The liberal theologians I have been dialoging with are spokesmen for the "Jacksonville Declaration", which is a religious/political statement that was recently drafted by a group of liberals and self proclaimed theologians in Florida. The group is claiming the goal of "taking back" Christianity from conservatives. One of the issues that they are speaking out on, as you will see, is the "full acceptance" of gays and lesbians in the Church.
Reading these conversations will give you a great deal of insight into liberal religious thinking.
My goal in engaging these liberal theologians was not to win them over to a more Bible-honoring worldview, but to let the Christians who read the letters see that the liberal arguments that were presented were fraught with problems and inconsistencies.
----------------------------------------------------------------
BLUE = My After-The-Fact Commentaries about the Conversations
BROWN = Writings of the Liberal Theologians
BLACK = My Writings
----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
The first time I wrote in to the Jacksonville Declaration blog was in response to what "Public Theologian" wrote to a Christian woman. When she expressed her frustration that PT believes it is evil to regard homosexuality as a sin, he told her that his group doesn’t label ANYBODY as evil. I attempted to point out the hypocrisy of his statement:
-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Public Theologian:
You said:
"We don't label people who disagree with us as 'evil'. If you can find that on this site I will be glad to see to it that it is removed, because this organization exists to keep alive dissenting views, even ones with which we disagree."
And then you said:
"What we do find evil is the mistreatment of gays and lesbians by people who use their Christianity as moral cover to mask their prejudice. That is something very different than mere disagreement."
Are you saying that you wouldn't label me as "evil" if I disagree that gays and lesbians should be treated fairly and should be allowed to marry? If I want to "mistreat" gays in this way, and if I disagree with you on this discussion, you certainly would call me "evil". If I "use my Christianity as a moral cover to mask my prejudice", you certainly do label me as evil, do you not? Therefore, please recant your statements that
"We don't label people who disagree with us as 'evil'." and "...this organization exists to keep alive dissenting views, even ones with which we disagree."
And by the way--shouldn't we be discussing what the Bible sais about this subject, since this IS supposed to be a religious forum?
-------------------------------------------------------
Note that in his response back to me, PT actually said that a true follower of Jesus would never bar homosexuals from marrying each other!
-------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wagner,
The Bible doesn't talk about gay marriage but we can infer that covenant life is the best kind of life from a myriad of scriptures in both testaments. That is why religious conservatives have been so right in preaching the virtues of marriage to a society that would just rather shack up.
The person I disagree most in the world is my wife. But I hardly think she is evil. There is a world of difference between disagreement, even on matters of substance, and maltreatment, which is what we are talking about here. I have no problem identifying the discrimination against gays as evil any more than I would discrimination against any other group of people. That's not based on some liberal principle of loving everybody no matter what, but rather based on the biblical demand to love my neighbor like I love myself, which is according to Jesus the very core of all of biblical law. Having reaped all the benefits of marriage myself, what kind of follower of Jesus would I be to deny these same benefits to others? That is the very opposite of the good news of Jesus Christ.
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.T.,
You are right when you say
"The Bible doesn't talk about gay marriage but we can infer that covenant life is the best kind of life from a myriad of scriptures in both testaments".
Many Scriptures DO say that living in a marriage covenant is the best kind of life. It is true that the Bible doesn't speak of gay marriage, but isn't that because it is clear that this sort of marriage would be intrinsically sinful?
(Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination).
----------------------------------------------
The issue that the Alliance [the "Christian Alliance for Progress"] is discussing in the public sphere is not whether homosexuality is a sin or not. The New Testament also teaches that it is a sin to be "unequally yoked," or married, to a non-Christian but where is the Religious Right trying to prevent couples of different faiths from getting married, lest they be promoting the "interfaith lifestyle," winking at what God calls sin. That the Religious Right does not take such a stand is the clear sign that what is being argued about gay marriage is not some faithfulness to biblical principle but just good old-fashioned garden-variety bigotry. So when you begin your campaign to deprive interfaith couples a marriage license then you will have some street cred. with me and we can talk; or put in biblical terms, get the beam out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in mine.
The question is not whether this or that is a sin. The question is whether we are going to create a class of second-class citizens. It is very simple. We don't think that there is anything in the gospels to suggest that this is what Jesus would want.
Regards,
PT
------------------------------------------------
In my response back to Public Theologian, I wanted to get the point across to him that the Christians in the conservative media (I list a couple names in my response) do not usually speak for me, and that I think that he was RIGHT in saying that prominent right-wingers don’t speak out about common sins such as inter-faith marriages.
