A STUDY GUIDE AND RESPONSE TO: MEL WHITE'S WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS-AND DOESN'T SAY-ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY by Dr. Stanton L. Jones - book summary
ASSISTED SUICIDE AND THE SUPREME COURT David B. Fltcher - editorial
THE GOOD, THE BAD, THE WICKED: LESSONS FROM OZ Brian Howell - article
THE SPIRIT IN PUBLIC THEOLOGY by Vincent E. Bacote - book summary
OF LITTLE FAITH Dr. Amy Black on Faith Based Initiatives - book summary
A Study Guide and Response to: Mel White's
What the Bible Says -- and Doesn't Say-- About Homosexuality
by Dr. Stanton L. Jones
Dr. Mel White’s booklet, What The Bible Says-And Doesn’t Say-About Homosexuality (published by Soulforce Inc., P. O. Box 3195, Lynchburg, VA 24503, and available as a pdf file at http://www.soulforce.org/main/whatthebiblesays.shtml), is an influential and widely read gay-affirming resource. Dr. White is an effective communicator, but is his argument valid that we can read the Bible somehow to be permissive of homosexual, bisexual, and transgender lifestyle?
This Study Guide and Response has been written to help those swayed by White’s arguments to understand more clearly the strategies White employs and the misunderstandings he creates or exploits in advancing his arguments. You will find in White’s document very little in the way of a deep reading of the message of the Bible. Instead, we encounter a series of arguments-a rhetorical or persuasive strategy-that utilizes the following techniques:
He draws us into reading the Bible through tragic stories of the victimization of gay and lesbian people, stories that are truly tragedies but told in a way that elicits from us guilt and empathy in such a way as to predispose us to distance ourselves from any moral condemnation of homosexual behavior.
He strips or reduces complex scriptural passages to limited core teachings in such a way as to pass over or bury the rich and challenging additional meanings they embody.
He raises doubts and fuels skepticism about the meaning of passages that have been essentially clear in the eyes of the Church for millennia.
In the end, he proposes no clear Christian sexual ethic to replace the one he has sought to displace, rather just leaving us with the vague sense that GLBT people are nice, trustworthy people that we should affirm and accept.
In contrast, I urge you to consider again the core of what we understand to be the Gospel: The sovereign and loving God of the universe made us and loves us. We all are tainted with the contagion of sin, and we all rebel against God. We are all sexual beings by design, and our sexual natures reflect both creation and the fall, and are exceedingly mysterious, complex, deep, and conflicted. God revealed his truth and will for our lives, including his moral guidance for all of humanity, and did so both to diagnose our sinfulness and to guide us in our faltering efforts to follow him and express our love for him. And he sent his son Jesus to die for us and rise in triumph over death for us that we might be forgiven, adopted as his children, and live new lives as we abide in him.
As one small but clear part of his guidance for our lives, we have seen how there is clarity and consistency to the traditional understanding of sexual ethics derived from the Bible, and that in this ethic homosexual conduct is clearly condemned as contrary to God’s will. There are good reasons to see these moral laws as binding today. And quite significantly, we have seen that this Christian understanding offers hope to the homosexual person: hope for forgiveness of sins, hope for release from bondage to sexual and other sins, hope for grace and fulfillment in life submitted to sexual purity and healing, hope that the entire Church will embrace these persons experiencing same-sex attraction as fellow sinners and as fellow disciples who follow the Risen Lord in obedience and humility.
(adapted from the Conclusion to this Study Guide and Response by Stanton L. Jones)
THE SPIRIT IN PUBLIC THEOLOGY by Vincent E. Bacote - book summary
The Spirit in Public Theology brings together the threads of public theology and the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in creation around the person and work of Abraham Kuyper, a Dutch Calvinist who strove for a Christianity that permeated every area of life. The book first examines contemporary theologians such as Jürgen Moltmann and Clark Pinnock on the Spirit’s work in creation. This is followed by a summary of the public theologies of Max Stackhouse and Ronald Thiemann, who represent apologetic and confessional approaches to Christianity’s intersection with public life. A brief biography of Kuyper introduces him as an intellectual who led a popular movement aimed toward giving public “space” to confessionally Reformed Christians.
The second chapter presents Kuyper’s public theology. After noting Kuyper’s significant political coalition with Roman Catholics and his 1880 inaugural address at the Free University of Amsterdam, Kuyper’s public theology is expressed by highlighting some of his most significant addresses during his zenith, the 1890’s, which culminated with his ascendancy to Prime Minister of the Netherlands. Speeches such as “Maranatha”, “The Blurring of the Boundaries”, the Address to the Christian Social Congress, and the Princeton Stone lectures reveal Kuyper as one who wanted Christians to maintain their confessional identity while recognizing their responsibility in the entirety of the public domain. Is Kuyper’s public theology more confessional or apologetic? The answer is that he reflected tendencies of both approaches depending upon the situation at hand. This leads to the proposal that Kuyper’s is a “rhetorical” public theology which was publicly expressed by addresses and lectures primarily, and which aimed to get Christians in the public square with their distinct confessional identity. He never resolves the tension between the two approaches.
