From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: Sponged
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:59:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.035702.22346@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> 
> Ann Carlson wrote an article referring people to books arguing that the Bible
> does not condemn homosexuals.  In reply, Robert Weiss presents a quote from
> the Christia database (written by an author who is not named):
> 
> > For those that are not aware, in _Living in Sin?_ (Harper, 1988), Spong
> > argues that homosexual acts should not be considered as sin.
> >
> > Spong is also the author of _Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism_
> > (Harper, 1991). In this work, Spong posits that the miraculous works of
> > Jesus are myth (pp 129-33, pp 143-44), that the Gospel of John doesn't
> > contain a single word that was spoken by Jesus (p 191), [ and so on - kwh ]
> >
> > I realize that Louie pointed readers to _Living in Sin?_ and not to
> > _Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism_.  However, I think that pointing to
> > what Spong teaches will help one to discern whether he is a teacher of truth
> > or an apostate teacher.
> 
> And this is, of course, a paradigm example of the fallacy known as _ad
> hominem_.  Instead of attacking the opponent's arguments about homosexuality,
> the writer has attacked the man himself.  But Bishop Spong's personal
> attributes -- whether he is apostate, inspired, brilliant, idiotic, insane,
> immoral or saintly -- are irrelevant.
> 
> All that matters is the quality of his argument: does his claim have good
> evidence and valid reasoning to back it up?
> 
> Attacking his character or his faith or his morality may make you feel good,
> and it may bias your audience against him, but it has no bearing whatsoever on
> Biblical exegesis.  If his conclusions on homosexuality are sound, then they
> are sound no matter what he's said about other issues.  (And, of course, if
> his conclusions about homosexuality are baseless, they are baseless no matter
> what he's said about other issues.)

This would be absolutely right if CHRISTIA members were actually going to go out
and read Spong's books and articles; but I suspect many will not, and others
might want to know more about Spong than just the name, before going and (say)
buying his books.

Analogous case: I am a mathematician. If someone told me that Dr Fred Bloggs had
published papers suggesting that <insert well-known conjecture here> was false,
my inclination to go and look them up would be less if I found he had written
something like "It is my opinion that we need to abandon the idea of *proof* in
mathematics. Just because something has been proved does not mean that it is
true; surely there is a place in mathematics for paradox."

Of course the analogy isn't perfect. Mathematics is somehow more "rigid" than
theology, and is much better understood, and it's easier to decide whether
someone is a good researcher or a crank (usually). But it seems to me that
what you claim to be an ad hominem argument is, precisely because of this,
more useful.

So, if I have in front of me a copy of "Living in Sin" the important questions
are things like "Is his logic good? Is what he says in line with the teaching of 
Jesus? Does he understand the Biblical passages he uses?" and so on; but if I'm
trying to decide whether to bother reading "Living in Sin", or if I'm interested
in Spong only as one more name on a list of "Christians who say homosexuality is
OK", then I see no reason not to be influenced by the answers to questions like
"Is Spong really a Christian? What sort of Christian is he? Is his view of the
world close enough to mine that I can get anything out of what he says?" and so
on.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU