And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless. – Jesus, Matthew 12:7

Since its earliest days, Christianity has always held same-sex relations to be sinful.[cite, perhaps examples.] This fact has weighed on my mind when examining arguments, typically made by modern, liberal Christians, that the Bible really has nothing to say about homosexuality. And, while I concede some of the points made by these liberal Christians, that the message of the Bible is often distorted by those who would like to use the Bible to promote a rabid anti-gay agenda, I do not think that I am ready yet to concede that the Bible has nothing whatsoever to say about homosexuality. That does not appear to be an honest position.

The most intellectually honest position seems to be this: The Bible has much less to say about homosexuality than is commonly presumed by conservative Christians; what the Bible does have to say concerning aspects of homosexuality is, it must be admitted, not favorable; however, there is good reason to make several assumptions regarding homosexuality and Christianity. 1) That an anti-homosexual reading is not central to the Bible’s overall message; to wit, homosexuality is not entirely relevant to the crux of the Bible’s teaching, and is therefore a peripheral issue that does not deserve the undue preoccupation against it that has been devoted by the modern Church. 2) That a homosexual person can be a good Christian, notwithstanding his or her orientation. 3) That efforts to change a homosexual person into a heterosexual person, through ex-gay ministries or other similar outreaches, are not only unlikely to be effective, but that such efforts are actually sinful and an affront to the dignity of each person. 4) That not all of the Bible’s prohibitions are culturally relevant, and there is good reason to presume that the few instances where the Bible does mention same-sex relations belong to this category. 5) That a balanced reading of Scripture does not warrant condemnation of homosexuals, even if they are sexually active.

I realize that this position will not sit well with either liberals or conservatives. Liberals will be terrified that I admit that the Bible does at times speak ill of same-sex relations. I reject the more extreme claim that the Bible says nothing about homosexuality, while I nonetheless acknowledge and affirm the lesser argument that what is in the Bible regarding homosexuality does not appear to be culturally relevant. This position is certain to draw the ire of conservative Christians. Nonetheless, I hope that both sides will give this essay due consideration before summarily rejecting my position. This position was developed after considerable review of all available evidence from both the conservative and liberal literature on the topic. I have made every effort to be intellectually honest in considering the available evidence from the differing perspectives. I also believe that this issue is impossible to separate from the broader question of how Scripture ought to be interpreted, and what place Scripture ought to have in informing a Christian’s worldview. Although I concede that such a question is entirely relevant to the discussion, space considerations necessitate ignoring that issue for present purposes.

I should also present my own biases and presuppositions prior to setting forth my argument. First, I am a gay man. It took me quite some time to come to terms with my orientation as a result of the rather conservative presuppositions with which I was raised. Homosexuality is an orientation. The word doesn’t describe behavior. A homosexual person is emotionally and physically attracted to a person of the same sex; for various reasons some homosexuals might choose only to have relations with those of the opposite sex. Such persons are still homosexuals, even though the behavior is that typical of heterosexuals. Also, I use the term homosexual to describe people who, perhaps, are emotionally and physically attracted to both sexes, but tend to strongly prefer those of the same sex. I believe this category best describes me. I am mildly physically attracted to women, and have a somewhat stronger emotional attraction to women. However, my emotional and physical attraction to men is far stronger. For me, it feels very natural to hold another man’s hand, to kiss him, to want to be with him sexually. It does not seem unnatural to me at all, whereas the same behavior with women feels awkward and forced. Like most people, I hope to find someone with whom to share my life and raise a family.

I also identify as a Christian. I am not wholly liberal in my reading of Christianity, though there is a strong liberal undercurrent running through my theological foundation. I am likely to give great weight to tradition, though I do not consider it definitive. I believe that tradition is essential to understanding Scripture, though I do not believe that either Scripture or tradition is definitive. Most strongly, I believe in the continuing presence of God’s Spirit in developing the growth of the Church. Thus, while tradition informs us, it does not define us. Just as a babe grows into an adult and ceases to use breastmilk, so the Church grows in its understanding. I would, then, not consider myself to be a literalist with respect to Scripture. Nor do I believe in the infallibility of Scripture.

I first want to examine what the Scriptures actually have to say about homosexuality. I will also consider the creation myth in Genesis because, while it does not specifically address homosexuality, the argument is made that the creation myth sets the standard for normative behavior such that homosexuality would be precluded as normative behavior because it does not meet the criteria set forth in the creation myth. I will next consider the Bible’s message, interpreted through my understanding of the teachings of Christ. I will analyze the likely attitudes of Christ and the early Christian communities to the forms of homosexuality with which they were familiar.. The overall goal of the essay is to determine what place a homosexual person ought to have within the Church, and whether that orientation, or behavior based off of that orientation, ought to affect a Christian’s relationship vis-a-vis the Church.

SCRIPTURES WHICH MENTION HOMOSEXUALITY

There are, to be sure, only a few Scriptures within the standard texts which mention behavior typically associated with homosexuals. These Scriptures ought to be examined to determine what the Bible actually has to say on the topic. It is impossible to integrate these Scriptures into a Christian position until it is determined what these Scriptures actually say.

Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18 and 19)

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is still probably the most famous Biblical story which deals with homosexuality. In the story, two angels arrive in Sodom to determine if the men of the city are truly as wicked as they are rumored to be. Abraham’s nephew, Lot, offers them hospitality in his home. Soon, the men of Sodom, “both young and old, all the people to the last man,” encircle Lot’s house and demand, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” (Scripture) This, of course, is no passing desire to get acquainted, but a desire for a sexual liaison, as is demonstrated by Lot’s horrified reaction to their demands. “I beg you,” he pleads, “do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known any man. Let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please. Only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.” (Scripture) Undeterred, the men of Sodom attempt to break into the house to rape the two angels; even after the angels strike the men with blindness, the men of the city still make every effort to grope for the door to carry out their nefarious scheme against the angels. The angels declare that the city will be destroyed, Lot and his family flee, and God destroys the city with fire from heaven. To this day, “sodomy” is used as a synonym for anal sex, used often with homosexual connotations.

But what was the crime of Sodom? Is there anything applicable to modern conceptions of homosexuality within this ancient story? In her book, Hate Thy Neighbor, Linda Patterson makes the point that there is a parallel story in the book of Judges (Patterson 26). In the book of Judges, the story is told of a traveling Levite who stops to rest in the city of Gibeah, a Benjamite town. An old man offers the Levite a meal, and while he is enjoying the meal, the following horrific events transpire:

As they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, worthless fellows, surrounded the house, beating on the door. And they said to the old man, the master of the house, “Bring out the man who came into your house, that we may know him.” And the man, the master of the house, went out to them and said to them, “No, my brothers, do not act so wickedly; since this man has come into my house, do not do this vile thing. Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine. Let me bring them out now. Violate them and do with them what seems good to you, but against this man do not do this outrageous thing.” But the men would not listen to him. So the man seized his concubine and made her go out to them. And they knew her and abused her all night until the morning. And as the day began to break, they let her go. And as morning appeared, the woman came and fell down at the door of the man’s house where her master was, until it was light. (Scripture).

