Andrew Marin has provoked fellow evangelical Professor Robert Gagnon to fury after Gagnon published a 24-page debunking of Marin’s book Love Is an Orientation.
Gagnon is perhaps the most prolific biblical scholar supporting the traditional reading of the Bible on the subject of homosexuality. For years, he has happily propped up the anti-gay and ex-gay movements with his scholarship, going so far as to join the notoriously extreme Peter LaBarbera’s “Truth Academy.”
Marin, a one-time “Bible-banging homophobe,” says he wants to put aside theological issues and “build bridges” with gays and lesbians. He steers away from commenting publicly on whether homosexuality is right or wrong, and seems to encourage others–to the understandable frustration of many of his gay critics–to evade questions too.
Now the two have clashed, with Gagnon “stunned” at the attention Marin’s approach has received:
Andrew Marin’s book, Love Is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community (2009), has been gaining some traction in evangelical circles. Having just finished reading the book I am stunned that an evangelical press like InterVarsity would publish such a fatally flawed work—and that persons such as Scot McKnight (a New Testament professor at an evangelical university, North Park) and a certain Michelle Strombeck of Moody Broadcasting Network (a conservative evangelical organization) would provide endorsements for it. (A foreword by Brian McLaren is not surprising since McLaren had already surrendered to a homosexualist view. The same applies to Tony Campolo, whose enthusiastic video endorsement is posted on Marin’s site.)
Marin did not respond directly to Gagnon’s criticisms, but mentioned it on his blog, with the headline “Conservative theologian REALLY doesn’t like me, or anyone ASSOCIATED with me.” He refused to engage Gagnon’s analysis and pointed to this paragraph of Gagnon’s as a “big red flag”:
I have written extensively on homosexual practice for a decade now, with two academic books published and many scholarly articles and articles for a general audience. I’m widely recognized as the world’s leading authority on the subject, certainly from a ‘traditional’ (i.e. scriptural) perspective. Yet CBN never asked me for a comment on Marin’s work, much less ever devoted an article on my work.
Gagnon, never one to do things by halves, responded with 26 pages of comment. Yes, 26 pages, just because he was slighted by Marin.
Ironically, despite having glibly described Brian MacLaren as a “homosexualist,” Gagnon objects to being called a conservative, a term “designed to isolate me into some fundamentalist/evangelical ghetto.” Gagnon quite rightly realizes he was slighted by Marin, although Marin denies it, but why this ridiculous overreaction? Gagnon really, really hates being diminished in this way, and reacts in a way I’m not used to seeing scholars do. Yes, scholars engage other people’s substantial criticisms, but since when do they write full-length treatises because someone sniped at them on a blog?
Observe what happens (pages 22-26) when “John from Arizona (a born-again Christian and a brother in Christ)” sends him an email of a mere 48 words insinuating Gagnon is a closet homosexual. Gagnon responds with over 400. John replies again with 500 words and Gagnon in turn sends him a staggering 1,600 words. A university professor who invests so much time and energy into responding to what at the end of the day is internet bickering is not in a secure place.
And Marin? I’m not surprised he doesn’t directly address Gagnon’s criticisms, since Gagnon is probably right in much of his biblical exegesis. The Bible does say some very ugly things about homosexuals–the offensive thing about Gagnon is not that he thinks the Bible condemns homosexuality, but that he agrees with it and uses it to justify prejudice against gays and lesbians today.
I haven’t scratched the surface of what Marin has written, despite pressure to denounce him on this blog. I’m eager to see what Marin does with those problem texts. Does he avoid them, like he (I think) avoids questions about the morality of homosexuality? Marin is already finding out that this tack doesn’t please those on either side. So who is it benefiting?
I have noticed that Gagnon is almost obsessive/compulsive in some respects when it comes to homosexuality. Perhaps we can make book on whether he will come here to comment or in the least comment elsewhere about this blog entry.
“Marin is already finding out that this tack doesn’t please those on either side. So who is it benefiting?”
That’s the heart of the matter; it appears to me anyway, that Marin’s trying to sit on a fence that isn’t there.
We need to love the LGTB people, for whom Christ died; however, we must also love them enough to tell them the truth.
As gently and patiently as we can; but tell them we must.
I think this misses the point. Marin, unlike Gagnon knows very well that trying to engage further would be useless, and that people that insist on thinking of this issue as being one side against the other have already missed the point entirely.
Who this is benefiting is what I think is the majority of people in both communities who are looking to move past a “us vs them” mentality and are looking for ways to continue relationships with their gay or evangelical friends that doesn’t involve simply writing them off, calling them names, or continually fighting.