---------------------------------------------------
PT,
You said:
"The New Testament also teaches that it is a sin to be "unequally yoked," or married, to a non-Christian but where is the Religious Right trying to prevent couples of different faiths from getting married, lest they be promoting the "interfaith lifestyle," winking at what God calls sin...
So when you begin your campaign to deprive interfaith couples a marriage license then you will have some street cred. with me and we can talk; or put in biblical terms, get the beam out of your own eye before commenting on the speck in mine."
Although we are worldviews apart on the issue of civil marriage, I must say that you are correct in saying that there is hypocrisy with the Rel. Right. I don't hear the Limbaughs or the Hannitys rebuking a Christian woman who is married to a Roman Catholic or to a Muslim or to a Jew. This IS sin, and it is often (but not always) IGNORED in today's pop-Christian culture.
As soon as I graduate from seminary and get behind a pulpit, I will NEVER officiate an interfaith wedding. I believe that pastors who do this are no less sinful (or at least not MUCH less sinful) than pastors who allow two women or two men to marry.
My point of all this is to say that although I despise liberalism and the "theology" that comes out of it, I also, (like yourself), despise today's pop-Christian right-wing "theology".
------------------------------------------
As you will see in what follows, PT never got back to me on this. I did, however, receive a response from a man who I accidently offended. I originally assumed that he was a Roman Catholic, but I later found out (by researching his own blog) that he is a self proclaimed Christian Humanist. My apology to him is seen right after his words to me.
-------------------------------------------
You write that "I don't hear the Limbaughs or the Hannitys rebuking a Christian woman who is married to a Roman Catholic or to a Muslim or to a Jew. This IS sin, and it is often (but not always) IGNORED in today's pop-Christian culture."
I'm sorry, but I can't take at all seriously the opinion of someone who thinks Roman Catholics are not Christian.
Fortunately, you don't get to decide who's Christian and who's not, let alone who's saved and who's not, and I imagine you have a surprise or two coming on the other side of eternity--as do we all.
Dave Trowbridge.
---------------------------------------------
To Dave Trowbridge, who said "I'm sorry, but I can't take at all seriously the opinion of someone who thinks Roman Catholics are not Christian":
You're right; I shouldn't have said that. I'm sure that there are many Catholics who will be in heaven, and many Protestants who will be in hell.
-------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A liberal theologian (and spokesman for the Jacksonville Declaration) named "Jake" chimed in to the debate:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am amazed by those who claim that the 5 verses that supposedly refer to homosexuality (which is questionable; the term didn't even exist at the time the scriptures were written) must be understood as absolute law.
Are you who are so sure of how God views same sex relationships really claiming that you follow all the bible?
What about, as but one example, all the passages that instruct us regarding which crimes merit capital punishment?
A rebellious child shall be stoned to death (Deut. 21:18-21).
Working on Saturday is a capital crime (Ex. 35:2).
Ignoring the advice of your priest is grounds for execution (actually, I kind of like that one!;) (Deut. 17:12).
And, let's not forget gluttony and drunkeness; all shall be killed (Deut. 21:20).
I would hope that no one follows these passages literally. If you do, you need to be locked up to protect the rest of us!
Yet, when it comes to [homosexuality], all of a sudden we have to follow every letter of the law. A very curious thing.
I suggest that what is really going on is the "ick factor." Let me tell you how it works;
My grandmother used to make me eat cauliflower. I hate this stuff. It makes me ill even to smell it. I know it is a sin to cook this vegetable, and I think it should be against the law to do so!
Some heterosexuals find even imagining [homosexuality] to be icky. So, it must be a sin. They find a few verses, and a few preachers who agree with them, and start condemning all gays to a life of being second class citizens in God's kingdom.
Sorry, that doesn't sound very Christian to me. At the least, we should be able to acknowledge that it is not our place to judge committed, long term relationships. It would seem in this world, where the consequences of promiscuous sex are devastating, that we would be advocating for more committed relationships, not fewer.
I have a difficult time believing that a position founded on personal bigotry could ever be considered Christian. But there I go, judging others. Forgive me.
We must agree to disagree. But please, spare me the lecture on what makes a "real Christian." Been there, got the t-shirt, and am not convinced.
--Jake
----------------------------------------
Although I didn’t at THIS POINT comment on his erroneous "ick-factor" theory, I responded to him regarding his faulty belief that I (and others) do not follow ALL of the Bible. (You will see later how I responded to his "ick-factor" theory...
---------------------------------------
Dear Jake,
I have to take issue with what you said. You quoted some passages:...
