Repeating the mistake of Eve

Talbot Davis, in a recent guest post at Juicy Ecumenism, reminds us again of just how intolerant the apostles of "tolerance" and "diversity" are. Along the way, however, in explaining why virulent revisionists object to Eddie Fox receiving an award from Candler School of Theology, he makes a statement that is illustrative of a much larger problem.

It’s because Eddie Fox stands with 2,000 years of Christian teaching in affirming celibacy in singleness and faithfulness in heterosexual marriage. Meaning: he believes that homosexual intercourse is not God’s design for humanity.

The first mistake Eve made in the Garden of Eden was to give an incorrect answer to the serpent's inquiry. "Did God actually say to you, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden?'" the serpent asks. Eve's response, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die,’" (cf. Genesis 3:1-3) is an unnecessary expansion of God's command. God said nothing about not touching the tree, only about not eating from it. By adding to God's Word, Eve set herself (and Adam) up for the Fall. They were not tripped up because God had placed upon them an unreasonable expectation, but because they made a simple command complicated.

The ever-crafty serpent, in the present-day guise of smooth-talking revisionists, has tricked us again into complicating the simple. For 2,000 years, the basic Christian teaching on sexual morality could be summed up simply as chastity and faithfulness. Note, however, the qualifications and clarifications employed in the above statement which water down this simple truth.

"Celibacy in singleness" is a redundancy. "Celibacy" is merely the state of being unmarried. There is nothing particularly virtuous or un-virtuous about it. A celibate person is single person, but not necessarily a chaste person.

"Faithfulness in heterosexual marriage" is an exercise in self-contradiction. "Heterosexual," like "homosexual," is a term coined to describe a form of sexual deviance, that is, a form of sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Neither term was ever intended to be used as a qualifier for one type of "marriage" or another. "Marriage" is the union of one man and one woman. It cannot be anything else. Arguments to the contrary betray a basic ignorance of the laws of nature.

When the church succumbs in this way to the serpent's crafty scheme, she is repeating the mistake of Eve. She is taking a simple command of God, which is intended to bring perfect freedom, and perverting it into a cumbersome regulation which makes the church, in the eyes of a world enslaved by the serpent's deception, the enemy of freedom.

More good news: AP nixes obnoxious "-phobia" terminology

One of the most onerous terms ever invented by the PC thought police is "homophobia." At long last, the Associated Press (AP) has recognized the impropriety of the term and nixed it, along with the equally obnoxious "Islamophobia" and the euphemistic "ethnic cleansing" from its official Style Book.

The online Style Book now says that "-phobia," "an irrational, uncontrollable fear, often a form of mental illness" should not be used "in political or social contexts," including "homophobia" and "Islamophobia." It also calls "ethnic cleansing" a "euphemism," and says the AP "does not use 'ethnic cleansing' on its own. It must be enclosed in quotes, attributed and explained."

"Ethnic cleansing is a euphemism for pretty violent activities, a phobia is a psychiatric or medical term for a severe mental disorder. Those terms have been used quite a bit in the past, and we don't feel that's quite accurate," AP Deputy Standards Editor Dave Minthorn told POLITICO.

"When you break down 'ethnic cleansing,' it's a cover for terrible violent activities. It's a term we certainly don't want to [propagate]," Minthorn continued. "Homophobia especially -- it's just off the mark. It's ascribing a mental disability to someone, and suggests a knowledge that we don't have. It seems inaccurate. Instead, we would use something more neutral: anti-gay, or some such, if we had reason to believe that was the case."

"We want to be precise and accurate and neutral in our phrasing," he said.

The changes made to the online Style Book will appear in next year's printed edition.

Rod Dreher applauds the changes.

There has to be a more accurate word or expression to describe anti-gay animus. “Homophobia” carries within it certain assumptions that may or may not be true. I know people who hold animosity towards gay people, but who aren’t afraid of them. I know people who for whatever reason morally disapprove of homosexuality, but who are friends with gay people, and who aren’t the least bit afraid of them. To call either of these people “homophobic” is to misunderstand and misstate what they really believe.

Similarly with “Islamophobia.” Depending on who you are and where you are — say, an Orthodox Jew in a Paris suburb — fear of Muslims may not be a psychiatric disorder, but a rational response to the world in which you live.

To label these things as phobias is to psychologize what may be a rational moral stance, given the premises. Is an Orthodox Jew or Muslim “porkophobic” because their religion forbids consuming pork? Similarly, is an Orthodox Jew, Muslim, or traditional Christian necessarily afraid of homosexuals, or otherwise suffering from a mental disorder, because their religion forbids gay sex? To come think of someone who objects for whatever reason to homosexuality, to Islam, and so forth, as “phobic” is to see them not as people to be taken seriously, persuaded, or at least tolerated, but rather as people to be cured, or at least dismissed as crazy. “Homophobia” and “Islamophobia,” as the AP seems to understand, are inherently loaded terms and concepts.

H/T: Matthew Schmitz at First Things