It is the nature of centrists to be attacked by people on both sides, but that doesn’t mean that trying to find middle ground is pointless. Judging by the response Marin has had I would say that there is a surprisingly large group of people who have been waiting for just such a position to emerge.
Dave:
Thank you for reading this, so I didn’t have to. I find Gagnon’s work insufferable and what he thinks is prolific is really just remarkably long-winded.
He’s written countless pages to essentially say one of two things:
1) I hate gay sex and find it yucky — or
2) I want you to believe I hate gay sex, so you won’t think I’m obsessed with it and dream of it every waking minute
Either way, the dude reminds me of George Rekers on academic steroids.
In terms of expertise, I’ve enjoyed homosexual practice for two decades, which trumps his writing about it for one. Although his number of pages far exceeds my number of partners — and the partners of every porn star — gay and straight — combined.
Again, thanks for reading his screed. Every time I try to look at his work I end up sleeping at my desk. It’s like imbibing on a bucket of Nyquil.
I have to admit that I couldn’t get through the entire thing. I thoroughly enjoy a well written treatise, but people like Gagnon use the trappings of scholarship as a blunt object with which to club an opponent rather than a tool of understanding. I have read his exegesis of the clobber passages and find the same old stale rot, albeit conveyed in many more syllables than most.
The only thing I can say for sure is that Gagnon is incredibly taken with himself, so much so that his self-admiration tends to become the center of any exchange with him. Since there are more thoughtful authors who have written essentially the same material as Gagnon before, there would seem to be no need to subject oneself to his attitude.
I could agree that Gagnon’s exegesis accurately reflects the current evangelical interpretation of scripture on this point, but I can’t agree that he is “right” about it.
I’ve been concerned about Marin’s practice of avoiding certain questions, but I’m beginning to wonder if doing so isn’t the only way one could ever gain any ground in such an effort (bridge-building). Not to exhaust the metaphor, but a bridge does imply a common connection between two sides. If either side insists that the other capitulate unconditionally to their point of view, that is not a bridge but a conquest.
While I know there are those on both sides who are perfectly happy seeing this as a war to be won, is that really going to work right now? I don’t see the Gagnon’s of this world ever going along with the idea of a bridge, but there appear to be plenty who are not like him. Maybe we should bank on them. After all, associating with the likes of Peter LaBarbera and friends is a pretty good indication that one has reached the marginal extremes.
Perhaps Marin should have heeded his own advise and “put aside theological issues” when building bridges with gays and lesbians! Gagnon’s article is fair criticism of the (totally unnecessary) references to pro-gay theology in chapter 7 of Marin’s book.
Ken Silva, no matter how nicely you say it, no matter how much “love” you coat it with, we’ll neither listen to, nor invite into our lives people who tell us that our deep profound love for another (who happens to be of the same sex) is morally equivalent to such selfish acts as taking a life or lusting for a person who isn’t your spouse.
So please spare us.
@Ken Silva
Ken, I don’t think the greatest concern is over whether or not you tell someone “the truth” or not. After all, Mormons are out there every day attempting to tell you their truth (one that contradicts your own beliefs in fundamental ways) as are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Catholics, Muslims, and on down the line. The first amendment recognizes that we all have that right. It also gives atheists the right to say we are all terribly misguided for believing any of it, which is their truth.
Now, if you use that truth as an excuse for drawing up civil laws and policies which prevent an otherwise law abiding citizen from living their lives equally, you have then entered the trenches of the culture wars and the rights of others come into play. You can still talk all you want, even become obnoxious, but others can and will disagree with you. Faith must be a matter of personal conscience, a matter of free will. You can share your own understanding, but if you do so maliciously I doubt you will be very persuasive.
Those who are unwilling to let others enjoy freedom of interpretation and beliefs concerning the most personal issues of their lives — the same freedom they themselves enjoy — will eventually become marginalized and ineffective. And so it should be.
@Joe S
I’m curious, Joe. Why is Marin’s reference to pro-gay theology in his book “totally unnecessary” in your view?
Having spent time with Marin, I did not find him dodging hard ball questions, at least not with me privately. When asked if he agrees with gay marriage, he not only said he would stand up at a gay persons wedding for them, but that he would also vote to legalize gay marriage. He is also of the influence that the clobber passages refer to pedophilia. I asked it he were intending to put the pedophilia angle in his now published book and he replied, “not this one, but most likely the next”.
There was absolutely no vibe no intention nor even a twitch of an eye that invoked he was about to tell me the mis – “truth” about homosexuality homophobe Ken style, as he simply does not believe it. It was absent from his being.