As in the story of the angels at Sodom, in this story the townsmen surround the house demanding to rape a visiting male. Unlike the men of Sodom, the men of Gibeah take the man up on his offer to rape a woman instead. So, while the traveling Levite sleeps, the men of Gibeah spend the night raping his concubine. Apparently, she does not survive the ordeal, for the story continues:

And her master rose up in the morning, and when he opened the doors of the house and went out to go on his way, behold, there was his concubine lying at the door of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up, let us be going.” But there was no answer. (Scripture)

What makes these stories interesting is that they both demonstrate shockingly different standards from our modern ethic. It is difficult for us to imagine such a scenario actually occurring. Yet, a story from this year highlights that men are still capable of such evil. In a suburb of San Francisco, a 15 year old girl was raped by multiple men, while a crowd of onlookers stood and watched.[2 http://current.com/items/91304566_15-year-old-girl-gang-raped-while-onlookers-do-nothing.htm] It is thus possible for such truly horrific events to take place, even in a culture that does not approve of such practices. It seems that gang rape, homosexual or otherwise, was as shocking in ancient Israel as it is in our day. After all, both Lot and the old man who entertained the Levite pleaded with the townsmen not to behave so “wickedly.” And after the other tribes of Israel learned what the town of Gibeah had done to the man’s concubine, all who heard of it said, “Such a thing has never happened or been seen from the day that the people of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt until this day.” So, the actions of both the men of Sodom and the men of Gibeah were shocking, even by their own cultural standards.

But can the story of the men of Sodom be used to condemn consensual relations between two people of the same sex? The story of Sodom, after all, is not a story of consensual, amorous love between men, but rather the story of a group of men wanting to rape two visitors. The story of Sodom, it seems to me, can no more be used to condemn consensual homosexual relations than the story of the traveling Levite can be used to condemn consensual heterosexual relations. At most, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah can be used to condemn homosexual rape.

There is more to both stories than just attempted homosexual rape, however. In ancient tribal societies, it was common for men to rape vanquished enemies in battle. [citation needed] Thus, it is unlikely that either the story of the men of Sodom or the story of the men of Gibeah involves rape based purely on sexual desire. Rather, the stories describe a brutal culture, where friendly visitors are being treated as defeated foes, and subjected to humiliation traditionally reserved for vanquished enemies. The story of Sodom is best described, therefore, as a crime of hospitality. To our modern ears, “inhospitable” sounds like a gross understatement when applied to the behavior of the men of Sodom. However, when put within its cultural context, the raping of the visitors to Sodom would have been for the purpose of domination and humiliation, not the satisfaction of sexual desire. Thus, while the behavior was certainly shocking, it had the flavor of a sin of hospitality rather than the flavor of a crime of passion. Jesus, for example, repeatedly referred to the men of Sodom in analogy to those who were inhospitable to his disciples. (compare and cite specific examples.)

Not a single Biblical author makes any unambiguous reference to the sin of Sodom by equating it with homosexuality. As Patterson points out, the Scriptures use the story of Sodom “to dissuade people from committing various sins, including, for example: idolatry [...]; murder; adultery; thievery; bribery; mistreating the poor; failure to aid the poor and oppressed; pride; arrogance; mockery; lying; false prophecy; decadence; neglect of children; and fathers and sons having sex with the same women” (29). Jesus consistently inferred that the inhospitable behavior of the men of Sodom served as an analogy for those who would be inhospitable to his disciples.

In the Bible book of Ezekiel, the following claim is made regarding the sin of Sodom:

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy. They were haughty and did an abomination before me. So I removed them when I saw it. (Ezekiel 16:49,50)

Most of the sin of Sodom, from Ezekiel’s perspective, had nothing to do with a homosexual inclination or homosexual behavior. While it is true that the passage states that the men of Sodom “did an abomination before me,” the passage does not specify which abomination angered God. Presumably, attempted rape of angelic visitors would qualify.

There is really only one passage of Scripture which unambiguously attempts to draw a connection between the sin of Sodom and some form of sexual immorality. That passage is at Jude 7. The passage at Jude 7 reads:

Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

While the passage unambiguously refers to sexual immorality, it does not specify what form that sexual immorality took. As previously in the passage in Ezekiel, attempted homosexual rape would certainly qualify as a form of sexual immorality without necessarily implicating consensual homosexual relations. But it is likely that the writer actually intended something altogether different.

It helps to remember that the visitors to Sodom appeared to be men, but were actually angels. If this passage stood in isolation, that fact might not be highly relevant. But, when the passage in Jude is examined in context, the transitional words indicate that sexual relations with angels is actually the form of sexual perversion mentioned. Jude 6 begins the discussion in the following way:

And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day–

Ancient Hebrew mythology held that the angels had left their positions in heaven to have sexual relations with the daughters of men.[citation needed] [Compare Genesis 6:1,2] While this arguably is not the correct interpretation of the passage in Genesis, the story in this mythical form had nonetheless made its way into Jewish mythology, and it is likely that this story is the intended background that the writer of the book of Jude had in mind. The connective words “just as” and “likewise” serve as indicators that the writer intends that the crime of the men of Sodom be evaluated comparable to the sin of the angels who left their positions in heaven to have sexual relations with human women. When the background and context of the verses are considered, the fact that the victims of the intended rape happened to be angels rather than men makes the meaning of this passage at Jude much more clear: Just as the angels left heaven to have sexual relations with women, the men of Sodom likewise tried to have sexual relations with angels. This passage has nothing to say to those who engage in loving, consensual, human sexual relations.

In short, the story of the men of Sodom has nothing to say about homosexuality as we know it today. The story certainly serves as a powerful indictment of rape, homosexual or otherwise. It was acknowledged in Scripture as a powerful warning for wickedness in general, and a lack of hospitality in particular. But it does not speak at all regarding consensual relationships between people of the same sex.

Leviticus 18:22 & Leviticus 20:13

These two passages should be considered together, because they constitute the sum total of all that the Mosaic Law had to say about homosexual relations.

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)

The reason that these two passages are difficult is because absolutely no reason is given as to why the practice is prohibited. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether these passages are still applicable to us in our day, or whether they were part of a list of proscriptions which are no longer culturally relevant. All that we know from this passage is that a) same-sex relationships, between men, were considered an abomination, and that b) that sin carried the death penalty.

