Achtemeier testifies in favor of the hate
crimes bill during hearings in Washington D.C.
By Paula R. Kincaid, The Layman, June 29, 2009
“I come before you as an Evangelical Christian, and an ordained minister of the Presbyterian Church (USA), seeking your support for the S. 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.” So began the Rev. Mark Achtemeier’s testimony before the U.S. Senate’s Committee on the Judiciary June 25.
For more information on the Hate Crimes bill read:
Christian activists united in fighting hate crimes bill
Why a Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity “Hate Crimes” Law Is Bad for You
by Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, if passed will expand a four-decades-old law that targets criminals motivated by hatred based on race, color, religion or national origin to include crimes motivated by the “actual or perceived” gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability of a particular victim or victims. It would also bring federal law enforcement powers to bear on local crime investigations when authorities suspect a hate motive.
Achtemeier, an associate professor of Systematic Theology and Ethics and the University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, told Senate committee members, “I myself am a Biblically-committed Presbyterian who has come to believe that we grievously misinterpret the Bible if we use it to condemn people solely on the basis of a sexual orientation they did not choose.”
“A great many of our people have been coming around to that point of view,” he said, “but many others aren’t there yet, and so the Presbyterian Church is split right down the middle on this question.”
Achtemeier’s use of the word “yet” parrots identical wording by the Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, former PCUSA stated clerk and other denominational officials who believe that the PCUSA’s endorsement of same sex behavior is inevitable.
Departing from Biblical tradition
Achtemeier is an ordained minister in the PCUSA who labels himself as “Biblically committed” and “an evangelical.” He was a member of a General Assembly task force that unanimously recommended that denominational governing bodies be given a waiver from the “fidelity in marriage between one man and one woman, or chastity in singleness” standard for sexual behavior. The 217th General Assembly approved the recommendation.
In 2005 The Layman Online posted an article reporting that, according to students in one of Achtemeier’s seminary classes, he told the class that he had changed his mind on the subject of homosexuality and that his new position represents a “departure from the Biblical tradition.” He said that on the issue of homosexual behavior he was more concerned “about the empirical evidence” than about Biblical tradition, and that he was unwilling to say that homosexual behavior is either a sin or not a sin.
He then asked the students not to repeat his statement outside of the classroom.
In a reply to The Layman’s article Achtemeier demanded an apology. “This is categorically false,” he said. “As a theologian of the church I consider myself absolutely bound to the authority of Scripture and the Lordship of Christ. I could not in good conscience hold to any position that contradicted biblical teaching.”
New Testament scholar disagrees
But respected Biblical scholars believe that Achtemeier has contradicted the clear teaching of the Bible on the subject of homosexual behavior. Among them is Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics (Abingdon Press) and co-author of Homosexuality and the Bible: Two Views (Fortress Press).
In The Bible and Homosexual Practice, Gagnon offered a thorough analysis of the Biblical texts relating to homosexuality, and concluded that the Bible says – repeatedly, forcefully and unambiguously – that homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s revealed will for His human creation.
In fact, Gagnon believes “that homosexual practice is a more serious violation of Scripture’s sexual norms than even incest, adultery, plural marriage, and divorce.”
Gagnon calls the hate crimes bill “a hate-promotion bill as regards the inclusion of ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ among the groupings slated to receive special protection.”
“So don’t fall for the line that, if you really love gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons, you will support this ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ ‘hate crime’ bill,” said Gagnon. “No, support for this bill does not mean that you oppose hateful, violent acts against persons who self-identify as homosexuals, transsexuals, and cross-dressers. Existing laws already make that point. Rather, it means that you support stigmatizing, marginalizing, and penalizing people who, lovingly or not, oppose homosexual practice and transgenderism. This is a hate-promotion bill.”
PCUSA engaged in vigorous debate
During his testimony before the senate judiciary committee, Achtemeier said members of his denomination who are debating the ethics of homosexual behavior need protection from the federal government. “Everybody needs to be able to speak their mind freely for that kind of debate to be productive. And that can’t happen if people are worried that they are liable to get beaten up in a dark alley somewhere if they speak freely about who they are and what they believe. We need the protections that the Matthew Shepard Act provides.”
Achtemeier dismissed any concerns that the hate crimes bill would censor Christians who “believe that homosexual behavior is contrary to the will of God” or use Biblical passages to speak against the sin of homosexuality. “If I believed for one minute that the effect of this bill was to curtail legitimate religious expression or observance, I would not touch it with a ten-foot pole,” he said.
Other Christian’s don’t agree
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council took the opposite view of Achtemeier in his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee. He said the hate crimes bill is “tantamount to federally prosecuting ‘thought crimes.’”
“Hate crime laws force the court to guess the thoughts and beliefs which lie behind a crime, instead of looking at the crime itself, in order to prosecute and convict someone of a hate crime,” said Perkins. “‘Hate crime’ laws put the perpetrator’s thoughts and beliefs on trial. Hate crime laws are tantamount to federally prosecuting ‘thought crimes.’”
“The Family Research Council believes that all crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and that every violent crime has some form of hate behind it,” said Perkins. “All around the country, crimes are being prosecuted in the state justice systems. American justice is being done,” he said. “There is simply no need for a federal hate crimes law.”
Perkins said that the impact the hate crimes law would hav
e on religious communities is “even more distressing. He said that examples from Europe and Canada have shown what can happen to Christians under hate crime laws.
“In some countries, pastors have been threatened for what they preach in the pulpit, and passing out the Bible can lead to hate crime prosecution. While the bill before us is ostensibly limited to acts which cause ‘bodily harm,’ it would put us on a slippery slope toward the punishment of so-called ‘hate speech’ as well,” he said.