"A rebellious child shall be stoned to death (Deut. 21:18-21).Working on Saturday is a capital crime (Ex. 35:2).Ignoring the advice of your priest is grounds for execution (Deut. 17:12).And, let's not forget gluttony and drunkenness; all shall be killed (Deut. 21:20).I would hope that no one follows these passages literally. If you do, you need to be locked up to protect the rest of us!Yet, when it comes to gay sex, all of a sudden we have to follow every letter of the law. A very curious thing."
The problem I have with this is that all of the sins that are mentioned in these Old Testament passages are indeed STILL SINS TODAY. In the New Covenant, which Christ is the mediator of, the difference is that the CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS of these sins are no longer in affect.
I believe that it is a sin to ignore the Sabbath (which turned in to Sunday in New Testament times instead of Saturday), but I am no longer to be executed if I break that command. Children are in SIN when they rebel, but they are no longer to be executed when they rebel (in these times since Christ has appeared).
Likewise, homosexuality IS STILL a sin today (Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.'), but the Old Testament command to put homosexuals to death no longer applies today (in these times since Christ has appeared). The civil law and the ceremonial law no longer applies to Christians. The moral law, however, does apply to us today. (The 10 commandments are an example of the moral law).
Christians are commanded to LOVE homosexuals, and what better way is there to do this than to plead with them to live in a way that the Bible condones?
-----------------------------------------
Jake’s response back to me also included some of his responses to other people who wrote him to express their disgust in Jake’s views of civil marriages. As you will see, I chose not to write him back about his Biblically-ignorant response to ME (in which he displays some very insulting views about God), but I responded instead to his using Greek to try to prove to other Christians (named "Gumby" and Greg) that the Bible doesn’t really condemn homosexuality!
--------------------------------------------
So, you have decided to keep the sin, but change the sentence? On what basis? You are dismissing God's word regarding the execution of those who mow the lawn on Saturday? I'd suggest such selective setting aside the parts of scripture you don't like is no different than what you accuse me of.
The point of listing those sins and sentences was to highlight that those passages were written by primitive people during primitive times. The God they depict is a petty, jealous tyrant, who smites people for the most minor infraction of the law. Remember the story of Elisha and the children? God has bears maul the kids because they teased the prophet. Are we to accept this is describing the true character of God, or is it the perspective of the Hebrew people thousands of years ago? In the same way, we find God described as being quite homophobic, as well as condoning slavery, women as property, and quite a few other things that would be unacceptable to us today.
We use human reason to develop a hermeneutic with which to prioritize scripture. Some is culturally specific. Some is beautiful and inspiring. And some is just plain twisted.
Joe, thanks for the lecture, but I'll suggest to you that if you don't think there's a theocracy brewing, you haven't watched the news lately. And btw, the dominionists do indeed teach that homosexuals should be executed. These are the "good Christians" we should listen to?
Gumby, regarding I Corinthians 6:9; it depends on how you translate "malakoi arsenokoitai," which is the actual phrase used. The first term means "soft." The second is not so clear. It had been used to describe a male temple prostitute, but the early church understood the phrase to refer to one who had "soft morals." For some time, it was thought to refer to masturbation. There is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual," which is a combining of the Greek "homo" (the same) and the Latin "sexualis" (sex). No bible before the Revised Standard Version in 1946 used "homosexual" in any translation.
Greg, it so happens that I have read the bible a few times, although I may be guilty of being ignorant. I do wonder if you have read that entire section of Romans? The first three chapters are pretty closely yoked to one another; you can't really pull a piece of those chapters out of context and really get their meaning, it seems to me.
But, just the same, let's talk about the first chapter. I suspect the phrase in question is "committing indecent acts," or in the KJV, "working that which is unseemly." The Greek word is "askemosunen." It is the term for "external appearance" with a negative particle. It is a reference to the interior or hidden parts of a person that are usually not revealed. I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim this is a condemnation of same sex love within a committed, long-term relationship, wouldn't you?
We may want to read a little further, to Romans 2:1. That seems to be an apropriate passage for this discussion;
"Therefore you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment, for in that you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things."
---------------------------------------
P.T. also tried to justify homosexuality at this point by breaking out the Greek text. Again, this was aimed at "Gumby"...
--------------------------------------
Dear Gumby--
The word in question is the term "arsenokoitai," and it is a combination of wto other Greek words, "male" and "bed". If anybody tells you that they know what the word means they are lying, because this a aneologism, a word Paul made up. This is the first time the word is ever used in the Greek language--take a look in any Greek lexicon if you don't want to take my word for it. The term is used in a list so it has no narrative context. You might think you know what a word means with "male" and "bed" as roots until you consider English words like "watercloset" which would give little indication that what was being referred to was a "restroom", which is just another euphenism. That is not any kind of evidence except for people who have already made up their minds as to what God thinks of homosexuals and who go fishing to find their justification in the scripture...