I italicized the words “between men” for a reason: The Hebrew Scriptures, in their entirety, are completely silent on same-sex relations between women. The Mosaic Law was incredibly precise, as even a cursory reading would demonstrate. That it is silent on same-sex relations between women, therefore, is significant. This is so, specifically, because if same-sex relations between men are considered shameful whereas same-sex relations between women are not, that would tend to indicate that it is not same-sex relations qua same-sex relations that are the problem, but that there must, rather, be some mitigating factor which influenced the Law at that time. And that factor may or may not still be relevant today, depending on what it is.

I was interested in seeing what sorts of things are called “abominations” in the ancient Hebrew text. Several Hebrew words are translated as “abomination” in the English. The Hebrew word translated “abomination” in both of the texts in Deuteronomy is tow`elah. According to Strong’s lexicon, it primarily means, “a disgusting thing, abomination, abominable a) in ritual sense (of unclean food, idols, mixed marriages) b) in ethical sense (of wickedness etc).”[Strongs online concordance.] A search of the word tow`elah in the Concordance yielded the following “abominations”:

• the silver and gold on idols (Deuteronomy 7:25)

• Eating prohibited foods (Deuteronomy 14:3)

• Sacrificing an animal with a blemish. (Deuteronomy 17:1)

• A woman wearing a man’s garment, or a man wearing a woman’s garment (Deuteronomy 22:5

• Remarrying one’s ex-wife (Deuteronomy 24:4)

• Making a graven image (Deuteronomy 27:15)

Obviously, most Christians would still be reluctant to permit making a graven image, but that is probably the only use of tow`elah, other than homosexuality, that would continue to be considered valid by most Christians. We no longer sacrifice animals, blemished or otherwise. It is likely that the gold and silver on idols would be recycled and put to use in jewelry or other unoffensive purposes without causing too much concern for Christians. While most Christians would probably frown on men wearing women’s clothes or women wearing men’s clothes under most circumstances, it is highly unlikely that this would be enforced in all circumstances whatsoever, and at any rate Christians would be highly unlikely to make this a condition for membership in their churches, nor dedicate millions of dollars in election campaigns on the issue. The final two “abominations” are nearly universally acceptable to most Christians. Most Christians would not hesitate to remarry one’s spouse that one had sent away. In fact, reconciling with an ex-wife would be considered honorable behavior. And very few Christians make any attempt to follow the dietary restrictions of the Law Covenant.

Since the Law does not provide consistent direction for our modern culture, it is unwise to base modern prohibitions on the Law code, particularly when the Law does not provide any clarification as to the reason behind the prohibition.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 & 1 Timothy 1:8-11

There are three passages in the New Testament that, arguably, refer to homosexual relations. All three are taken from Paul’s writings, or from writings attributed to Paul. The Scripture in Romans will be examined subsequently, but the passage in 1 Corinthians and the passage in 1 Timothy are so similar in structure as to warrant consideration together.

If one only reads the English edition of the Scriptures, one will probably come away fully convinced that homosexuality is referred to in both of these texts. This is largely because modern translations of the Bible into English often translate the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai in a way that indicated that Paul was speaking about homosexuality. Comparison with older translations can often be revealing. The King James Version of 1611, for instance treats the two words as if they are two separate ideas and translates the words as “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind,” (or, alternately, as “them that defile themselves with mankind,” in 1 Timothy.) Newer translations have tended to combine the two Greek words into one idea. For instance, the English Standard Version translates 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 in the following way:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality(5), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The two Greek words are combined into a single idea, “men who practice homosexuality.” The number 5 footnote reads: “The two Greek terms translated by this phrase refer to the passive and active partners in consensual homosexual acts.” This is stated in a matter-of-fact manner, as if this determination is fully accepted and not at all controversial.

The problem is that there is no general consensus as to what these two Greek words actually mean in the passage. The Greek word malakoi has been translated by itself in some versions at this passage as “male prostitute,” “sodomite,” and “the self indulgent;” other versions have partnered this word with arsenokoitai to produce a translation of “homosexuals,” and “sexual perverts.” There are several reasons that this passage is so difficult to translate. The word arsenokoitai appears to have been coined by Paul, and therefore its meaning is uncertain (Patterson 57). Because the meaning of arsenokoitai is uncertain, doubt is cast on the meaning of malakoi as well, because translators are unsure whether malakoi should be paired with arsenokoitai or whether these two words stand alone as two separate ideas. The word is commonly taken to apply to homosexuality based on a literal translation of the two Greek words which constitute the word arsenokoitai. Literally translated, it means “those who bed males” (Patterson 57?). The word, however, does not seem to have been current in any homoerotic literature of the period. It is not known whether the word refers to an active homosexual partner, a male prostitute in a pagan temple, a pimp, or (interestingly enough) one who masturbates [http://www.religioustolerance.org/homarsen.htm].

Unlike arsenokoitai, the meaning of malakoi is known. The problem is that malakoi has a large number of meanings. Its was usually used to deride characteristics that were considered too soft or too feminine.[Patterson, page?] Patterson comments on the large range of things that could be considered “soft”:

Such “feminine” characteristics included things like laziness, lack of courage, and decadence. Although males who played the “passive” role in sexual relations were described as malakoi, the term was also used to describe males who were “active” sex partners–including heterosexual men. [...] Males were often described as malakoi when they lived lives of luxury, drank too much, ate too much, or had too much sex. Males who worked to make themselves more physically attractive–whether for females or other males–were also described as malakoi. [Patterson page?]

Since malakoi doesn’t normally carry a homosexual connotation, it is normally translated in a way that suggests homosexual behavior is its intended meaning only because of its close proximity to arsenokoitai. Since arsenokoitai is presumed to be the active homosexual partner, the malakoi is presumed to be the passive sexual partner. But, as Professor Dale Martin suggests, that is “to define something already clear by something that is obscure” (qtd in Patterson 58). Martin suggests that arsenokoitai may refer to “some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex” (qtd in Patterson 58?). In short, these two words likely have no reference at all to homosexuality in any of its forms that would be recognizable to our culture.

The same general principle is also true of 1 Timothy 1:8-11. Here, too, the issue is the uncertain meaning of arsenokoitai. The main reason that translators have favored “the active homosexual partner” as the preferred translation is that it is assumed to have been coined from the Leviticus 18:22 prohibition against homosexuality where, in the Septuagint, the words arseno and koitai lie side-by-side. [http://www.equip.org/articles/is-arsenokoitai-really-that-mysterious-] That explanation might makes some sense if the passage in 1 Corinthians were the only use of the word, especially if one presumes that Paul used malakoi in a somewhat unusual fashion. But it makes almost no sense at all for the passage in 1 Timothy which uses arsenokoitai without malakoi. Why would Paul condemn only the active partner in a homosexual liaison, but not the passive partner? It seems to me that the assumption that the word was coined from the Septuagint’s translation of Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13 is dubious at best. The best translation of the words would be one which considered both of them as standing on their own rather than as a compound word. And it is best, in my opinion, not to draw blanket condemnations of individuals based on Scriptures the interpretation of which are uncertain.

Romans 1:22-32

I saved the Scripture at Romans chapter 1 for last for several reasons. First, even if the most virulently anti-homosexual interpretation of the preceding passages were to be conceded, the Scriptures thus far considered have concerned themselves solely with forms of homosexuality involving males. The first chapter of Romans is the only passage in Scripture even to hint at lesbian homosexual behavior. Furthermore, this passage of Scripture is, I believe, the strongest passage in its clear denunciation of some form of homosexual behavior, and therefore requires the most scrutiny. I believe that an intellectually honest approach must concede that this Scripture does condemn certain homosexual acts between both men and women. But this concession is only partial, because I believe that the first chapter of Romans cannot be considered in isolation. The context, developed by Paul in the second through fifth chapters, must be considered if we are to understand Paul’s argument.

It is best to establish what Paul is trying to say in the book of Romans. Paul is interested in reconciling Jewish and Gentile Christians; tensions had developed between the two groups in Rome as a result of cultural differences and peculiar political circumstances which were unique to Rome. [http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0902.asp] Paul’s interest was to soothe the differences between these two factions by showing that there was a strong basis for unity.

The Jews had the Law, but Paul begins with the experience of those without Law, the Gentiles, explaining that the fundamental provisions of the Law were accessible even to the Gentiles. (1:19 & 2:14,15) In the first chapter, he summarizes some of the prohibitions of the Law, and shows that the Law calls for the penalty of death for all those who practice such things.

In the second chapter of Romans, however, Paul begins to develop this theme to show how Jews and Gentiles can be united. Yes, the Law condemns, but Paul notes that, far from causing us to condemn each other based on the Law’s prohibitions, we ought to be afraid for ourselves. After all, when we use the Law to condemn each other, that same law condemns us because we too transgress the Law. God’s Law punishes evil and rewards righteousness. This is the nature of pure justice. But the problem is that none of us are just. We all transgress the Law, thus we are all wicked in the eyes of God. The Jew, of course, is condemned when he transgresses the written Law, but the Gentile is no less condemned, for he, too, knows the substance of the Law because it is written on his conscience.

The end result is that we are all to be condemned under Law, because the point of the Law is not to make us righteous. Rather, the point of the Law is to demonstrate God’s righteousness and human frailty. Humans are incapable of attaining righteousness by doing the works called for by the Law of Moses. That is not the purpose of the Law. Rather, the purpose of the Law is that “every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (3:19,20)

At this point, Paul’s tone changes. Paul has been concerned to demonstrate that all, both Jew and Greek, are condemned under the Law. There is no difference between the two groups. Now, he switches his tone, assuring the Church that both groups have now been offered righteousness. This righteousness does not come through merit, but comes as a gift from God. He quotes David as saying “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.” This forgiveness, Paul says, comes as a gift, not as a wage. A gift is given in love, a wage is given in obligation. But God has no obligation towards us, only love for us. Chapter 5 assures the believer that this gift of God brings peace and reconciliation to the believer. Paul’s faith leads to an almost universalist crescendo:

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. (Scripture)

Paul continues his theological treatise in the subsequent chapters. “Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?” he asks. Of course not! We are called to be slaves of God, not slaves to sin. But our bodies are still sold to sin. The Law is spiritual, but I am flesh, sold to sin. Paul describes his own personal battle with sin:

So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. (Scripture)

Our transformation in this life is only partial – God can reconcile our minds, but our flesh is still sold to sin. In this life, we will perceive war between our interior “inner being” and our bodies. Our reconciliation has begun, but it is not a journey that will be completed in this life. But for now, “there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Ultimately, God’s gift is stronger than the condemnation of sin.

I do not intend to convert anyone to Paul’s theology regarding sin and reconciliation through Christ Jesus. I, myself, have some doubts as to whether this interpretation of the life and ministry of Christ is really the best interpretation. But what I do insist is that any interpretation of Scripture as condemning homosexuality based on Romans chapter 1 must consider that condemnation in light of Paul’s development of his theology in subsequent chapters. To state that Paul condemns homosexual behavior in Romans chapter 1, without clearly stating that Paul’s teaching is that the Law condemns homosexual behavior, along with other behavior that would implicate all of humanity, is not only to misunderstand the text, but quite simply to do violence to the text. Paul’s condemnation of homosexual behavior cannot be understood apart from his overarching theology.

Paul’s goal in writing the first chapter of Romans was not to create a list of proscribed behaviors that is binding on Christians. His intention was to clearly show, by example, that the Law would condemn each of us to death. In this, even the most liberal Christian can agree with Paul: the Law of Moses did condemn sexual relations between men. And if the Law of Moses was the standard by which humans are judged by God, the penalty for such behavior would be death and male homosexuals would be condemned by God. These statements, as I have stated them, are clearly prepositional. They are of “if/then” construction. If the Law of Moses were to be the standard of judgment, then those who have relations with those of the same sex are to be condemned. Paul’s point is specifically that the condemnation does not follow because the Law is not the standard of righteousness. In fact, the Law cannot be a standard of righteousness because the purpose of the Law is to demonstrate that no one is righteous. That is Paul’s theological argument; his statements regarding sexual relations between two people of the same sex need to be understood in that context.

Now that the context of Paul’s letter to the Romans has been properly framed, we are in a position to examine the relevant texts. Paul states:

For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Scripture)

It is indisputable that, in this passage, Paul refers to certain sexual acts between people of the same sex. It is also indisputable that Paul does not look upon the sexual acts which he describes in anything even approaching a favorable light. He says that these acts are “dishonoring,” “dishonorable,” “contrary to nature,” and “shameless.” Clearly, Paul does not hold the homosexual sex actions that he is describing in high esteem. The question is, what sort of sex is he describing.

A simplistic answer would be to make the claim that Paul is describing all sex acts between those of the same sex; in other words, if it is a sexual act between two men or between two women, it would automatically fit into the broad category of acts which Paul is describing. This, in fact, is the interpretation that a person must give the passage to believe that Paul is describing all homosexual behavior. This broad interpretation does not seem to do justice to the broad range of human sexuality. A comparison with heterosexual relationships might be appropriate. There are a broad range of behaviors that classify as heterosexual behavior. Some individuals might choose to live as husband and wife in a committed monogamous relationship. Others might be unfaithful, committing what is generally called the sin of adultery. Others might be promiscuous, failing to ever make a commitment to anyone. This generally is considered part of the sin of fornication. Some might participate in group orgies. But no heterosexual person would assume that his or her faithful, monogamous relationship is being criticized if he or she read a condemnation of, say, adultery in one of Paul’s letters. Unfortunately, all too often, that same discernment is not applied to homosexual relationships. The homosexual in a committed, monogamous relationship often finds that his or her relationship is viewed no differently by many others than it would be if he were participating in a homosexual orgy. This seems like a double standard.

