On the Non-hypocrisy of Calling out Homosexual Activity As an Abomination

The West Wing:
a Democratic Party fantasy

The West Wing was a political drama television series created by Aaron Sorkin that was originally broadcast on NBC from September 22, 1999, to May 14, 2006. The primary location for the events in The West Wing took place in the West Wing of the White House, where the Oval Office and offices of presidential senior personnel are located. The primary time-setting for The West Wing was the fictional two-term Democratic administration of President Josiah (Jed) Bartlet. In reality, the Republican administration of President George W. Bush was in office during this time, so The West Wing served as a kind of escapist fantasy for Democrats. 

In a key scene from the show (one that I've seen referenced a couple of times in a Reddit forum even this past week, from people offering it up as "the best monologue/speech in a film or TV show ever"), President Jed Bartlet confronts Dr. Jenna Jacobs, a conservative Christian radio talk-show host, whose character is based on Dr. Laura Schlessinger: a conservative Jewish radio talk-show host who was known for calling out homosexuality as an abomination.

President Bartlet: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Bartlet: Yes, it does. Leviticus.

Dr. Jenna Jacobs: 18:22.

President Bartlet: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.

I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or is it okay to call the police?

Here’s one that’s really important ’cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?

---

Aaron Sorkin:
perhaps the greatest living screenwriter;
not the best theologian 

Notice that in the above dialogue, Bartlet (as a mouthpiece for the writer of this show: Aaron Sorkin) doesn't understand the distinction between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws from the Old Covenant, nor the difference between "sanctioned" and "regulated," and he falsely implies that burning is the penalty for wearing garments from two different kinds of threads.

The Distinction between Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial Laws

Old Testament law contains moral, civil, and ceremonial aspects, and the moral aspects are everlasting, as reflective of God's character, while the civil and ceremonial aspects were specifically, directly applied only in the Old Covenant era.

Some people deny the distinction as described above, and they question where such a distinction is found in the biblical text.

While it is acknowledged that there is no specific verse spelling out distinctions in the Mosaic Law in so many words, the three-fold distinction of the Law can be discerned through a systematic reading of Scripture. As there is no single verse or passage of contiguous verses spelling out a full doctrine of the Trinity or the hypostatic union, yet Christians receive these concepts as “biblical” due to careful synthesis of texts, so Christians have historically received the three-fold distinction of the Law without a specific proof-text.

Let us suppose that God intended to set apart a certain portion of the Law as specially reflecting an everlasting moral law. God could have fulfilled this intention through inspiring a verse or series of verses in which Moses tuaght about distinctions in the Law. On the other hand, God could have chosen to set apart a certain portion of the Law in a more dramatic, historical way. He could have:

1. Allowed all the people to hear his voice announcing certain laws,

2. Chosen to write certain laws with His finger upon stone tablets,

3. Commanded His chosen nation to carry around those stone tablets for decades within an ornate, gold-plated box,

4. Made the golden box containing those laws the center of worship for His chosen nation.

Christians who believe that there is a three-fold distinction in the Law, with a special, enduring place given to the moral law, believe that God, in fact, established a distinction in the Law historically, in the way just described.

Let us consider as well the different ways in which the New Testament applies specific laws from the Mosaic Law. For example, consider the following three New Testament quotes from the Old Testament.

#1. 9 For it is written in the Law of Moses: “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10 Surely he says this for us, doesn’t he? Yes, this was written for us, because whoever plows and threshes should be able to do so in the hope of sharing in the harvest. 11 If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you? 12 If others have this right of support from you, shouldn’t we have it all the more? But we did not use this right. On the contrary, we put up with anything rather than hinder the gospel of Christ. (1 Corinthians 9:9-12 ESV)

#2. …without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins. (Hebrews 9:22b ESV)

#3. Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.” (Ephesians 6:1-2 ESV)

Notice the different way in which these various laws are treated.