–P.T.
----------------------------------------------
Since "Gumby" admitted that he knew no Greek, and was therefore at the mercy of modern English translations, I chimed in and decided to challenge these liberals’ use of Greek. I am not sure if I did a noble job with the text or not, but I gave it the best shot that I could with the knowledge of Greek that I have:
----------------------------------------------
Dear PT and Jake:
I feel that I need to take issue with your translations of "malakoi", "arsenokoitai", and "askemosunen". May I ask what your sources are (out of genuine curiosity)?
First of all, Jake, you said that "malakoi" means "soft". Actually, "malakoi" (from malakos) can be translated "soft" in the sense of "effeminate" (according to Dr. James Strong's Greek Dictionary) or "voluptuous persons" (according to the interlinear translation by the British scholar Dr. Alfred Marshall). The word can also be translated as "luxurious" or - and this is a bit blunt; please don't shoot the messenger - "homosexual pervert" (according to the dictionary of the UBS's 4th Revised Edition of the Greek New Testament).
Secondly, as PT pointed out, "arsenokoitai" is a nominative-masculine noun that is derived from "arsen" (male; man) and "koite" (a couch; cohabitation). According to the same sources I listed above, it can be understood as romantic love between men and we label this as being "homosexual" in English. Who told you that it should not be translated as relations between men just because Paul "made the word up"? Who told you that hundreds of reliable and trusted Greek scholars are "lying" when they concluded that Paul was writing about homosexuality? What are your sources? Is it really logical to believe that Paul would just make up a random, meaningless word that his readers (hearers) would never have been able to understand? That would be ludicrous. Paul knew that his readers would understand exactly what he was talking about. He knew they would figure out that when the words "man" and "bed" were combined within a list of sinful practices, his recipients would take that word to mean a "man" in "bed" with a "man". What do you (or your sources) think he REALLY meant by using his word "arsenokoitai"? Could it have meant "killers"? Could it have meant "gossipers"? Probably not. Could it have meant "man" in "bed" with a "woman"? Or "man" in "bed" with an "angel"? Could it have meant a "man" who loves "beds" too much? Or a "man" who is "cruel" to "beds"? WHAT ELSE COULD PAUL POSSIBLY HAVE MEANT by "arsenokoitai"? PT, I don't buy your assertion that we can't translate "arsenokoitai" because "the term is used in a list so it has no narrative context". I would bet that the scads of Greek Scholars who have been translating our English versions for many years have got the right idea with this word. The ball is in your court; explain to me why I should believe that many hundreds of men and women are either "lying" (as PT accuses them of) or are simply making bad, unfounded, careless stabs in the dark about "arsenokoitai". I also doubt that one scholarly guy long ago said "Hey - let's make arsenokoitai mean "homosexual!" and all the other scholarly guys just blindly followed suite. I really doubt that these people are all incompetent boobs.
Jake, you said that "there is no word in biblical Greek or Hebrew that is parallel to the word "homosexual," which is a combining of the Greek "homo" (the same) and the Latin "sexualis" (sex)". Why do you say that? The reason why all of the Greek-English translators since the 1946 RSV use the word "homosexual" in their translations is simply because it is our English word for a man who is intimate with another man; NOT because it is supposed to be a Greek or Hebrew parallel! No translator is claiming that there is a Greek or Hebrew parallel to the word "homosexual"! There doesn't need to be a parallel. The fact that there is no parallel to the WORD doesn't mean that homosexuality was not the IDEA or the CONCEPT in Paul's mind when he wrote the verse. The question, then, is: Whose sources are right? Which are the more accurate lexicons? Mine or yours?
Thirdly, "askemosunen" can be translated "shameless acts" or "shame of nakedness" according to the above mentioned sources, as well as "indecency" and "that which is unseemly". The word is derived from "askemon" which can be translated as "inelegant" or "uncomely".
By claiming that these three Greek words do not really mean what all of our modern English translations say they mean, you guys are challenging the knowledge of hundreds of great Greek scholars. A few of them are Jonathan Watt, Daniel B. Wallace, Barbara Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger, Allen Wikgren, William Mounce, and Alfred Marshall. Why should I believe your sources over all of these great and learned scholars? Are you prepared to say that EVERYBODY involved with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research has got these words WRONG?