The third chapter focuses on common grace, the non-redemptive grace that preserves the creation and prompts public engagement in it. Was this doctrine, central to Kuyper’s theological rationale for engagement, an unhelpful innovation in the Calvinist stream? No, because Calvin himself articulated the key ideas of the doctrine, though Kuyper gave it a fuller development. The chapter’s biggest move is the link that is made between Kuyper’s doctrine of common grace and his doctrine of the Spirit’s work in creation. Though Kuyper never links them, the chapter reveals that Kuyper used the same language for the function of common grace and the Spirit’s work in creation. This leads to the conclusion that “behind” Kuyper’s public engagement lies the Spirit’s common work in creation.
The fourth chapter aims to contemporize Kuyper’s view of the Spirit in creation through a dialogue with Arnold A. Van Ruler, who wrote about the uniqueness of the Spirit’s work. The dialogue yields the development of categories for the Spirit’s cosmic work, such as ongoing immanence in creation, reciprocity, and imperfection to highlight the unique features of this area of pneumatology. The chapter next asks how we “see” the work of the Spirit in creation and proposes that we can only make provisional affirmations that cultural, social, or political developments are “of the Spirit.” We know better when we look back than when we look ahead. The chapter concludes by proposing a public theology construed as the responsible stewardship of the entire created order.Purchase Dr. Bacote's book on Amazon.com
OF LITTLE FAITH: by Dr. Amy Black
THE POLITICS OF GEORGE W. BUSH'S FAITH-BASED PROPOSALS
Amy E. Black, Douglas L. Koopman, and K. Ryden
In the presidential campaign of 2000, few ideas appeared as bipartisan as faith-based initiatives, a series of proposals that allow a greater variety of religiously affiliated social service programs to compete for federal dollars. But any broadly based bipartisan or interest group support for President Bush's faith-based legislative initiative, which combined charitable tax incentives with administrative changes making federal social service contracts more open to religious providers, soon fractured under the pressures of Washington, D.C. politics. Faith-based supporters had more success in the less-noticed administrative and judicial arenas, resulting by the fall of 2002 in very mixed results for faith-based proponents.
Of Little Faith relies extensively on data from interviews with dozens of policy makers, interest group leaders, and government officials to provide the first comprehensive account of the political story of the faith-based initiative. Although grounded in academic research, the book captures nuances and details of the story through the researchers' unprecedented access to the key players in the faith-based struggle.
Reporting faith-based developments in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, the book first considers the fate of legislation in the House of Representatives. In July 2001, the House, on a very partisan vote, passed the Community Solutions Act, a faith-based proposal built around some constitutionally controversial changes. The main public theme of the House debate was expanding the range of religious groups eligible to receive federal funds in meeting the government's social policy objectives. But an important underlying issue, rarely mentioned, was the role of religion in the public square. Because Republicans controlled the House, the faith-based bill passed in that chamber without any resolution of the underlying issue, or any chance of further success for the House bill's main objective.
The Senate presented a starkly different political environment, with Democrats controlling the chamber, and recession and war dominating the political agenda. The Senate had the opposite leadership/interest group relationship as the House, with weak party control and strong interest group power, mostly indifferent or opposed to the House faith-based bill. As a result, the Senate faith-based package was far different in its focus from the House version, allowing some regulatory simplification, tax incentives, and higher spending in order to better meet human needs. It was essentially a tax and spending bill that was caught more in budget politics than in church/state controversies. Even so, the Senate bill never received sufficient support to pass the chamber.
Although the president's policy never received the needed congressional support to become law, the faith based initiative fared far better in the executive branch. The book examines executive branch actions to promote faith-based proposals, describing the political debates and decisions that led to the establishment, development, and eventual reorganization of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and its satellite offices. Key points of tension include the choice of controversial and high profile John DiIluio as director, the events surrounding his August departure, and the strategic policy shifts in the aftermath of September 11 and on to a strategy to revive voluntary and non-profit institutions.
Finally, the book addresses the judicial issues that arise in the faith-based story and their future. In particular, it considers the constitutional issues surrounding the drive to more closely tie federal social services and the faith sector, including "charitable choice" language but mentioning broader issues as well. The book also discusses of the relevance of recent Supreme Court decisions interpreting both the establishment and free exercise religion clauses and focuses on the decisions of Justice O'Connor as the key Supreme Court justice on these issues.
Each of the book's three co-authors brings a combination of special expertise and practical experience that helps bridge the gap between theory and practice. Black was an APSA congressional fellow in 2000-2001 and writes about political behavior and interest group and identity politics. Koopman has extensive practical political experience and focuses his research in Congress and religion and politics. Ryden, for several years a practicing lawyer, has written extensively on how faith-based initiatives relate to constitutional questions and to the black church.Purchase Dr. Black's book on Amazon.com
The Terri Schiavo Case by David B. Fletcher, Ph.D.
