Is there really a slope between embracing egalitarianism and endorsing homosexuality?
Since the beginning of the evangelical complementarian movement, proponents of traditional views have been warning of a slippery slope from women’s ordination to more theologically liberal positions, including the affirmation of homosexuality.
Many evangelical egalitarians have responded in protest, loudly accusing conservatives for succumbing to the slippery slope fallacy. Egalitarians are correct to identify the slippery slope as a logical fallacy, but they’re incorrect to identify it as an erroneous form of argumentation. As David Kelley writes in his book, The Art of Reasoning, “Slippery slope arguments can be good ones if the slope is real.”
At the outset, we should acknowledge that many egalitarians don’t believe the Bible condones homosexuality. But generally speaking, the ability to maintain those commitments is more a function of doctrinal precommitments, not hermeneutics. While defending their position, many egalitarians employ the same hermeneutical method used to affirm same-sex relationships. Interestingly, you’ll be hard-pressed to find a complementarian church that endorses homosexuality. In fact, if a church affirms homosexuality, you can be sure that the church is also already thoroughly egalitarian.[1]
But why? What’s the hermeneutical link between egalitarian and gay-affirming readings of the Scriptures?[2]
HERMENEUTICAL GREASE
Every time
To continue...read the full-length post originally published on this site.
