the Oriental Orthodox also recognize all of the Apocrypha and they’ve been seperate from the Catholic Church since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon
http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/BIBLE/ethrcot.stm
Marriage is not, by definition, between one man and one woman. Not at law, not in the dictionary, not in the Bible. The long-standing institutions of polygyny and polyandry show that marriage has many forms.
You seem to have read my comments as asserting that homosexuality did not exist in OT times. To the contrary, my position is that homosexuality did exist. It was condemned because it was outside of marriage.
On a similar note, you read my comments to say that the Bible only condemns premarital sex, not extramarital sex. That was not my intent. To clarify, the Bible condemns all sex outside of marriage (gay or straight) and allows sex between married partners.
Finally, the Secret Gospel of Mark is not a separate gospel, but the original canonical version of the Gospel of Mark.
LikeLike
April 25, 2007 at 9:16 pm
–> “The long-standing institutions of polygyny and polyandry”
A polygamous family will consist of a series of marriages, not one large mutli-person marriage with each person married to every other person.
For example:
The husband who marries a second wife has undertaken a second marriage; his first wife does not marry his second wife; neither the first nor the second would marry a third women should their husband marry again.
So even with polygamy, marriage is the union of one man and one woman.
The essence of marriage is the combination of responsible procreation (not just any procreation but that which extends biological parenthood through to social parenthood, to use modern terms) and integration of the sexes (the intrinsic joining of husband and wife, father and mother, the mating — not just sexual mating — of man and woman).
Each of us, as the man or the woman of a procreative duo, is directly responsible for the child we create; this is the first principle of responsible procreation. This is why integration of the sexes is intertwined with responsible procreation. Marriage, as a coherent set of social aspirational goals, is normative — it guides all of society, not just those who marry.
This is the nature of marriage and this springs from the nature of hunankind (two-sexed), and the nature of human generativity (both-sexed), and the nature of human community (also both-sexed).
The family is founded on the union of man and woman; the family is the organic and original cell of human community; through marriage, men and women form the first human community from which society — in fact civilization — arises.
You can hardly read scripture without stumbling across affirmations of what is discernible in our nature, as men and women together.
LikeLike
April 25, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Chad,
You said exactly what I wanted to say.
Jason
LikeLike
April 26, 2007 at 8:40 am
Arthur: Finally, the Secret Gospel of Mark is not a separate gospel, but the original canonical version of the Gospel of Mark.
False. The idea of a “secret gospel” was first mentioned in an unauthenticated letter from the 17th century. There is no earlier evidence of such a manuscript as the “secret gospel” ever existing, let alone some actual text of said gospel included in or considered to be included in any Christian canon, let alone redacted out by some conspiracy.
LikeLike
April 26, 2007 at 4:48 pm
No, it’s quite true I’m afraid. I should have put the word “canonical” in front of “Gospel of Mark” rather than “version,” but I’m sure you already knew that.
>>Although there has been some controversy over the letter, today it is generally agreed that the letter is authentic correspondence written by Clement. In his introduction in The Complete Gospels, Stephen Patterson notes: “The handwriting can be dated to around 1750. Smith published the letter in 1973. Early discussion of it was marred by accusations of forgery and fraud, no doubt owing in part to its controversial comments. Today, however, there is almost unanimous agreement among Clementine scholars that the letter is authentic.”<< http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/secretmark.html
Most conservative Protestant theologians believe that Clement’s letter is a forgery, perhaps because of its homoerotic overtones. Most Clementine scholars believe that the letter was written by Clement.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_miss.htm
LikeLike
April 25, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Lately the scale has been tipping toward the view that the Secret Gospel of Mark is a modern forgery. For the controversy surrounding my book, The Secret Gospel of Mark Unveiled, see http://music.princeton.edu/~jeffery/raves.htm
All shades of opinion are and will continue to be represented.
Peter Jeffery
LikeLike
May 2, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Peter,
I heard about your thesis a few weeks ago while listening to William Lane Craig discuss a debate between N.T. Wright and Crossan, in which this was brought up against Crossan’s use of Secret Mark by one of the respondents. I bought the transcript of the debate to find out more information on this, but have not read it yet. It looks like the information must have come from your book. Can you tell me more?
Jason
LikeLike
May 3, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Even assuming that we “know” what the Bible says about homosexuality, ancient or modern, why be so obsessed with it, while ignoring what the same work says about usury (forbidden), non-virgin brides (to be put to death), wearing clothes made of different materials (forbidden), eating shellfish (forbidden), and childless widows (have to have sex with each of the husband’s brothers until she gets pregnant, that’ll teach her)? And why does one not concentrate on the Scriptures’ main message, namely love?
LikeLike
May 3, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Such an argument can only be made by someone who doesn’t know much about the Bible, or Christian theology. See http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/homosexualuc.htm#Anchor5
for a response to your challenge.
Jason
LikeLike
May 3, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I see the link got cut off. Just go to http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/homosexualuc.htm
and look under the “Condemnation and Punishment: It’s Not a Package Deal” section.
LikeLike