I would say publicly he may be holding his cards to his chest for strategy reasons, and to avoid being negatively labeled. But if his hand be shown, I beleive he would be holding kings Jacks, and Queens, equally and affectionately.
Perhaps Marin regards Gagnon’s egomania (the name itself pretty much slam dunks the temperament) as a proverbial energy drain, best left to feed on itself. Deducing from his eccentricities, t’would seem Marin has selected more the higher road course of action.
I’m not concerned so much with a person’s view as whether they conceal it. I think bridge-building is possible, but I’m not sure deliberately avoiding showing one’s hand benefits either side.
For me, in any case, it’s early days with Marin. I’ve not even read his book yet. I’ve seen a lot to be concerned about, but I’ve also seen a lot of positives. For one, even if he still believes that homosexuality is a sin, he seems unambiguously determined to avoid discriminating against gays and lesbians by supporting anti-gay legislation and the like.
@Dave Rattigan
Perhaps, but consider the case of Jay Bakker. How effective has he been since declaring his views on those points? As I said, I am adverse to secrecy of this type, and I long ago voiced my concerns to Marin. But the more I see, the less convinced I am that there is another way to accomplish a meaningful dialog. Even the dialog about this is polarized for the most part.
Perhaps I should put my thoughts down in a 24 page PDF.
Because it undermines his aim of getting gays and evangelicals to talk to and respect each other. Marin has said many times something like “Although they may never agree on whether on not “gay sex is a sin”, it’s well worth getting both sides to set aside their differences and talk about the rest of the gospel”. So I meant unnecessary (or unhelpful/contradictory) in the context of his evangelical mission – which is outreach to gay men and women.
Marin always refuses to say what he personally believes about the “sin” issue – and then goes ahead and validates the pro-gay side by only quoting pro-gay theological views in his book. LIAO and the rest of work he does falls apart as soon as people start discussing the “clobber texts”.
Gagnon’s has an abrasive style (which might be rooted in homophobia) but he is qualified to criticise chapter 7 of Marin’s book – which, to be fair to Gagnon, is all he has done so far. The various commentators throwing insults at Gagnon and moaning about his “rants” are doing the very thing Gagnon didn’t start with – ad hominem abuse.
@Joe S
FWIW, Marin stated to me that his book was aimed more towards the evangelical church than GLBTs. From what I gather, it is his view that the church bears the responsibility of making the first move and that will require a change of heart — hence his focus. You may have a point in questioning the inclusion of that chapter, I would need to read over it again to think that one through.
As for Gagnon, I’ve not noticed a great deal of ad hominem here, but when someone establishes a pattern of behavior, especially distasteful behavior, it will get mentioned eventually. That aside, the most I can say about his arguments are that they have been made before — many times. It’s hard to get excited about a 24 page restatement of old positions. Scholars disagree on some pretty mundane issues, it’s not surprising that they may also disagree on this.
There are competent biblical scholars who do not agree with Gagnon’s exegesis of the few biblical passages which seemingly refer to homosexuality, but for all I know Gagnon’s may be absolutely spot on. What then? In so far as they provide a pretext for continuing the religious abuse of gays, we should repudiate them, no matter how formidable their provenance, and move on.
Well, OK, unlike you’all Haters, and as he has declared himself The World’s Expert, I thought I should at least give Gagnon a full read.
(Afterall, not even Alan Chambers — an equally self-obsessed person — has claimed to be that; he considers himself as merely one of the “world’s leading experts on homosexuality”.)
And I have to say: Gagnon has convinced me. The Bible does declare homosexuality to be an abomination caused by sheer rebellion and lust. The Bible, as Gagnon points out, declares homosexuality in any way shape or form to be destructive and harmful and anti-family. I agree with Gagnon: the Bible does declare to us that that homosexuality is worse than incest. Etc.
Now, I’m no Associate Professor of Theology. But I am, in my own small way, somewhat of an expert on homosexuality; which Gagnon is nowhere near. In accepting what Gagnon states about the Bible, I must also compare that to what I know about homosexuality. And so I did.
In view of the known facts about homosexuality and also in view of what Gagnon has now convinced me the Bible declares, I was left with a few plainly obvious conclusions.
1) the Bible contains errors.
2) at least some of the authors of the Bible have no clue what they are talking about.
3) plainly, those faults preclude the Bible being an authoritative source.
I shall be writing to thank Robert Gagnon. I was, somewhat, at risk of becoming a Bible-believing Christian, but now thanks to his firm and convincing scholarship about a gross falsehood contained in the Bible I can see that would have been a very foolish thing to do. And I’m no fool.
Good. That’s one of life’s eternal problems solved. Whew.
(Next up … the thorny question about the age of the Earth. 6000 years, or not?)
