SOUTH CAROLINA
.i
n
Opinion
by David Gillespie I
New variations on old themes
What happens when politicians try to be
theologians and historians? What happens
when theologians try to be politicians? Well,
not much that’s good.
In the mid-1800s, leading Southern theolo
gians of the day — men such as James H.
Thornwell and Robert Lewis Dabney —
argued vehemently that African-Americans
were inferior to whites. They made what at that
time were assumed to be valid biblical cases
that blacks, because of their inferiority, should
not be allowed to vote. Appeals to “thousands
of years” of biblical history were everywhere.
Dabney went so far as to offer a “genetic”
defense of his position, too, arguing that
blacks and whites were two distinct species.
Thornwell traced blacks to Noah’s son. Ham,
and argued that the curse placed on Ham in
Genesis Chapter 9 applied to all blacks.
Long before either one of these two gentle
men, Saint Augustine had argued that slavery
was justified, not on racial grounds, but
because of the sins of the person enslaved.
Blacks weren’t the only people oppressed
by Bible-based arguments made by “Bible-
believing” Christians. For more than 200 years
women were subject to discrimination based
on what was generally received as the Bible’s
teaching.
Early church theologian Tertullian
argued way back in the third century that sin
existed in the
world because
of the moral
inferiority of
women, basing
his arguments
on the early
chapters of Genesis. Speaking to women,
Tertullian said, “You destroyed so easily
God’s image of man.”
Through the teachings of men like Charles
Hodge of Princeton Seminary (he taught
there 58 years and trained thousands of
American clergymen), women were by God’s
design inferior to men and subject to their
authority in all areas of life — church, society
and home.
Should women be emancipated, according
to Hodge, society would suffer irreparable
harm. “If women are to be emancipated from
subjection to the law which God has imposed
on them ... all order and virtue would speedi
ly be banished.”
Sound familiar? Maybe something like, “If
gays and lesbians are allowed to enjoy the
benefits and privileges of marriage, society as
we know it will crumble?”
Fortunately for us, church and society
came to realize that these men were wrong; we
came to understand that all humans, black
and female included, were equal — though it
did take us a while.
Perhaps the biggest mistake contemporary
politicians and others trying to constitutional
ly ban gay marriage make is when they repeat
the blanket, sweeping statement: one man-one
woman marriage has been the model for and
bedrock of civilization for thousands of years.
That is simply not the case.
Monogamous heterosexual marriage is, in
history’s timeline, a relatively new thing. It is
not nor has it ever been the biblical model for
family units. While it may be a good one
(among other good ones), the Bible nowhere
argues for it; neither does it present it as the
divine model for societies. Indeed, the oppo
site is the case.
Throughout biblical history men had multi
ple wives, concubines and sex slaves — all with
divine approval. This was
because in those biblical
cultures, women were
thought to be'inferior, to be
property. We don’t think
that now.
What we need to realize
is that when sweeping
statements of alleged his
torical “fact” or unques
tionable biblical interpreta
tion are made by such peo
ple as the president. Sen.
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) or
S.C. Attorney General
Henry McMaster or any number of preachers
on a given Sunday, it ain’t necessarily so.
That’s not to say religion shouldn’t inform
our national discourse on civil rights. It
should. Many times in our history it has done
so to our benefit, to our enlightenment.
However, if the president, congress and
South Carolinians want to protect marriage,
they need to look at those destructive trends
which can in no way whatsoever be attributed
to gay and lesbian citizens; trends like divorce,
domestic violence, the need for affordable
health care and poverty.
Religion has a lot to say about how we treat
each other. Indeed, for the writer of the New
Testament book of James, how we treat others,
especially widows and orphans, is the hall
mark of true religion.
Jesus himself is reported to have said as
much when he told his disciples that when they
fed the hungry or clothed the naked or visited
the sick, they were exercising true religion.
■ Using a false argu
ment like “2000 years
PcvhclpS the biggest mistuke of traditional mar-
contetnporury politicians and in order to jus-
others trying to constitutmdly Dj)
ban gay mavnage make is when against gays and les-
they repeat the blanket, sweeping bians in the United
statement: one man-one woman States and in South
marriage has been the model for
and bedrock of civilization for r will not reduce the
thousands of years, number of children
being raised by a sin
gle-parent; it will not
reduce domestic violence; it will not reduce
healthcare costs.
When we try to make public policy based
on one narrow interpretation of a single reli
gion, we lose some of our freedom. There’s no
getting around it.
Hopefully, somewhere in this debate, we all
— George W. Bush, Lindsay Graham and
Henry McMaster included — will get our his
tory and our theology straight. I
coming soon
rr*
■-AS
yV
843/^8-^^Oa
cIubhuslM
n
m-
\
14 SEPTEMBER 23.2006 • Q-NOTES