In #1, the law which is cited had regulated the civil actions of people within ancient Israel; a principle is gleaned from this law and is applied to the Church.

In #2 [the reader will have to look at the context of both Hebrews and Leviticus to see this], the law that is cited had regulated the ceremonial actions [especially] of the priestly class in regard to animal sacrifices; in the surrounding verses, this law is treated as a type, which is fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross.

In #3, the Apostle cites the fifth of the Ten Commandments and directly applies it to individuals in the church who received his letter.

Please note:

1. In these examples, we see the three-fold distinction of the Law. The above examples provide a model by which we are to understand how Old Covenant laws apply today. Principles should be gleaned from civil laws and applied, primarily to the Church, but also to society as a whole. The ceremonial laws should be seen (at least primarily) as typical of Christ, and we should worship and depend upon Him as the fulfillment of these laws. Moral laws should be embraced, and believers should seek to keep these laws by the power of the Holy Spirit, out of a heart of gratitude toward God. (Just as Paul said to “obey” the fifth commandment, we should seek to “obey” the other commandments of the moral law.)

2. In most cases it is not difficult to distinguish civil, ceremonial, and moral laws. Those who object to the three-fold distinction of the Law often act as if, because the laws are often not divided out in the biblical text, it is impossible to determine into which category a specific law should be placed. But notice that the attentive reader can make distinctions without much problem at all though a series of basic questions, such as:

a. Is the law about family property rights or rules of ownership and reimbursement?

b. Is the law under consideration about sacrifices or forms of worship in the temple/tabernacle?

c. Is the law part of the Ten Commandments?

Given these considerations, we should understand Leviticus 18:22 and the other Old Testament laws mentioned by Bartlet/Sorkin not as ancient relics to be dismissed, nor as current legal mandates to be  directly implemented into American laws, but as containing principles that should be applied according to either their ceremonial or civil uses. We should look at these laws as containing principles that direct us to Christ Himself, and that direct us in discerning principles of how to live for Him.

The Difference between "Sanctioned" and "Regulated"

In seeking to undermine the idea that homosexual activity could rightly be called an "abomination," Sorkin seeks to highlight how offensive the Old Testament law sounds to all Americans, so that he can then say that Leviticus 18:22 is equally offensive. To this end, he has Bartlet say (ironically): "I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7..."

But Exodus 21:7 does not sanction selling one's daughter into slavery. Being a distinguished writer, Sorkin should be a careful enough reader to see that Exodus 21:7 begins with the words "and if..." (rendered as "when..." in some modern translations). Sorkin should certainly understand the difference between a command and a conditional statement. In context, it is clear that Exodus 21:7 is dealing with a situation that is already happening among people at the time. The verse does not sanction that situation, but it regulates it to make sure that the girls suffering under that situation are not left homeless and destitute. Other Old Testament regulations (such as Lev 23:22) create a situation in which the poor are better cared for, so that they would not feel forced into participating in the indentured servitude system. In the New Testament, there are verses (such as Gal 3:28, Phil 2:3, and Philemon 15-16) that undermine slavery as a whole.

Burned for the Wrong Clothes?

Perhaps the clearest indication that Sorkin's treatment of Old Testament law is made in bad faith (rather than just being a case of misunderstanding) is when he has Bartlet ask: "Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?" From this question, viewers who have not carefully read Leviticus or Deuteronomy would assume that the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty (and specifically burning) for wearing mixed-cloth garments. It simply does not.

Conclusion

In certain atheist/agnostic circles, mocking statements like those made by President Bartlet on The West Wing are prevalent. Christians should be equipped and ready to give a defense of God's Word. More than anything, we must be confident in pointing others to Christ. Whatever the specific modern-day application of a particular biblical law might be, the law as a whole shows us that when God gives us standards, we fall short of those standards. We are all sinners in need of a Savior. Jesus perfectly kept the law that we could not keep, He paid the penalty for our sins on the Cross, and He rose again on the third day, conquering sin, death, and Hell for all who believe in Him.