Beyond that, that interpretation of the text seems to be contradicted by the text itself. The text seems to present in three broad parts. In the first part, Paul makes the assertion that humankind’s idolatry has resulted in a depraved sexual ethic. In the second part, Paul describes this shameful sexual conduct. In this part are found the main arguments used to criticize homosexual relations. In the third part, Paul describes the character traits which result from the behaviors that he describes in the second part. These traits are truly horrific; Paul describes people who are malicious, hateful, jealous, sadistic backbiters who have a defiant, irreverent attitude towards God. The problem with saying that all same-sex relations qualify for the prohibition in the second part is that it renders the first and third parts of Paul’s argument inexplicable. Having known a great many wonderful, God-loving gay people, it is difficult for me personally to accept that these are the people who Paul described, whose idolatry resulted in a sexual ethic that has caused such despicable character traits. The tree, as Jesus famously said, is known by its fruit.

Frankly, this passage is problematic; there are many different interpretations of the passage, and I simply do not really know which one is best to be chosen. It seems clear that Paul has in mind some form of homosexual activity in verses 26 and 27. What makes this passage problematic is the way that he transitions from idolatry to homosexual relations to all manner of wickedness. In verse 25, Paul is clearly speaking about idolatry. He says that the nations serve the creature rather than the Creator. He clearly has some form of idolatrous practices in mind. Verse 26 begins with a transitional word. “For this reason, God gave them up to…” In other words, because of their idolatry, God permitted them to engage in all manner of lustful activity, especially homosexual relations. But on the surface of it, this is a rather bizarre claim. There does not appear to be any real evidence linking a homosexual orientation with idolatry. For my part, it took me quite some time to accept myself as a homosexual person. I tried for many years to change myself, to live a life as a heterosexual person. During all this time, I was very active in Christian worship, probably in large part out of a sense of guilt for my homosexual orientation. Is it really fair to say that my homosexual orientation was a direct result of some idolatry? My first crush on a boy occurred when I was eight years old. How likely is it that I had been an incorrigible idolater by the eight of eight?

Since Paul’s claim is so bizarre if we presume that he means the sort of loving relationships that we often experience among gay people, we are right to question whether those sorts of relationships are truly what he was describing. Is it possible that the homosexual behavior Paul was describing in these verses was linked to idolatrous worship? That is the conclusion that A SCHOLAR has come to, and that interpretation would make much sense of Paul’s claims. It would explain the otherwise inexplicable connection that Paul seems to make between idolatry and the sexual behavior that he is describing. If that is the case, then the homosexual relations to which Paul refers would be a specific reference to the idolatrous cult of temple prostitution with which he was familiar.

I personally find that position a little difficult to swallow, because Paul doesn’t merely link the ideas of idolatry and homosexuality; he then proceeds to further describe the homosexual acts to which he refers as “contrary to nature.” He seems to be able to identify them as wrong, not only because they proceed from idolatry, but also because these expressions present themselves in a form that he considers to be unnatural. If his sole gripe was with the cult of temple prostitution, it would seem that he would not need to further comment on how these practices could be known by their unnatural status. But whether one accepts the idea that Paul referred to all homosexual practices whatsoever, or whether one accepts the idea that Paul was referring only to the specific behavior with which he was most familiar, the passage presents some absurdities.

The matter is further complicated by Paul’s long laundry list of sins that proceed from these behaviors which follow in verses 28-31. Are these horrible character traits caused by the homosexual behavior that he is describing or are they caused by the idolatry? The context seems to indicate that these traits proceed from the homosexual behavior. But it hardly seems that homosexuals, in general, are necessarily such despicable people. While I have known some homosexual people who were not very good people, I would hardly describe all, or even most, of them in such unflattering terms.

Probably the best interpretation of this passage would be a compromise between the two positions. The best interpretation would probably go something like this: Paul condemns all homosexual acts with which he is familiar. This does justice to what was, probably, Paul’s intent while simultaneously acknowledging the fact that Paul’s experience with the subject was limited and his knowledge of the complex issues surrounding homosexual orientation was woefully inadequate. It acknowledges that Paul’s use of nature to condemn homosexual acts probably indicates that Paul believed that the act itself was unnatural, while affirming the truth that others can have, and have had, an altogether different experience than Paul conceptualizes.

We are already accustomed to drawing distinctions between an individual’s life and ministry as a revelation of God’s purpose and that same individual’s own private opinions and cultural social standards. As an example, Jesus Christ was a Jew. He was raised in a Jewish home, taught to respect the Law, and undoubtedly shared most common Jewish cultural values. If Jesus were to enter the home of a modern Christian, he would likely be horrified to observe pork being served for dinner. Yet most Christians would not modify their dinner menus based on Jesus’ cultural sensitivities because they are able to draw a distinction between the aspects of Jesus’ life and ministry that are relevant to their own situation, and those which reflect a foreign cultural standard. This same distinction is commonly made by Christians respecting Paul’s opinions on headdresses for women and long hair for men. (Scripture.) Unfortunately, all too often we are not able to make the same distinction respecting Paul’s cultural sensitivity toward homosexuality. The forms of homosexuality with which Paul was familiar, including pederasty and pagan temple prostitution, undoubtedly influenced Paul’s perceptions. But Paul’s experience with homosexual behavior and our own are so markedly different that we must evaluate Paul’s experience with the understanding that his observations are likely not entirely applicable.

Adam and Eve

One final Scriptural appeal is usually made by those who would want to use the Scriptures to condemn homosexuality. That argument is that the creation myth in Genesis, which portrays Adam and Eve as the idyllic standard, sets a standard of normative behavior that ought to be followed, and that homosexual behavior is ispo facto precluded from this normative behavior. This argument can be very scholarly, as is the case with, for example, scholar NAME A SCHOLAR, who makes the argument that Adam and Eve serve as a normative template. But the argument can also take rather simplistic forms, as in the common refrain, “It’s Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve” which makes for an effective sound bite but lacks the nuance of effective argumentation.

I believe that this argument is rather weak. It is one thing to argue that a certain activity, behavior, or inclination is normative. It is entirely another matter to conclude that anything which is not normative is proscribed. The conclusion simply doesn’t follow. The argument seems to imply that any variation from the norm is somehow aberrant. This seems to run counter to Christianity’s typical acceptance of variation and individuality, as in Paul’s analogy of the Church to a body, which is composed of different parts which complement and complete each other. (Scripture).

