It Is What It Is

The Episcopal Church is currently holding their denominational conference in Ohio and discussing, among other things, how to address the issue of homosexuality in their denomination and how they can manage to condone such an arrangement while maintaining their relationship to the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion (the world-wide ‘parent’ organization for their denomination) has steadfastly maintained Scriptural fidelity, rejected blessings of same-sex unions and ordination of homosexual clergy and has called for a moratorium on such activity in the Episcopal Church. What is shaping up is, unfortunately, increasing momentum for the liberal positions and a widening divide between the diversity/tolerance/inclusion crowd and conservatives who want to remain aligned with the Scripturally based standards maintained by the Anglican Communion.

I know I don't have to tell you this, but Paul clearly speaks "early and often" about the prohibition on sexual immorality throughout the New Testament (Romans, 1 Corinthians and Galatians come to mind immediately), which is traditionally - and up until about 30 years ago - considered without question to include homosexual activity and relationships.

What I find particularly interesting in the contemporary rationalizations for acceptance of such behavior is implicit rejection of the concept of “plain language.” It's a not-uncommon basis for rejection of cases in our court system when things reach the federal appellate or Supreme Court level. In short, the case is overturned because someone (a lower court, regulatory agency or other entity) has overreached by interpreting that a particular word or statement in law means more than what it means by reading the "plain language".

As an example, I've been working on a case dealing with changes to the US EPA's main air pollution permitting program – known as New Source Review – in which the Agency made significant changes to the rule by re-interpreting a provision of the Clean Air Act and using it to weaken certain provisions of the permit regulations. I won’t bore you with all of the gory details (let me know if you have trouble with insomnia and I will send you some of my position papers on the subject), but ultimately the Supreme Court overturned the rule change by saying that EPA incorrectly interpreted the meaning of the word "all" in the Clean Air Act to mean something akin to "all, except in these other situations". In other words, the Supremes ruled that Congress meant "all" when it wrote "all" into the statute, and no one has the right to reinterpret the meaning of “all” to mean something else.

This, I think, is what we see a lot of with respect to the homosexuality issue - advocates are reinterpreting the "plain language" of Scripture through a contemporary cultural filter to include activities that have not previously been accepted or entertained. Even when they make a meager attempt to justify their position on the basis of “well, Scripture doesn’t really mean that”, analysis of the underlying etymology of Scriptural text undermines their efforts. Study of the native Greek that was the original source text language of the New Testament reveals that, in fact, the interpretations that we’ve grown up with are consistent with the context of how the language was used at the time of the writing. In other words, it means what it says (that plain language thing again).

Below is a link to a highly detailed and footnoted hermeneutical analysis by a fellow named Guenther Haas from Redeemer College in Ontario, Canada. His conclusion, after drilling down to the native Greek linguistic structure, is that:

“the arguments in defense of homosexuality surveyed in this paper fail…because they do not make their case on their own grounds.”

Haas goes on to state that:

“An examination of the biblical passages from linguistic, historical and ethical-theological perspectives fails to support the revisionist ethic and reinforces the traditional Christian teaching that homosexual practice is morally wrong.”

The full analysis can be located at the following URL: http://www.trinitysem.edu/journal/haas_hermen.html


At the end of the day, I maintain that the simplest (and traditional) explanation for the intent of Scripture regarding homosexual behavior is the most accurate and bears the greatest degree of fidelity to the true intent of the teachings of Christ. We are called to love and minister to these people just as we are to any other child of God; however, we are under no obligation or expectation to acknowledge, esteem, rationalize or condone behavior that is inherently sinful and undermines a legitimate relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...

Another pending election, another half-hearted attempt at passing a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman (I steadfastly refuse to call it a ‘ban on gay marriage’ since I consider the term “gay marriage” to be presumptive of the notion that there somehow is an existing and underlying legitimacy to marriage between people of the same sex.) It’s funny how after two years go by – and numerous states pass their own constitutional amendments to protect traditional marriage – the vote tally from the US Senate is remarkably similar. In 2004, the measure “passed” 50-48; while this time around it “passed” 49-48. Unfortunately, the vote needed to have 60 ‘yeas’ to make it past a procedural hurdle and see the floor for a legitimate up or down vote. Obviously there still isn’t recognition of the will of the people, even by senators that represent states where marriage protection amendments have passed.

The timing is particularly specious – I frankly believe that President Bush and the Republican leadership are frantically searching for an issue to galvanize the conservative base as the mid-term primaries start to get rolling. They clearly have fallen into the proverbial wood chipper on the illegal immigration issue (at least where the White House and Senate are concerned), only to have compounded their misery through House Speaker Hastert’s (self)-righteous indignation regarding the FBI’s court-approved search of the office of Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson. I think they are deathly afraid of losing the Senate, and they are attempting to apply a political tourniquet to stop the bleeding.

But back to the issue of the day. As with most major political issues that contain a substantial moral component, I see a clear vein of hypocrisy from opponents of marriage protection. Specifically, some who oppose marriage protection will attempt to justify their position by claiming that amendment of the constitution is not necessary since states can handle it directly through laws or through state-level constitution amendments. This is an empty argument with no foundation in reality; in fact, to succeed, it requires a suspension of an understanding of how such issues are contested in our legal and judicial world.

The problem is that when activist federal judges get into the act, the will of the people be damned and the protection of ‘individual choice’ and allegiance to the secular humanist ethos of the left becomes paramount. Their agenda is more important than that of the collective will of a constituency of multiple millions of people, and at the end of the day “gay marriage” advocates know that they can circumvent the will of the people by getting their case heard by a judge with the “correct” perspective. To buy their argument, you have to be willing to believe that the proven history of leftist judicial activism won’t really play out on this issue – really, we mean it this time. Honest.

Never mind that this strategy can be (and has been) used in the exact opposite manner when we talk about another hot-button political issue with moral implications. That’s right, I’m talking about abortion. Cynically, the left claims that states should be allowed to decide whether “gay marriage” should be legal, but they refuse to budge on the concept that other states (and their citizens) should have the right to make a moral judgment and refuse to allow abortions. They claim Constitutional protection for the right to an abortion on-demand (as if Ben Franklin, et al, really considered that when they were crafting the foundation of our government and our basic rights), but they deny that marriage qualifies for similar protection.

Another problem (and glaring example of hypocrisy from the left) is that while an abortion is an isolated event, a marriage must somehow be recognized, denied or addressed wherever you go. Other than the emotional (and potentially physical) scarring associated with ending the life of an unborn child, the decision to have an abortion doesn’t follow you wherever you go – it has a defined endpoint. Not so with a “gay marriage”. If a gay couple decides to “wed” in Massachusetts, then move to Texas and ultimately decide to “divorce”, a substantial problem has been created with how to handle the dissolution. How do you divide the assets? What about healthcare benefits? How do you handle (heaven forbid) the situation with respect to children? (Don’t get me started on this last one – that’s for another day).

The left will claim hypocrisy from conservatives, saying that we support state’s rights in one case and federal control in others. In fact, our position is highly consistent and it has nothing to do with federalism vs. rights of the state – it is based on a foundation of beliefs and values that do not change and are not influenced by worldly cultural trends. We base our positions on concepts that are protective of life and of traditional families. We base our positions on the will of the people, not the “progressive” and morally ambiguous agenda of a handful of judges. We base our position on moral standards that have been established for several thousand years – standards which were passed down from the Creator of the Universe.