By Jordan Tsaddiq
Soulforce Article Critique, Part 1
Everyone has an opinion and everyone is legally entitled to hold to that opinion as long as it is not forced upon another citizen. A citizen’s right to his opinion stops at the beginning of another person’s opinion. Usually most Americans understand that concept. However, there are a few people who insist on forcing their agenda on others, often using illogical and slightly unethical methods. Mel White is one of those individuals.
In his article titled What the Bible Says – and Doesn’t Say – about Homosexuality, Mr. White violates basic elementary logic principles in his attempt to justify the behavior of his homosexuality.
In accordance with Daniel Wallace’s review,[1]one must concur with some of Mr. White’s ideas, specifically on page three. Sentences such as the following are quite logical and Biblical.
Many good people build their case against homosexuality almost entirely on the Bible. These folks value Scripture, and are serious about seeking its guidance in their lives. . . . We gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christian take the Bible seriously, too.[2]
One may concur that some “gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians” may take the Bible seriously for the tender Christian must acknowledge that some people have not been taught the truth concerning this topic. For example, the story is told of an older male teen who was showing his appreciation for his high school teacher’s kindness and teaching skills by writing a note expressing some homosexual tendencies. When the Christian teacher approached the teen on the tone and suggestions in the note, the teen communicated a little of his life story – a life completely overwhelmed with the homosexual agenda. The boy’s father had used him in homosexual activity with other men since the boy was twelve years old. This young man, still a teen, had no idea that physical intercourse with another man was not normal. This young man had not been taught truth.[3]It is relatively easy to agree that some people, including Christians, have not been taught truth; therefore, in their Scriptural ignorance, they may believe that they “take the Bible seriously.”
Mr. White claims on page three that “the Bible has a powerful message for gay and lesbian Christians – as well as straight Christians.” This statement is true and must be followed only as the student of the Scripture learns the “powerful message” of the Bible and not reads into the Bible his own “powerful message.”
Mr. White, on the first page of his article, obviously uses the logical fallacy of ad misericordiam, the argument being based on an irrelevant appeal to pity or sympathy. He reaches this fallacy by showing a crowd of people, each person holding a large portrait of “murdered lesbian and gay Americans.” When viewing these pictures, one must be sorrowful for any illegal, deliberate taking of a life, especially done in deceit or hatred. However, the fact that some people murdered “lesbian gay Americans” does not prove his point that homosexuality is Biblical.
In his first premise which starts on page three, Mr. White is guilty of the logical fallacy of ad hominem, the concept of using a personal attack on the opponent rather than using the positive aspects of his own case. This fallacy is shown in the premise itself: “Most people have not carefully and prayerfully researched the biblical texts often used to condemn God’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender children.” Instead of propounding the merits of his case, he attempts to negate his opponents’ merits by claiming his opponents are ignorant of Scripture. His basic principle may be true – that many Christians have not thoroughly studied the proof text inside and out – but to use that concept as an argument in favor of homosexuality is unethical. A beginning nursing student may not know all the chemical reactions that take place in an infection, but she does know to apply antibiotic cream and a dressing. To claim that a Christian cannot know the truth only because he himself has not “spent more than 50 years reading, studying, memorizing, preaching, and teaching from the sacred texts”[4]is quite preposterous.
As a side note, one should observe this fact: in the world of research, the careful researcher will attempt to quote as close to the original as possible to confirm the authenticity of the material presented. On page three, Mr. White quoted Dr. Peter Gomes’ book called The Good Bookinstead of verifying the statistics himself through the George Barna research polls which discovered those statistics. Mr. White failed to document/give credit to the primary source of his statistics, an action easy to do yet a fatal flaw in any legitimate research project. If he is not careful in scientific and composition research, how can one be assured that he has been careful in Biblical research.
His lack of carefulness in research is shown in his statement of “the Bible’s one million verses” for one must realize that there are only 31,102 verses in the Bible.[5]
His second premise beginning on page four is guilty of the logical fallacy called stacking the deck, an argument in which some or all the evidence is conveniently ignored. Mr. White claims that “historically, people’s misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death.”[6]He is ignoring the concept that not everyone who is against a certain thought or action has misinterpreted the Scripture. As an example, he uses “bloody crusades” but fails to mention that, for the most part, the Crusades were not executed by people known for following the literal, traditional interpretation of the Bible. In fact, the people group mostly responsible for the Crusades are quite well-known for changing their mind on their doctrine. Another example is “tragic inquisitions”; he, again, fails to mention the instigator of these inquisitions. He uses the example “to support slavery” and fails to mention that Scripture does not condemn one working for another (though it condemns being unkind to another). He is almost using “slavery” to mean whatever he wants instead of defining which aspect of slavery he is referencing. His example of “persecuting Jews and other non-Christian people of faith” still is ignoring the fact that not every Christian or Christian-claimer has done these atrocities. His example of “opposing medical science” ignores the fact that some “medical science” is unbiblical (Learning the definition of abortionwill give proof). Other concepts of “medical science” (genetic tampering, sexual transformations, abortions) are against certain inflexible Biblical principles.
It is true that many evil deeds have been done in the name of God, but just as he asks his reader to do, (on page four), he should “test all things” to decipher who actually misinterpreted Scripture in order to justify these evil atrocities and not pass judgment on all Christians.
Also, on page four, Mr. White claims that “Jesus says nothing about same sex-behavior.” This statement ignores the fact that Jesus spoke often of the marriage between a man and a woman. Logically, if there were any other definition of marriage, then Jesus would have addressed it. Mr. White belittles himself when falling to this trick of stacking the deck.
[1]Daniel Wallace, Review of Mel White’s Article What the Bible Says – and Doesn’t Say – about Homosexuality, https://bible.org/article/review-mel-white-s-what-bible-says-and-doesn-t-say-about-homosexuality
Accessed 6-4-17
[2]Mel White,What the Bible Says – and Doesn’t Say – about Homosexuality,
[3]Frank Camp, Hermeneutics, class lecture, May 10, 2017.
[4]White, 3.
[5]Camp.
[6]His assuming that the reader is one of those who have misinterpreted the Bible and thus have “left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death” is off-putting, to say the least.