I might be inclined to agree that marriage between a man and a woman is normative; but that does not imply that it is obligatory or that any other arrangement is sinful. Jesus seemed to affirm the normative role of marriage between a man and a woman when he quoted from the creation myth to support his argument that divorce ought not be permitted except in extenuating circumstances (Scripture). He seemed to affirm that marriage between a man and a woman finds its place within the arrangement of God, and that those who fail to accord it proper respect are in reality opposing something which God has ordained. But elsewhere, Jesus acknowledges that there are cases when a person might not choose to accept this normative role (Scriptures.) In fact, Jesus implies that a life without marriage might, in many ways, be preferable and that if an individual was capable of living life unmarried he ought to do so (Scripture). Paul expresses similar sentiments (Scripture.) If marriage between a man and a woman is normative, as I believe common experience easily demonstrates, there is nonetheless at least one variation (singleness,) which is accepted and even preferred. If there is one exception to a normative behavior, then there can be others. The normative behavior is not universally applicable, nor even universally preferable. So, the mere fact that homosexual relationships are not normative does not preclude them from being advantageous or acceptable in certain circumstances.

Filed under: Christianity, War on the Bible, Christianity, homosexuality, Scripture | Post a comment

In ethics class, we read an essay regarding treatment of criminals in Puritan New England.  One of the ‘crimes’ that the Puritans punished was ‘blasphemy,’ and the professor commented with a chuckle that we no longer prosecute for blasphemy in our day.

But that got me thinking:  Isn’t blasphemy really the only sin?

This was the thought experiment that got me started down this path:  Imagine Michelangelo’s David placed conspicuously in an unowned field. Imagine, for this thought experiment, that no one owns the piece, that it is an unowned sculpture sitting in an unowned field. Now, imagine that a vandal comes by with a sledgehammer and destroys the statue.  Has a crime been committed?

In modern society, we tend to express everything in terms of ownership.  If someone were to take a sledgehammer to Michelangelo’s David today, the prosecution would be expressed in terms of ownership violation:  criminal trespass, no doubt, as well as any other crimes against property, perhaps burglary, etc. The civil trial would also be expressed in terms of property:  the owner would have an appraisal that attempted to define how much the sculpture was worth in real dollars, and then would seek civil compensation from the vandal. All of this presumes the idea of ownership.  But if ownership is removed from the equation, as in my thought experiment, it still seems to me that a crime has been committed. And it seems to me that the crime is best expressed as a form of blasphemy:  something sacred, some manifestation of divine creativity, was destroyed.

If we had no concept of property (as I believe a legitimate ethical system would reject property ownership,) all crimes would best be described as a form of blasphemy. Murder is blasphemy because it destroys a life that has divine value and adds to the divine expression. Rape is a blasphemy because it assaults the freedom and right to self determination of a life that holds value in the eyes of God. Blasphemy is a sin against God - and all sins ought best be described in such a way. It is a far more useful paradigm than the current paradigm which tends to express crimes in terms of property.

Filed under: Communism | Post a comment

“There are people in this world, often carrying the banner of some false God, who have a vested interest in making sure that you hate yourself. Don’t let them win.”  — Caleb Johnson

Filed under: Quotes | Post a comment

This will just be an outline post that I will hopefully develop later.  The main idea is that government is a logical fallacy because it resorts to intimidation rather than persuasion. This is a formal logical fallacy known as argumentum ad baculum.

Possible responses?  One could say that government would indeed be a logical fallacy if it were attempting to make an argument, but that government is not trying to make an argument it is simply stating norms of behavior. However, my response would be that any attempt to influence behavior is ipso facto an argument because there is an implied reason for the desired behavior, whether that argument is implied or directly stated makes no difference to the fact that it is an argument.

Another possible argument would be to concede that it is a logical fallacy but to claim that it is necessary to preserve order.  But it’s hard to see how order would best be preserved by resorting to bad thinking. After all, a logical fallacy is just that:  bad thinking.

Filed under: Uncategorized | Post a comment

More fun! 

Filed under: Fun Stuff, jesus, Pass it on | Post a comment

A little fun I had whilst I was bored.  LOL

Filed under: Fun Stuff, Hitler, Pass it on | Post a comment

I am taking a break for a moment from the Process and Reality review to bring a review of another book, this one by Walter Wink, called The Powers That Be.

There is much good in this book. Wink, perhaps better than any scholar, understands the spiritual implications of violence on the human psyche. He takes the idea of spiritual reality seriously, addressing it using many of the same resources as I have used in my own spiritual development. When, on page 19 he lists the Process philosophers Whitehead, Hartshorne, Cobb, and Griffin as examples of people who speak his language, I was impressed. But he kept going to mention some of my other inspirations: Carl Jung, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and even Morton Kelsey. I was thinking, “right on, brother, we’ll be on the same page.”

Well…we should have been on the same page, but it didn’t quite work out that way. Wink truly does understand the problem that violence causes. But he has several ideas that I don’t think work very well.

The first idea is his idea of angels and demons. Now, most modern people cannot accept the idea of angels and demons without some qualifications. The ancient idea of angels and demons as “beings out there” seems rather fantastic to most modern sensibilities. So Wink, like most scholars who take the idea of angels and demons seriously, reinterprets them in a more modern light. So far, so good. But in doing so he falls prey to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.

Wink essentially argues that all institutions take on a life of their own, they have a “spirit” that is independent of the people that embody that institution. He draws heavily on Revelation for this insight, saying that it was meditation of the angels of the churches in the opening chapters of Revelation that caused his epiphany on the true nature of angels and demons. In his view, an “angel” is the spirit of any institution that is in harmony with its purpose. A “demon” is any spirit of an institution that is out of harmony with its purpose. But what can this mean? Institutions don’t have any real existence. They aren’t real, they don’t exist except in minds. They are abstractions. If there is “demonic” or “angelic” influence on these institutions, it can be occurring in one place and one place only: in the minds of the people who embody the institution. That is the proper place to look for angelic or demonic influence. Wink’s treatment falls prey to the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, in a way that Morton Kelsey’s treatment, (as an example,) doesn’t. If the angelic and the demonic exist, they are archetypes, not corporate spirits that suffuse abstract institutions.

Another point of disagreement with Wink is he does not, in my opinion, fully realize the nature of what he calls “the Powers.” He believes that the Powers can be reformed: that a demonic power can become an angelic power by recalling it to its true purpose. He even gives examples, such as the fall of the Berlin Wall and the death of apartheid in South Africa. But this is an idealistic reading of history. The nations of Eastern Europe and South Africa cannot today be called “angelic” by any stretch of the imagination. They could only be called angelic in a relative sense, in that they are less bad than they had been. They certainly can’t be called “good.” So his examples fail.

