The American Apologist

I came across this article today on a Facebook page and I was astounded by the number of people lauding his writing. Go ahead and read his article (I have presented it as it was presented on his site — I have made no changes other than font modifications):

It’s about Love, Stupid!

A word about Religion & Gay Marriage from a theologian © 2008

Matthew Fox, PhD.

When I read churches pontificate about what God says against homosexuals my stomach gets knots in it. The “God says” argument doesn’t hold water because the Bible is filled with “God says” items that do not cut the mustard any longer. Consider for example the following admonitions from the Bible: Ex 35.2 says a person working on the Sabbath should be put to death. Leviticus 11:10 says eating shellfish is an “abomination” (just like homosexuality). Leviticus 25.44 says you may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. Do you think Canadians would mind? Or Mexicans?

Like anything else in life, one has to use the brains God gave us to determine priorities even and especially when reading Scriptures. Which of the priority teachings might apply to gay marriage in the Bible? I would propose three.

One is the admonition that “God is Love.” That is quite startling and still, after centuries and centuries, quite fresh. God is Love. Where we give love and receive love there is God. Love is the better part of ourselves as human beings. And it is God showing through our giving and receiving in good times and bad, in sickness and in health.

My Bible does not say “God is heterosexual love.” (Does yours?) But that God is love. Marriage is supposed to build on love, develop it, nurture it and celebrate it. A good argument for gay marriage. Marriage celebrates and protects love. Of whatever stripe.

The second Biblical teaching that honors gay marriage is Jesus’ teaching to put justice first, to support the anawim, those without a voice, the outcasts, the oppressed ones. Gay and lesbian people have clearly been oppressed. Some were arrested, some were put in mental hospitals and given lobotomies, some were beat up, some were murdered (such as the late Matthew Shepherd), most have had to hide and pretend. Clearly, then, Jesus’ teaching to stand by the oppressed applies to a sexual minority as it does to any other minorities.

Lastly, the religious rhetoric against gay love is always buttressed by the famous line, “it’s not natural. It’s against nature.” But Science, whose job it is to explore nature, has found just the opposite. That there are gay couples among at least 464 other species ranging from dolphins to birds, from dogs to seals. So it is natural…. for a minority. (It is not natural for a heterosexual but neither is heterosexuality natural for a homosexual.)

Religious people have to study creation as well as Bibles, just as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote in the thirteenth century when he said: “A mistake about creation results in a mistake about God.” (He did not have the scientific evidence at that time that we have today about the naturalness of homosexuality for 8 to 10 % of a given human population.) Homophobia makes a very big mistake about God, the author of nature’s immense diversity. Including sexual diversity. God is author of nature and that means that God is author…yes, of gay as well as straight passions.

The love that is celebrated in gay marriage is society’s love, not just that of man to man or woman to woman. We all profit from faithful love whether such joy be lived out in heterosexual or homosexual contexts. So let us all rejoice that notions of God is Love and Justice Matters and Nature is God’s Doing are happening in a fresh way in the state of California. And let us move on to other topics of genuine moral concern such as the fate of the Earth.

Matthew Fox is an Episcopal priest and author of 28 books on spirituality and culture including Original Blessing and One River, Many Wells.. See www.matthewfox.org.

OK, the topic is gay marriage and “the church”.  Based on the comments I read (things like “his writing is so wonderful, I couldn’t have said it better“), Mr. Fox presents a popular, and persuasive argument that makes people feel good. Unfortunately, it couldn’t be further from the truth.

