Homosexuality and Evangelical Identity

In the background of the recent Massachusetts court ruling, Virginia Postrel comments on a Pew Center survey on trends in attitudes towards homosexuality, particularly among "religious" people:

[S]aying that homosexuality is wrong has increasingly become the defining public characteristic of evangelical Protestants. Publicly disapproving of gays separates them from popular culture--and, hence, reinforces religious commitment--while exacting little personal toll. When I was a kid, evangelical churches disapproved of dancing, of rock music, of working women, of divorce. Now they incorporate all of those elements in their church programs. (They still don't like divorce--who does?--but today's evangelical churches not only have programs for divorced members, they even arrange their buildings' security so non-custodial parents can't swipe the kids.) What's left? Gays. That's why pastors tend to talk so much about them.

In a way, I think she's right. It's probably safe to say that the issue of homosexuality is becoming a defining rallying cry for the American evangelical church today. And its also probably safe to say that, for many evangelicals, it is an issue that "exact[s] little personal toll."

At the same time, I think a better analogy would be with the issue of abortion, arguably the defining rallying cry during the era of Operation Rescue. Evangelicals are not as vocal about abortion as they used to be, but it is still an issue and there are many things going on at a quieter level. Likewise, homosexual marriage may be something to temporarily accept like Roe v. Wade, meaning that the thundering sermons and continuous picketing may die down after the initial legal defeats, but I think the issue of homosexuality is something too close to core evangelical (and, hopefully, biblical) beliefs.

What I think Ms. Postrel misses is that some of the issues of the 50's and 60's like rock music, dancing, and complete prohibition of alcohol, are historically aberrant issues for Christians. They have either been issues that there have been no historical consensus on (such as prohibition or dancing), or they are simply issues that are specifically related to a distinct place and time (such as rock music). For Christians to change their minds on those issues does not bespeak a departure from either revealed or historical standards.

Issues like homosexuality, divorce, and abortion, however, have been generally deemed unethical for the last 2000 years across all major branches of Christianity. To depart from the standards on those issues is to depart from the foundation and heritage of Christianity.

Just my thoughts.

November 18, 2003 04:42 PM
3 Comments

The interesting thing about homosexuality, which I think separates it from almost all other issues, is the underlying question of, "How can a person be born gay if God abhors it." This goes a bit deeper than the question of traditional custom.

I don't mean to imply that all those that are gay are born that way, but I think it is safe to say that some people have little to no choice in the matter.

Pondered by Greg at November 19, 2003 10:18 AM

The argument (just to make sure I understand it), would then be something like:

(1) Some people are born with a genetic makeup that compels them to have homosexual preferences and thus pursue homosexual actions
(2) God would not allow people to be born in a state whereby they are compelled to act in a manner that he would then judge them for
(3) Therefore, God can not abhor homosexuality
(4) Therefore, Christianity's tradition of condemning homosexuality is in contrary to God's own standards

There seems to be a few potential problems, though.

For (1): first, I'm not completely convinced about the genetic makeup issue. Much of the research on this doesn't seem, yet, convincing. And much of the time it seems to carry a lot of ideological baggage one way or the other into it.

Second, (1) assumes that a genetic disposition necessitates genetic determinism. This opens up all sorts of other possibilities: would a person who is genetically pre-disposed to anger, for example, be pre-determined to be physically violent?

Even if the genetic disposition of (1) were granted, there would still be issues for (2). (2) seems like it also could be applied to the issue of environmental conditioning: could someone grow up in a culture/situation where they never learn a basic moral lesson and thus not be able to make the right moral decision, but still be judged responsible? Some situations where that seems to be true would be: some white slaveowners in the pre-Civil War South or any person who grew up in a culture that has ethnic hatred and violence ingrained in it (i.e., the Balkan conflicts). In these cases, someone could grow up never knowing anything other than the wrong way, but still be morally culpable for having carried that out.

Pondered by maphet at November 19, 2003 11:14 AM

I wouldn't go as far as (3) or (4), it was more of a comment about how the individual feels about it, as opposed to past issues which are not as exclusive and alienating in their outcomes.

As for the genetic predisposition question, it is far from proven in my mind that people are born that way, but it does seem that there are variances between individuals in their level of homosexuality. More likely than genetic, to me would be some sort of environmental conditions. I wish I had some studies to point to, but I dont.

Pondered by Greg at November 19, 2003 05:24 PM