The Shellfish Argument (again)

Bishop Waldo of the Diocese of Upper South Carolina resorted to the shellfish argument during the First Theological Council in that diocese. Such displays of ignorance of the New Testament by a bishop are breathtaking. What did he study in seminary? Obviously not much Bible.

For those who are not acquainted with the shellfish argument (there might be one person who hasn't heard it), it runs like this: the Old Testament prohibits eating shellfish and homosex, so if you eat shellfish you should not object to homosex.

As Christians we believe that the New Testament sets the interpretative framework for understanding the Old Testament. Further, as Christians we understand that the NT at times supercedes the OT. For example, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross in the perfect and final sacrifice for sin. There is now, on this side of the cross, no need for animal sacrifices.

Similarly, when Peter receives his vision (Acts 10) and is told by God that no animal is unclean, he reports this to the Church and the Church accepts his vision as a genuine revelation from God. Hence, the shellfish argument has no currency for Christians.

But that doesn't stop bishops like Waldo from using it. And it doesn't stop biblically illiterate Episcopalians from accepting it as true.