Wink detests violence. He calls it our national religion. His heart is in the right place. But he does not, in my opinion, sufficiently realize the true nature of power. He does not seem to realize that power, by its very nature, is violent. One cannot reform a state to become good because it is the nature of states to impose their rule violently on their “subjects.” One cannot reform a corporation to become good because it is the nature of corporations to claim exclusive ownership over the means of production, thus locking people into wage slavery. There is absolutely no way to reform the Powers because the powers are inherently rooted in violence. They are demonic by nature. A realistic view of the demonic would say that the demonic has expressed itself in archetypes that have caused people to build inherently oppressive and violent structures. There can be no synthesis of these structures with liberty and justice. The structures and institutions themselves are tools of the demonic. They are not good structures and institutions that have just gone wayward. The structures themselves have no role other than to allow some men to control and subjugate others. There can be no reform, only breaking down these structures and building alternatives to them.

The purpose of the Church is not, as Wink says, that of “recalling these Powers to their divine vocation.” No. The Church is an end-around those powers. It is an alternative to them. The Church exists for the sole purpose of undermining the powers by presenting nonviolent alternatives to them. The Church is subversive. It doesn’t seek to reform. It seeks to eliminate.

Filed under: Uncategorized, the demonic, the powers that be, walter wink | Post a comment

This topic keeps seeming to come up over and over and over again.

In my philosophy of religion class, this question was raised on the final (as a bonus question):  “Given the long history of violence in the name of God among all three religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), what can an individual within the religion do to counteract this phenomenon?  If you belong to one of the three religions, please express this answer in terms of what you can do within your own religion, family, etc.”

My answer was that Christians such as myself need to take on the Bible.  The Bible gives competing images of God.  Sometimes, we are told that God is a loving God who gives good gifts even to wicked men.  Then, on other occasions, we are told that God is a jealous God who will order extermination of his people if they don’t live up to his standards.  I wish it were as simple as saying that “the God of the Old Testament is vengeful and angry, whereas the God of the New Testament is loving and kind.”  That would make it simpler, but unfortunately, that is not an accurate description.  Both Testaments present conflicting portrayals of God. At times he portrayed as loving and kind, and on other occasions he presents with a deep pathology. The pathology of God is more prominent in the Old Testament, but is also present in the NT.  Consider the book of Revelation, which portrays Christ as returning to “tread the winepress of God’s anger,” by trampling people like grapes. Or the Judgment scenes in the Gospel, which portray Christ in the role of judge, damning some people to eternal destruction.

Unless people are willing and able to take on the idea that the Bible is “the word of God,” then people have no way of reconciling these two competing portrayals of God, and end up with schizophrenic religion.  Conservatives, of course, are not willing to take on the Bible, because they are the champions of the “dictation theory of Scripture,” also known as “inerrancy.”  But what is surprising is that even theological liberals are reticent to take on the Bible.  Problems with the Bible are swept away with flights of intellectual fancy that convince no one but those liberals who have their heads in the sand.

I find this confusing.  Why won’t liberals help take on the Bible?  Why won’t liberals stand up for God’s honor by denouncing the primary stain on God’s honor, the equation of God with the Bible?  Why is it that anytime anyone suggests that war must be declared on the Bible (or at least those parts of it that portray God in a vile way,) theological liberals get squeamish and start talking about “contextualizing” Scripture, “reading it through a historical lens,” etc.  Essentially trying to whitewash the fact that the Bible contains significant immorality.  Why can’t we say that?  Why can’t we rub that Conservatives face in that until they have no recourse but to denounce their belief in an inerrant Scripture?  It isn’t certainly due to any lack of ammunition.  It is simply a squeamishness that I personally find inexplicable.

The fact is this:  Idolatry consists of making something that is not God equal to God.  By that test, the doctrine of inerrancy is an idolatry. And look at the havoc that Bibliolatry has wrought:  sexism, slavery, xenophobia, justification of violence, homophobia, and religious exclusivism.  It has divided, not united.  As Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer says:

In a world being torn apart by violence, there is no more urgent task than to counter the Bible’s frequent and nauseating portraits of a ruthless and violent deity.  The cruelty of God, however, is a problem that no one is willing to face squarely, including Christian interpreters. (Jesus Against Christianity, p.21)

So let it begin.  From henceforth, I, as a Christian and in the name of Christ, declare war on the Bible.

Filed under: Christianity, War on the Bible, bibliolatry, War on the Bible | Post a comment

Speculative philosophy attempts to build an entire philosophy from speculative concepts. That, as was mentioned in the previous section, is the rational side.  The entire scheme is tested as to its veracity on the empirical side.

But there are dangers awaiting this verification process.  Some of these are the result of our language.  Our language can never be much more than a set of symbols which approach reality, but do not touch it. With simple concepts, the language can be a fairly close approximation.  If I say the word “apple”, you will have a rough idea of what I mean.  You might picture a red delicious apple whereas I was trying to convey a granny smith, but I should be able to use adjectives to make my meaning even more precise, such that you are able to picture in your mind roughly the same concept that originated in my mind.  The word is an effective symbol.  But some words and phrases becomes “stretched” - the word itself covers too much ground, and precision can be given only by explanatory paragraphs, if at all.  Often times, our language becomes nothing more than a set of metaphors:  the language itself fails to do complete justice to the thought.

“There is no first principle which is in itself unknowable, not to be captured in a flash of insight,” Whitehead assures us.  But it requires an “imaginative leap.”  The words themselves cannot quite get us there.  This is as true for the person who originates the thought as it is for the one trying to understand it.  The words are just guideposts along the way, at some point the listener must make the same conceptual leap of understanding as the speaker.

How do we go about thinking about our world?  The world is our seat of experience.  We don’t trouble ourselves to try to explain phenomena that we have not experienced, nor are we capable of doing so.  Observation thus becomes the point of origin for all thoughts.  “Experience is antecedent to knowledge,” I am fond of saying.  Thus, while I insist that process philosophy is a hybrid of rationalism and empiricism, it finds its primary emphasis in empiricism, for the rational side of process philosophy will proceed from thinking about observations.  Our devil is in our details.  We are not aware of reality as a whole, rather, we have immediate experience of certain details which constitute part of reality.  I observe a tree in a meadow, with a deer in the distance on a bright cloudless day.  I observe the sun, the deer, the meadow, the tree, and myself.  I do not observe elephants or porcupines or clouds. What I observe is only a part of the experience, but at the same time I correlate that immediate experience to previous experiences.  Yesterday, I could not see the tree in the same meadow through the fog. Nor could I see the sun.  I believe I am at the same place today as I was at yesterday, but there are differences between the days. And those differences become important to understanding my world.  The fog is sometimes there and sometimes not, and when it is there, it changes the entire experience.