@grantdale
This kind of thing has been gnawing at me more and more lately. I know perfectly learned, intelligent people who haven’t given a second thought to the earth age contradiction. Others have gotten around it by subscribing to Day Age Creationism. This drives me nuts but it also illustrates how interpretation can be modified when necessary.
Of all the things in scripture that could be taken as metaphor, the creation story in Genesis is an obvious candidate. But since the presumption going in is that the Bible is both literal and inerrant on all points, we end up with absurd contradictions with reality and explanations which strain the faith of those who start with that premise. With such a mindset, we may as well stamp all the Bibles with “abandon all reason, ye who enter here.” I realize there are those who would do so anyway, but indulge me on behalf of the others for a moment.
When I am honest with myself, I realize that a key point in my disdain for Gagnon and his treatise is the fact that I have watched equally skilled scholars use their talent to argue this or that doctrine, and shortly after another argue just the opposite — all with what seemed a great deal of legitimate evidence. I don’t mean that I disagree with study, far from it. But everyone thinks their view is the correct one, and I find very few asking questions for fear of being branded a heretic — mainly, how can you be so sure? And if you can’t, shouldn’t we let people work that out themselves?
Sorry for the rough tangent, but like I said it has been gnawing at me of late.
David, believe it or not, it gets worse. there are people who believe in Geocentrism. There’s a site and a book out there (at least one of each) that insist “The earth is not moving.” No, really.
Of course, the man who wrote the book and runs the site also has nasty things to say about Jewish people, too. And I’m certain he’s not so kind on homosexuality.
But people whom you would otherwise think are intelligent refuse to acknowledge Evolution (I won’t see “believe” in it because you either acknowledge a scientific fact, or you don’t) and who stubbornly insist the earth is 6,000 years old.
“Day Age Creationism” doesn’t upset me terribly. For one thing, I find it fascinating that in the Genesis account God created the sea creatures as the first living animal creatures. According to evolutionary biology, we all descended from creatures the came to shore from the sea. I just think it’s a neat aligning that happens there with that particular creation belief system.
@Emily K
My point is that no one considered an alternative explanation of the six days of creation until it became obvious that it could not have been so. Apparently there are times when it’s ok to reinterpret, and never mind that people were wrong all that time. You would think such incidents might bring a little humility to the Gagnon’s of the world.
David, cognitive dissonance is your friend.
As Galileo’s contemporary, Bruno, may have said “Ah yes, those burning questions.”
One can read the Bible, or any other rather random collection of thoughts, and ponder what understanding it helps shed on the human condition; if in fact it does at all. As knowledge, as awareness, has emerged parts have been reemphasised, reinterpreted, removed, suppressed, added-to or simply politely ignored (like some crazy Aunt in the attic).
For all his supposed biblical scholarship, Gagnon seems incapable of acknowledging this 2000 year old trajectory and applying it to himself. To me, at least acknowledging that steady albeit it often interrupted progress should be the place to start. It’s the one thing that has been consistent about Christianity, and all other faiths. But Gagnon cannot, in contemporary terms, and it’s a serious personal flaw.
Why demand of people that they take sides between their faith or looking like an utter fool?
Some are always going to be both, to be sure, but others are perfectly capable of calm and reflective review of their creeds and those of others. For this alone I see Gagnon to be more insulting to people of genuine faith than he is to those that he attacks outright.
Think for a moment: what sort of faith would it be if it required willful ignorance?
And what sort of faith would arise from a community that was ignorant?
With people like Gagnon, I sometimes wonder on whose side they actually are… 8|
————————————-
@Emily K — just for curiosity sake, what do your texts actually say?
Not a big deal or anything, it’s just me wondering if some subtle change has crept into the (English)(Christian) versions of Genesis 1:20. My (English)(Christian) versions say both sea and air beasties were made on day 5, but it doesn’t specify an order of creation as such. The order is only one of mention in the text, not timing : as in “Emily and David both arrived on Tuesday.”, which does not tell me who arrived first.
(The only Torah I can read on-line is already translated into English, and I don’t know if the same thing is occurring with them as well, if nothing else simply to match the translated text up with prior bible translations!)
In any case, according to evolutionary biology, it was sea, land, air by order of population. Not sea and air, then land.
I’m also fairly confident that creating the sun before creating plants would have been the way to go about it, rather than the other way around. Or maybe He got to ‘day’ 3, looked about and thought:
@grantdale
Bingo! Thank you.
Gagnon was assigned at Grove City, the evangelical college I attended for a short time. He was utterly pathetic, very easy to pick apart. The philosophy teacher at GCC refused to debate Gagnon’s article on any assumption other than the Bible was inerrant, because he knew Gagnon’s arguments would fall apart otherwise. As it was, they didn’t do so well in open debate.
