Is It Arrogant to Say Homosexuality Is Morally Wrong?

The New York Times has an interesting editorial by Frank Bruni that is worthy of comment. In “Reading God’s Mind”, Bruni challenges Christians who maintain that homosexuality is, in accordance with biblical teaching, certainly sinful.  

The article is built around the story of a middle-age gay man (Jeff) whose Southern Baptist parents chose not to attend his same-sex wedding ceremony because they believed him to be in a sinful relationship. Both Jeff and his parents made choices that the other party found difficult to accept—Jeff engaging in a same-sex relationship and his parents’ refusing to attend the ceremony. Yet, in Bruni’s mind, there is a difference of posture when it comes to the decision that each party made. In his article Bruni describes Jeff as humble, “He doesn’t claim… to have definitive answers. He hasn’t determined beyond any doubt that his life and love are in concert with God’s wishes, because he thinks it arrogant to insist, as the zealots who condemn gay people do, that God’s will is so easily known. And in light of that, he thinks it wrong for anyone to try and consign gays to the shame that so many of them have endured.” Jeff’s parents, however, make the claim that it Jeff’s homosexual relationship is sinful, an act of defiance against God’s will for human beings.

Isn’t that arrogant?

How can any human being claim to know for certain what God’s will is? How could any parent claim to know God’s will so confidently, especially when it causes so much pain within their family?

Christians would respond that we can know that things are right or wrong based upon the teaching of the Bible, God’s authoritative self-disclosure—both in terms of his being, his plan of redemption, and his instructions for lives of holiness and obedience. This answer shouldn’t be a surprise to Bruni or Jeff. Orthodox Christians have claimed nothing different for two millennia.

“Reading God’s Mind” contains two arguments that attempt to disarm Christians of this appeal. The first argument is one of principles for biblical interpretation. It can be parsed out as follows:

P¹ : If the Bible is to be taken literally, then all of Scripture must be taken literally. 

P² : However, not all of Bible is to be taken literally.

C¹ : Therefore, the Bible is not to be taken literally. 

Then, specific to the issue of homosexuality, the following can be added:

P³ : If the Bible is not to be taken literally, then the passages prohibiting homosexuality are not to be taken literally.

C²: Since the Bible is not to be taken literally (based upon C¹), then the passages prohibiting homosexuality are not to be taking literally (and by implication, they are not morally binding). 

There are a number of problems with this argument. First off, Bruni’s first premise is one that is overly simplified and does not in fact represent what a thoughtful Christian would say. The entire Bible is not to be taken literally (nb: this does not deny that the whole Bible is true). The Bible is a large book containing a variety of literary genre. It contains legal codes, narrative material, proverbs, and poetry. This is significant because poetry is not something that is read literally. It contains figurative language, metaphors, and similes.

Psalm 18:4–5 is one such instance where a literal interpretation would be a dreadful display of hermeneutics, “The cords of death encompassed me; the torrents of destruction assailed me; the cords of Sheol [the grave] entangled me; the snares of death confronted me.” This passage isn’t saying that rope-like cords literally came up from the grave and wrapped themselves around the writer. Bruni ignores the multiplicity of genres in the Bible—a fact that is significant in arguments (such as his) of interpretation. 

Bruni’s argument would be more relevant if he questioned the normativity of the Bible, instead of its literal nature. Normativity refers to teaching or content that asserts a standard of practice or morality that is as equally binding today as it was in the biblical era. However, even this shift from literal to normative, although more accurately framing the issue in question, proves itself problematic. Christians do not argue—either functionally or formally—that the whole Bible is normative. This can be demonstrated by pointing to the Passover feast that is prescribed in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Passover feast is no longer a ceremony that the Christian community observes because, the Church teaches, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Passover law by serving as the true lamb that atones for Sin. This is a basic understanding of redemptive history. So while at one point the Passover feast was a binding command from God, within God’s historical plan of redemption that practice is no longer binding today because it is specifically fulfilled in the life and death of Jesus Christ. Even if the first premise is adjusted from literal to normative, Bruni’s argument still (a) puts words into the mouths of Christians that do not really belong there and (b) applies a standard of interpretation (if any part is to be normative, then all must be normative) that is pure ludicrousness. 

One further critique might be made of this New York Times op-ed piece. Bruni assumes that Jeff’s position is the intellectually modest, neutral position. Bruni applauds Jeff for not claiming that he knows what God’s position is on homosexuality. Yet, the fact remains that Jeff has made a choice to engage in a same-sex relationship and as a result he has decided that either (a) God approves, or at least permits, same-sex relationships or (b) that even if God isn’t okay with it, he’ll deal with those consequences later. If he makes his choice to enter into a same-sex relationship based on (a), then he is no different than his parents in asserting what God thinks. If he makes his decision based on (b), that isn’t humility—it’s hubris! (Could you imagine if you said something similar about your parents when you were younger, “Mom and Dad might not like this, but I’m not going to think about that now. I’ll deal with them later.”) Bruni attempts to place Jeff on moral high ground by suggesting that Jeff is more humble and modest in his position. One ought not concede this ground.   

In “Reading God’s Mind”, Frank Bruni makes two arguments. The first argument tries to lay the ground for dismissing a literal interpretation of biblical passages that speak to homosexuality’s sinfulness. This argument, as was demonstrated above, fails because it does not take into account basic interpretive principles that recognize genre and authorial intent (principles that one would consider whether they were reading Dumas or Deuteronomy). The second move Bruni makes is to imply that Jeff, the man featured in the article, is more humble than his Southern Baptist parents. This move assumes that as a married gay man, Jeff can still hold a position that is more humble than his parents’ position because he claims he isn’t certain he is right. The assumption of Jeff’s has also been deplumed. What Jeff says formally is not how Jeff acts functionally. 

In the end, Frank Bruni’s article represents a rather feeble move in the battle of public perception concerning the morality of homosexuality; however, despite Bruni’s weak argumentation, such arguments for the moral acceptance of homosexuality are worth noting and exposing as they increasingly reflect the assumptions of mainstream thinking both outside—and, dreadfully, inside—the Church.