The New Testament and Gay Sex: Response #3

This is the final post on Jeff Cook's opening statement on Preston Sprinkle's blog.  The last post ended with wondering about what his core argument is (or arguments are) for the conclusion that homosexual sex is not impermissible and not the target of the New Testament prohibitions concerning sexual relations.  To those arguments I now turn.


First, there is this:

Friends, virtue has hermeneutical force. Once embraced as the Biblical normative ethic, virtue will do the work of interpretation for us and trump readings, parsings, and word studies that cannot be understood through its lenses.

Now, perhaps you are unconvinced and continue to see the rules as the foundation of moral living. 

I don't understand how "virtue has hermeneutical force."  For starters, Cook presumably arrives at his view on what the New Testament writers think about virtue prior to discovering whatever hermeneutic of virtue there allegedly is by the same hermeneutical methods shared by Sprinkle.  If not, then there should be a meta-debate about what hermeneutical principles should be employed. Now, perhaps in some sense the virtue of practical wisdom ("PRVDENZA" in Pesellino's painting above) has hermeneutical force--as well as other intellectual virtues--at least in the sense that one who has such virtues will be more likely to believe what is true and disbelieve what is false more generally.  But it seems that this is not what Cook has in mind. Furthermore, it hard to see how the hermeneutic on offer is not so flabby that it cannot be used to reach the conclusion that polygamy is permissible, a monogamous incestuous relationship among consenting adults is permissible, etc.  Now, before I am charged with the ubiquitous harangue, "You compared homosexual sex with incest!  How dare you!  The inhumanity!" let's be clear that I have not ranked any alleged or real indiscretions.  The point is simply that the ethics of virtue hermeneutic (rule?) appears to be so vague that it's hard not to see how anything does not follow from it.  Once you latch onto the fact that the New Testament promotes a life of virtue, pick your favorite activity and it's not incompatible with virtue!

But let us move on.  Cook's core argument seems to be the following:

(1) The New Testament infallibly displays the good life.
(2) The good life displayed in the New Testament is the virtuous life.
(3) Monogamously committed homosexuality does not violate virtue.
Then it necessarily follows that the New Testament does not prohibit monogamous gay relationships.

But of course (3) begs the question against those who think that all same-sex sexual activities are immoral.  The conclusion will only be compelling to those who disagree with it, if there are indeed good reasons for thinking that (3) is true in the first place.  But so far, all we have been told is that (3) is true; we have not been shown any compelling argument for (3).

[A] Those who disagree will need to show how committed homosexuality, by its nature, always keeps a person from reflecting Christ or violates some Christian virtue. [B] If they cannot a decisive argument emerges: Because monogamous gay sex does not violate the demands of Christian virtue, monogamous gay sex cannot be the target of the New Testament’s prohibitions when speaking about vicious sexual behavior.

[A] is far too strong and confuses (1) arguing that some activity A is wrong (presumably by "homosexuality" he means the sexual activity not the disposition) with (2) showing why it is wrong (e.g., by its very nature).  (2) is obviously the more difficult task, but desirable if it can be done.  (For anyone interested, herein is the best argument for (2) of which I am aware based on an ethics of love.)  For that matter, it is not an easy task to give a complete and satisfactory explanation for why almost anything is wrong.  Why is incestuous sex between two sterile, consenting adults impermissible?  Why is murder wrong?  Why is taking someone's life wrong?  Any satisfactory answer will require delving into questions about human nature, the good life, rightness/wrongness, love, what it is that makes something impermissible, etc.  Nonetheless, it is a task worth pursuing.  As such, it is also worth giving an argument for why one should think that monogamous homosexual acts are permissible.--especially given the overwhelming tradition to the contrary within the body of Christ.   So far in the exchange with Sprinkle, Cook has failed to deliver the goods in this regard.  I look forward to hearing more on what he says about the matter.

Now consider [B].  Contrary to what he says is after the colon, there is no argument that emerges here.  There is simply a bald statement:  "Monogamous gay sex cannot be the target of the New Testament's prohibitions when speaking about vicious sexual behavior because monogamous gay sex does not violate the demands of Christian virtue."

The argument in the vicinity is perhaps this:

1. If those who disagree [about monogamous gay sex] cannot give a decisive argument that monogamous gay sex, by its nature, always keeps a person from reflecting Christ or violates some Christian virtue, then monogamous gay sex cannot be the target of the New Testament's prohibitions when speaking about vicious sexual behavior.
2. [Implied]  Those who disagree cannot give a decisive argument that monogamous gay sex, by its nature, always keeps a person from reflecting Christ or violates some Christian virtue.
3. Thus, monogamous gay sex cannot be the target of the New Testament's prohibitions when speaking about vicious sexual behavior.

But why should we think that either the first or second premise is true?  Consider the first.  A reason for thinking it would be true is if the following proposition were true: If one cannot give a decisive argument for p, then p must be false.  But is it true that if one cannot give a decisive argument for p, that p is false?  Surely not.  What decisive argument is there that the universe was not created ten minutes ago with (to borrow a phrase from Plantinga) all its crumbling mountains, dusty books, and false memories?  None that I know of, but surely it is false that the universe came into existence ten minutes ago with the appearance of old age.  What decisive argument is there that there are other minds other than my own?  I know of none, but surely there are other minds.  What decisive argument is there that murder is wrong?  Perhaps there is one, but will the premises be any more compelling than the conclusion already is, and if not, should one not believe that murder is wrong?  Surely not.  So why think that if one cannot give a decisive argument for why some action is wrong that the New Testament writers could not be claiming that the action is wrong?

Moving on to (2).  Why think (2) is true?  There are certainly a number of natural law theorists (among others) who have given such arguments.  Are all of them wrong?  Suppose so.  Does this entail that such an argument cannot be given?  Why think such a thing?  (Incidentally, theory often develops in ethics and theology only after there is a division between people which calls for theorizing.  If there are a paucity of arguments explaining the wrongness of certain sexual activities (and I do not claim there is such a paucity), this should be no more surprising than that there was not a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity for several centuries in Christianity, nor a full-blown theory explaining the Trinity for many more.  After all, calling into question Christianity's stance on homosexual sex is only a very recent phenomenon...following several decades after the Council of Woodstock.)

Note in conclusion that the above argument cuts both ways.  Consider this parallel argument:

1. If those who disagree [about monogamous gay sex] cannot give a decisive argument that monogamous gay sex, by its nature, never keeps a person from reflecting Christ or never violates some Christian virtue, then monogamous gay sex must not be the target of the New Testament's prescriptions when speaking about virtuous sexual behavior.
2. [Implied]  Those who disagree cannot give a decisive argument that monogamous gay sex, by its nature, never keeps a person from reflecting Christ or violates some Christian virtue.
3. Thus, monogamous gay sex must not be the target of the New Testament's prescriptions when speaking about virtuous sexual behavior.