John
The following may be instructive:
https://www.robgagnon.net/SecularCase.htm
Oh dear, @William. It gets worse.
none of his “secular” arguments hold water. It’s all right wing rhetoric. He might as well just say “two men having sex is icky so all queers deserve to be shoved back into the closet cuz it’s ICKY.”
At least THAT would be HONEST.
Wow, Emily has that right. Gagnon’s “secular” reasoning on the matter is even more tired than his scriptural arguments. I have the same thoughts now as the first time I looked over his work on this subject — what about all this gives him status? There is nothing new here, it’s all been said before and makes no more sense to me now than it did then. Lot’s of fear and hyperbole, destruction of marriage and all that rot. Just once I would like to rationally discuss this with someone who isn’t screaming that the sky is falling.
David, this is part of why I’m surprised he’s considered such an “expert.” Many of the people who oppose “pro-gay theology” and gay equality stay away from such (ever-increasingly) fringy arguments as “MARRIAGE WILL BE DESTROYED FOR EVER AND EVER.”
Because all that needs to be done to disprove this is let time pass. And it has (MA) and continues to do so (IA, DC). And more and more married straights say “my marriage was fine before and it’s fine afterwards.” Before you know it, he’ll be standing with George Fitzhugh, who said that if abolition of slavery occurred, the sky would fall and families torn asunder.
He becomes less and less relevant every hour.
David — if you can stomach it, I’d suggest reviewing Gagnon’s “take” on the Centurion verses. (it was one part of the gallons of bile that Gagnon sent Timothy Kincaid’s way).
Gagnon was probably at his most ‘expert’ on that occasion (and I’ll leave it to you to determine what sort of expert I have in mind).
Unfortunately, in his autistic desire to disagree completely with the homosensationalist Kinkaid … Gagnon also managed to 1) reject a plain reading of the text and 2) point out that the Bible is internally inconsistent, and that ‘extras’ have to be drawn into any interpretation.
Uh-huh, and now let’s take those to their logical conclusion.
@grantdale
Gallons indeed. It matters little whether one agrees with Timothy’s interpretation of the story of the Centurion and his slave. We find that the story wasn’t really about that, but a Jewish man and his son. Pray tell, how much of scripture is so badly preserved? How comforting that so many take every letter literally when, according to Gagnon, they literally can’t trust what is there.
Nothing like an extra ace up your sleeve, eh Bob?
I think that Gagnon is probably right to the extent that a gay interpretation of the centurion and his pais is at best very speculative. I would say the same with regard to the stories of Ruth and Naomi and of David and Jonathan. But no matter: I see no need for us to go rooting around for supposed models in the Bible, as though our sexuality and relationships needed to be somehow justified or “validated” in this way. That Gagnon should spend so much time and energy in labouring his point, however, suggests more than mere aversion to homosexuality; it suggests a downright neurotic obsession.
As a matter of fact, I sometimes wonder why people like Gagnon don’t insist that the story of David and Jonathan was a gay relationship. They could then cite the death of Jonathan as an instance of divine judgment on homosexuality, and they could point to David’s ex hypothesi transformation from passionate gay lover to raving, heterosexual polygamist and adulterer as proof that “Change is possible”.
As a reminder, comments without a legitimate, working email address will not be displayed. The email will be kept private, and only used in rare instances, but it is required for a reason. Thank you.
David said: ” Not to exhaust the metaphor, but a bridge does imply a common connection between two sides.”
Even bridges have to start someplace. In this case, it’s a bridge that’s been in the process of being built for the last 30 years. Polling the under 30yr olds, even Evangelicals, shows an earthquake transition to the pro-gay position. I went to a presentation just last week by a sociologist who examined Christianity Today back to the 1960s. The interesting trend was a profound shift away from “biblical” arguments to “political” and “scientific” arguments, with his conclusion that the Evangelical community as a whole began losing confidence in the biblical arguments against homosexuality in the mid-1980s.
Emily said: “David, this is part of why I’m surprised he’s considered such an expert.” There are different ways to define expert. He’s definitely a person who has written a lot on the subject, and he has a PhD. Of course I know of a PhD in history who claims the holocaust never happened. In a much more technical sense, a person becomes an expert in a field when one’s peers affirm that person as an expert. But look at peer-reviewed journals in the field (Journal of Biblical Literature, Journal of Early Christian Studies, etc)–who cites him? Nobody. It seems the only people who consider him an expert are himself, people who have no training in the field and who have the same political beliefs as he does.