Bible Values: A Response to Jonathan Dudley

In a scathing article written by Jonathan Dudley on the CNN website, Dudley argues that when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, evangelicals are “riddled with self-serving double standards.” That’s a fancy way of calling people hypocrites. Basically, he argues that Paul “condemned a lot of other things that Christians don’t condemn today.”

It is not, however, that simple. Although the charge of hypocrisy is what the reader will immediately take away from it (a charge I’m sure most Christians won’t deny), Dudley actually takes this much further. When interviewed on CNN about the article, anchor Kyra Phillips concluded from the article that “you can’t take a book that was written thousands and thousands of years ago and apply it to our culture today in 2011.” I can certainly see how she could draw that conclusion.

What really bothers me is that it seems Dudley wants to go a little further when he says, “It won’t do to oppose gay marriage because it’s not traditional while advocating other positions that are not traditional.” What are these other positions that he’s talking about? He cites four examples: length of hair, celibacy, abortion, and divorce. These issues deserve a response.

Concerning divorce, Dudley accuses Christians of being lenient on the clear condemnation of divorce (allowing divorce in cases of spousal abuse) while being more strict on passages concerning homosexuality. However, I think there are some interesting arguments for such interpretations which makes these cases consistent with what the Bible teaches, or, at worst, marital separation would be allowed in cases of spousal abuse. So I don’t think there is softness here, though I will admit that there are indeed professing Christians who do divorce for entirely unbiblical reasons.

Dudley’s comments on abortion can be easily dismissed because he cites Aquinas and Augustine instead of the Bible concerning these matters. We’ve come some way philosophically (and scientifically) to establish that morally relevant life does indeed begin at conception which is in conjunction with what the Bible teaches on abortion.

Dudley also seems to think the concept of celibacy being “morally superior” to marriage is controversial within evangelical circles. I certainly don’t see it that way and it is difficult for me to see this controversy happening among other Christians. The impression Dudley might try to leave you with is the false notion that because celibacy is better than marriage, marriage is thus some degrading form of self control. The Bible does not teach this. Celibacy would just be supererogatory.

And finally, the seemingly absurd and arbitrary length of hair. Dudley writes, “Paul objects to two things as unnatural: one is male-male sex and the other is long hair on men and short hair on women. The community opposed to gay marriage takes one condemnation as timeless and universal and the other as culturally relative.” He referring 1st Corinthians 11:14-15. I take that passage to be both universal and culturally relative. Allow me to explain. Let us read the passage in context.

“Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. ⁵ And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. ⁶ If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. ⁷ A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; ⁹ neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. ¹⁰ For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

¹¹ In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. ¹² For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. ¹³ Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? ¹⁴ Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, ¹⁵ but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.”

What does Paul say that this hair means? It’s a sign of hierarchy or subordination. To change this custom meant that the woman who cut her hair refused to be subordinated to her husband, or the man who grew his hair was subordinated to his wife. As Paul explained, this is not how God intended it to be, and any such action is a disgrace. Notice how far he takes it when he says that if a woman would do such a thing, she might as well shave her head. In Greek culture, that was a sign of disgrace. This is recorded in Aristophanes’ play Thesmophoriazysae. He clues us in when he writes, “There are many reproaches we have the right to bring against men. The most serious is this, that the woman, who has given birth to a useful citizen, whether taxiarch or strategus should receive some distinction; a place of honour should be reserved for her at the Stenia, the Scirophoria, and the other festivals that we keep. On the other hand, she of whom a coward was born or a worthless man, a bad trierarch or an unskilful pilot, should sit with shaven head, behind her sister who had borne a brave man.” Paul was talking about the natural authority of men over women. As we recognize Christ is the head of man, man is the head of the woman, so woman should not take a mans place.

What is objective is this hierarchy. That is natural. What is culturally relative is how one expresses that. In the Greek culture, that was just the way. Today, we may express it differently, but we express the same principle nonetheless. For example, some Asian cultures view slurping and burping and polite, to show that they enjoy the food, whereas here in America, we view that as rude. What this demonstrates is that both cultures agree that you need to be polite and avoid being rude, that part is objective, but how you may try to express it can vary from place to place.  The principle is objective, the expression is relative. Subordination is objective, how one expresses it is culturally relative.

Is the common evangelical take non-Biblical (Dudley wants to call them non-traditional) stances? I think not. My defense of these issues are completely irrelevant because in each of these cases, he points out hypocrisy. Yet hypocrisy has nothing to do with whether an independent position is true or not. Lets assume, for arguments sake, that everything Dudley says about these issues is true. Lets say that men still shouldn’t grow their hair, or that Christians still do get divorced for all the wrong reasons, and that there is in fact no Biblical justification for abortion, and that today’s conventional wisdom concerning marriage and celibacy is completely contrary to what the Bible teaches. What does this mean for marriage? Does it follow that because I’m inconsistent with other positions, I must therefore be wrong about my position on same-sex marriage? No, that’s a non-sequitur, and commits the fallacy of ad hominem tu quoque.

So let’s stop the charade and be honest.

Jonathan Dudley isn’t defending the Bible’s values. He’s using the Bible to defend his own.