The “metaphysical first principles”, however, are not directly observable in such a fashion; hence empirical scientific induction fails us in understanding them.  The metaphysical first principles are always present. They are not like the fog, which is present sometimes and absent other times, such that I can analyze the differences and attempt to understand.   I cannot directly observe the metaphysical first principles, I can only observe their effects on the world. But I can never set up a control group that is not bound by them. Everywhere I go, the metaphysical first principles will be there. They transcend the observer, not vice versa. They are larger than me, beyond my field of vision.  It takes a creative leap of the imagination, rather than observation, to understand them.

Whitehead describes metaphysical speculation as an airplane, rather than a scientific process:  It begins grounded in reality and observation, takes off on a flight of imagination, but then lands again in reality, tested as to fitness of the scheme.  Imagination, he says, “supplies the differences which the direct observation lacks.”  In other words, I can imagine a different world, one in which some certain metaphysical first principle doesn’t apply, and then attempt to imagine how everything would be affected.

Speculation is not a free-for-all.  The imagination roams, but where it roams is grounded in certain rules, rules which must be adhered to if success is to be achieved.  These are the previously mentioned categories of logic and coherence.  The metaphysical principles must make sense.  They must presuppose each other, and in the same way must not break the rules of logic.  The entire system must be plausible, understandable, and conform to its own internal rules of relation.  It may not be inconsistent, or posit contradictory principles.

Speculation will flow from some particular problem, but the true test will be not whether it solves that particular problem, but whether it remains successful when applied to other problems.  If the philosophy truly represents the valid metaphysical first principles, it must be workable for all reality, as all reality adheres to the same metaphysical first principles.

Whitehead gives certain examples of the idea of coherence, and how it historically tends to ultimately undermine the established and orthodox philosophical systems.  These examples, I think, are a bit superfluous to the discussion.  What does seem important is to understand that Whitehead sees his philosophy of organism to be in continuity with Spinoza’s scheme.  I think Spinoza is a very important thinker in the train of process thought. Along the way in these notes, I will be highlighting the main thinkers that, in my estimation anyway, have contributed to the development of Process thought.  These will sometimes differ from Whitehead’s list.  I consider Spinoza to be a much more influential and substantial thinker to the development of Process than I do Locke, for instance, despite the emphasis that Whitehead gives to Locke.

How does Process differ from Spinoza?  First, Whitehead says it abandons the subject/predicate form of thought. (This is debatable, I think, whether Spinoza’s philosophy need be expressed in subject/predicate form, but that criticism is beyond the scope of this essay.) Whitehead also attempts to downgrade the importance given to the manifestations of Spinoza’s modes, saying that although understanding them increases our understanding of the metaphysical first principles, it does not in and of itself lead us to a “higher grade of reality.”  I am, frankly, uncertain which of Spinoza’s metaphysical propositions he is critiquing by this statement.  I do think that a good case could be made that Process also differs from Spinoza’s formulation in that it is indeterministic whereas Spinoza’s scheme is deterministic. I think the main difference between the two is that Spinoza’s scheme is static whereas process is dynamic:  Spinoza still thought in terms of substance, material, etc.  His world was matter, whereas the world of process is primarily motion, events, experiences, with matter being secondary.  There are thus differences in emphasis, and I think the dipolar nature of actual entities in process is a direct reflection of this critical difference between process and spinoza, but I digress at the moment, and return to Whitehead.

Whitehead claims that every philosophy must have its ultimate nature, which expresses itself in whatever forms or embodiments exist, and is capable of expression only in these forms. For Spinoza (as for the idealists,) that reality is God, (which incidentally explains why God has no personality in Spinoza’s depiction.) Whitehead envisions God as the primordial manifestation of an even more subtle ultimate form:  creativity. This will create the metaphysical basis for freedom, for this creativity will manifest itself, of course, in God, but also in the other expressions of reality, in each of us.

Filed under: Philosophy, process and reality, process philosophy, Whitehead | Post a comment

What is speculative philosophy? Why was it so important to Whitehead to defend this concept? Process and Reality begins with this simple statement: “This course of lectures is designed as an essay in Speculative Philosophy. Its first task must be to define ’speculative philosophy,’ and to defend it as a method productive of important knowledge.”

In the grand scheme of things, speculative philosophy is merely the attempt to create a system that explains what reality is, at its most fundamental level. Whitehead says that this philosophy needs to fulfill several key tasks. First, it must be “coherent, logical, necessary.” In other words, it needs to make sense and to be internally consistent. Second, it needs to explain everything in our experience. If I have a toothache, it needs to be able to explain that. If I dream, it needs to be able to explain that. If there is a gigantic elephant sleeping in my front yard, it needs to explain that. Since speculative philosophy explains the nature of reality, there shouldn’t be anything in our experience that would contradict it, or that in principle at least could not be explained by the philosophy. Whitehead’s words are “applicable” and “adequate.” The philosophy to be applicable to a certain item of experience means that it explains the item. Of course, not all items might be explained by the philosophy fully, but it should at least be “adequate,” which means that there is nothing that the philosophy is ipso facto incapable of explaining.

Whitehead mentions coherence as the principle that the fundamental ideas presuppose each other, so that in isolation they don’t make much sense. This takes a little getting used to, because we are so accustomed to isolating questions, but speculative philosophy attaches to reality only as a complete system. The system is tested as to its fitness for explaining the world only insofar as the completed system matches up with what we experience. If the completed system explains time and matter and energy and elephants and dreams and consciousness and every other fact of our experience, that is the test of its adequacy. The test of its adequacy is not how well we can verify each doctrine through the scientific method. When dealing with ultimate reality, the scientific method is insufficient; we simply have no way to test the individual doctrines of a speculative scheme in isolation. They are tested by cohering to each other, and then matching up to reality. “The principle of resonance” I call it in SWB. The fact is this is why it is “speculative”, because the system has no other standard of verification other than its completeness as a system for explaining reality.

So Whitehead notes that there is a rational and an empirical side to speculative philosophy. The rational side tries to come up with a coherent, internally consistent “theory of everything.” The empirical side tests the philosophy to see whether that “theory of everything” matches up with reality as experienced. Since the only test of veracity is empirical, it would seem to me that no stone should be left unturned - if it is a true theory of everything, it must explain everything. A theory of everything that explains only 90% of reality is 100% wrong, in the sense that it must have at least one false premise.

The last paragraph of this section is also relevant: “The doctrine of necessity in universality means that there is an essence to the universe which forbids relationship beyond itself, as a violation of its rationality. Speculative philosophy seeks that essence.” In other words, if I understand him right, we cannot know everything. We know only a tiny fraction of what can be known. If we were to understand everything that we dealt with, we would transcend it. It is the fact that we are part of a larger picture that necessitates the fact that we cannot see the whole picture. But by observing the “texture” of the painting, the field that is in our vision, we can come up with an idea of what the whole picture probably is.

Filed under: Philosophy, process and reality, process philosophy, Whitehead | Post a comment