Let’s systematically look at his arguments — in a logical and objective manner — and then you’ll see how fallacious and biased his writing really is:

1. The title — “It’s About Love, Stupid” — should be your first indication that Mr. Fox is not being intellectually objective in his analysis. By calling you (the reader) “stupid”, he means to belittle and berate you. He is, after all, a self-proclaimed theologian and PhD.
2. Secondly, he uses 3 “priorities” when evaluating “gay marriage”.  The first, according to Matthew Fox, is “God is love“. Furthermore, he says “Where we give love and receive love there is God. Love is the better part of ourselves as human beings. And it is God showing through our giving and receiving in good times and bad, in sickness and in health” I whole-heartedly agree with that statement, BUT (and this is where Mr. Fox’s argument breaks down) love is not a sin.  Homosexual conduct is the sin. Mr. Fox, as a learned man, must surely know that love and sex are 2 different things. Sex may include loving aspirations, and love may include sexual conduct (between a husband and wife), but homosexual intercourse is not (in my humble opinion, anyway) what the Bible means when it says “love thy neighbor”. If we were to absolutely equate sex and love (as Mr. Fox does), we can easily justify adultery, pedophilia, or even rape!  No, love and sex are separate entities which can be viewed in morally distinct settings. For example, your brother might be gay and you would still love him in a Christian manner, but when he is having homosexual relations with another man, he is committing a sin against God.
3. The second “priority” in Matthew’s thesis is that gays and lesbians are anawim — commonly defined as “the poor and the lowly” in the Old Testament and we must fight for their “voice”. Contrary to Matthews modern definition of oppressed — the poor and the lowly in the Old Testament Psalms were the faithful who were oppressed by the violent, the rich and those in power. In 2009, one could hardly watch television or go to the movies and claim that gays and lesbians don’t have “a voice” in society — it is far more fashionable to bash Christians and believers than it is to bash anyone living an “alternative lifestyles”.
4. In his final “priority”, Mr. Fox attempts to equate homosexuality with natural conduct. He cites 464 species which exhibit gay couples behavior — I have no idea where he did his research (he has a bad habit of excluding sources), but the real argument isn’t “does it occur in nature”? The real argument is “is it in accordance to God wishes”? Good and bad both exist in the world — both could be deemed “natural”. Whether we choose to pursue one course (good) or the other (bad) is the real crux of the debate. Murder certainly occurs in nature. Does that mean God wants us to murder? No, of course not! Is sex meant to be between a man and a woman? Yes, we can see a clear biological (scientific) reason for it — procreation. (If you recall your middle school sex education class, the genitalia are really called the sexual reproduction organs) The fact that God put hundreds of nerve endings in your nether regions to make it “feel good” is more likely a case of wanting to populate the world than wanting you to feel loved after an orgasm… is there a biological reason for homosexual attraction? I can’t think of any logical reason. Perhaps that’s why homosexuality is considered abnormal.

I will not give you my personal opinion of gay marriage (I’m sure some of you have already formed an opinion… I’m just as sure that some of you would be astonished to hear my actual views), but I just want to demonstrate how Matthew Fox’s logic breaks down when the reader looks at it objectively. Mr. Fox uses a tried and true method of persuasive writing where the author uses false arguments to make his point. When you initially read his piece, it’s hard not to agree with him. Upon further examination, however, the light of truth shows his arguments to be false.

As many of you know, I work for a large midwestern university. Today, I learned that the Dept of Education is mandating a change to the reporting of race and ethnicity for higher ed (sorry, I don’t know about k-12). You will now be asked (at least) 2 questions:

1) Do you consider yourself to be Hispanic/Latino?

2) Do you consider your race to be:

Native Am Indian/ Alaskan Indian

Asian

Black / African-American

White

Other

You may, surprisingly, choose NOT to answer the question, or you may choose multiple answers. If you answer “yes” to question #1, then you are reported as “Hispanic/Latino” and you don’t choose a race. If you answer “no” to question #1, then your ethnicity is reported as “non-Hispanic/Latino” and your race depends on how you answer question #2.

Of course, this is part of the “browning of America” and soon everyone in question #2 will be considered a minority, but I have a plan.  When asked to answer the question (and I’m told all students and faculty/staff will be surveyed within the next 2 years), you should choose anything you want. This is a self-reported, unverifiable study. If I claim to be the descendant of Black/White/American Indians, then the University gets a reporting boost to its “diversity factor” (and perhaps I get a promotion!). If I were a student entering college now, I would certainly look for any reason to add Hispanic/Am Indian/Asian to my profile!!