In a few short weeks, a bioethical battle that has raged privately for a decade has burst into public awareness. The Schindlers, parents of a 39 year-old Florida woman, have struggled with her husband, Michael Schiavo, over her fate. Terri suffered a cardiac arrest and stopped breathing one night at home on February 25, 1990. After she was revived, it was found that she was unconscious and a quadriplegic, and she has required artificial nutrition and hydration (AN&H) through a tube to keep her alive. While the Schindlers have been fighting to keep the feeding tube in place, her husband, now living with a fiancé and with one child and another on the way, has maintained that she should be allowed to die by having the feeding and hydration stopped. Complicating the case is that a substantial sum of money hangs in the balance, funds from a successful malpractice lawsuit early on. On October 15, Michael won in court and the AN&H were withdrawn. In the wake of a flurry of 34,000 emails to Governor Jeb Bush, the Florida legislature enacted a special statute authorizing the governor to reinstate the treatment, which was done on October 21. This treatment without a doubt saved Teri's life. Seldom before has public reaction to a bioethics case so directly affected the outcome. Today pro-life and right-to-die supporters are lined up on either side of the debate.
This promises to be another in a series of important end of life cases. In the late 1970s, the Quinlans sought to have their daughter Karen Ann taken off a ventilator and allowed to die. Karen Ann was judged to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), and the New Jersey Supreme Court decided that the ventilator could be removed, although Karen lived for some time after this was done on a feeding tube. Feeding tubes became the focus of the Nancy Cruzan case in the 1980s, when the parents of another young woman in PVS asked to have her tube removed. In that case, the United States Supreme Court judged that she could be disconnected from feeding and hydration if convincing evidence could be advanced that this is what Nancy had wanted.
Since that time, many individuals in persistent vegetative states have been allowed to die by the withdrawal of ventilators and feeding tubes, and the general assessment of ethicists and lawyers is that this is permissible, even though such individuals could live for years if such care were provided. "The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Neurology, health insurers, and most Christian ethicists agree that the provision of AN&H is a medical intervention and not simply a part of ordinary, routine care for patients." [1]
In Florida, PVS means "a permanent and irreversible state of unconsciousness in which there is an absence of voluntary or cognitive behavior and an inability to interact purposefully with one's environment." [2] Is Terri in such a state? Her husband claims that she is, and most physicians who have examined her have agreed, but her parents and other physicians point to a number of behaviors that they believe strongly indicate that she is not in PVS. Certainly she is not functioning well. According to one report,
Her body is rigid and locks up in awkward positions. She keeps her arms drawn tightly up to her neck, her fingers curled tightly into her palms, into gnarled fists. She has not uttered a comprehensible word in more than 13 years. Years of inactivity and her liquid diet have made Terri plump, her features soft and less distinct. Her legs are stick thin. [3]
Nonetheless, her parents and some doctors counter that she is aware of them, responds to affection, questions, and music, and follows objects with her eyes. They believe that with proper therapy, she could someday function at an improved level.
What is the ethical thing to do for patients like Teri Schiavo? Christian thinkers are divided on when persons in PVS must be offered AN&H. Most agree that such therapy is not to be provided to persons in whom death is imminent, or for whom such therapy would be literally futile (that is, unsuccessful in providing the goal of feeding and hydration due to such conditions as complete digestive tract infarction). In cases where treatment is not literally futile, many will argue that feeding and hydration represent basic care and should not be withheld. On the other side, many Christian ethicists believe that AN&H are a medical intervention, not basic care, and are burdensome and costly treatments that offer no real benefit to permanently unconscious patients. They believe that such therapy can be withdrawn without causing suffering to the patient. They argue further that providing AN&H to people who will never recover consciousness is poor stewardship of resources that could be used to help other patients. Most agree that the patient's own wishes to receive or reject such treatment, made known prior to their entering a PVS, should be respected. [4] Unfortunately there is no clear evidence of what Teri wanted.
Should Teri be kept alive? In my opinion there should be a strong presumption in favor of life. Such an attitude runs contrary to the "quality of life" ethic that challenges the sanctity of life ethic that Christianity upholds. Even individuals with a diminished quality of life are entitled to live and to receive support from loved ones and the community. This presumption means that in the absence of clear evidence that she would reject such treatment, we ought to keep her alive and investigate the possibility that she might be improved with therapy. If there is any level of consciousness in Teri as it seems to me that there is, it would be wrong and illegal to disconnect her from AN&H. I applaud those who have made their opinions known and who have given Teri another chance.
Endnotes:
[1] Robert Cranston, "Withholding or Withdrawing of Artificial Nutrition and Hydration," Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity Website, http://www.cbhd.org/resources/endoflife/cranston_2001-11-19.htm#fn8. Back to text.
[2] http://www.mouthmag.com/issues/77/ndy_schiavo.html. Back to text.
[3] Hugo Kugiya, "A Life Or Death Issue: Florida woman's fate contested," Newsday,April 13, 2003, http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ny-lischiavoa,1,2683650.story?coll=chi-site-nav. Back to text.
[4] See the informative article, Advance Directives and "Do Not Resuscitate" Orders
by Robert E. Cranston, http://www.cbhd.org/resources/endoflife/cranston_2001-12-14.htm. See also Gary Stewart (Editor), Basic Questions on End of Life Decisions: How Do We Know What's Right? (Bio Basics Series) (Kregel Publications, 1998).