-----------------------------------------------------
A new liberal theologian entered the battlefield at this point. He called himself John G; he responded to me first, followed by PT, followed by R. Johnson (note his 3 word response!), followed by Jake.
----------------------------------------------------
Mr. Wagner,
No, they're not wrong. They're just doing the job of a Biblical translator: To translate the text out of a dead language and into a modern one.
The Bible is full of gaps, inconsistencies, and words so rooted in cultural context, no proper translation can be made.
Any act of translation involves interpretation as well. When Luther first translated the Bible into German, he commented that as a translator, he was obliged to shed light into these dark parts of the Bible. Since then, Biblical translators have often tried to fill in the gaps.
People don't tend to want a Bible in which key words are untranslated and footnoted with long explanations of what the word might be and what the cultural context might be. People look for Bibles that tell them exactly what the word of God is in modern day language.
To assume that anything resembling our modern day understanding of homosexuality existed in Paul's day is a stretch to say the least. I encourage anyone who doubts this to not only do some significant research into ancient Greek and ancient Hebrew sexuality, but also to check out research on patriarchal societies in general. In a patriarchal society, what we would call heterosexual marriage is a must. Society relies on families, tyrannically headed by a male, to exersize control. This is the picture of marriage the Bible gives us. The Bible never calls it a patriarchy, because it was simply the assumed cultural backdrop of the authors. We no longer live in a patriarchy, and so it is our task to read between the lines. We have to ask ourselves, what is the Bible trying to teach us about justice in this story? How can I apply teachings about patriarchal society to modern day society? How do I apply teachings of sexuality in a patriarchy to teachings about sexuality today? How do I apply teachings about a society that had temple prostitutes (ancient Israel's neighbors) or that freely let grown men use boys as sex objects (Hellenistic culture) to a society today?
John G.
--------------------------------------
Some of the NT scholars who have weighed in one this subject whose books are on my shelf and whose articles are in my files are Robin Scroggs, William Countryman, Victor Paul Furnish, Robert Brawley, Dale Martin, Dan Via, and Jeffrey Siker. This represents only a smidgen of the biblical scholars who are calling for the full acceptance of gays and lesbians on biblical and theological grounds. In my denomination alone, the Presbyterian Church USA, more than fifty professors of biblical studies signed a statement in 2001 to that effect. And these are no third-rate hacks either--their number included at least two former presidents of the largest academic society of biblical scholars in the world, the Society of Biblical Literature (of which I am also a member), namely Walter Brueggemann (my teacher) and Patrick Miller. You may not be aware of it but this topic has been discussed at length for the last thirty years in academic circles as well as in mainline churches. What we are talking about here, which seems very new to some people such as yourself, has been going on for a generation in my circles.
The problem with your interpretation is that you use clairvoyance rather than reason to interpret arsenokoitai. You do not know what Paul was thinking when he used that word, although you assume that what you think about homosexuality is buttressed by that term. It may mean something related to same sex practice, but exactly what is not clear. Is this a prohibition against men molesting children? Does it involve coercion of any kind? Is there money involved, i.e. male prostitution? Is there idol worship involved, as is the case in Romans 1 and in other places that we know of from antiquity in which same sex practices occurred as part of the cult rituals in pagan temples? Is this a reference to being the passive partner in a male sexual relationship, congruent with the prohibition of being the passive partner in some cultures which see nothing wrong with males adopting the supposedly more "natural" role of the insertive partner but which revile any display of passivity in men? In none of these instances can you provide an answer as to what the apostle is referring to, yet you recklessly demand based on this paltry evidence that the church willy-nilly apply it to whatever sexual relationship between men that strikes its fancy. But that is not how ethics or law is done, except perhaps by kangaroo courts.
Proper legal and ethical reasoning proceeds by analogy: THIS statute or principle fits THAT situation. And herein lies your quandry, for neither do you have a statute nor a principle. All you have is a word without any context and moreover a word that seems to have been made up just for the occasion. You simply cannot make any kind of normative ethical declaration across the yawning gap of time, language and culture that exists between Paul's world and ours without imposing your understanding of the matter onto the biblical text, which has little interest in the subject. You've written more about it in two days on this blog than the biblical writers did collectively in a thousand years! This is your obsession, not the Bible's.
Regards,
PT
------------------------------------------
Well said, PT.
--R. Johnson
------------------------------------------
"Malakoi"is also used in Matthew 11:8 to describe "soft" cloth. I think "soft" is a fair translation.
You and PT are correct that a literal translation of "arsenokoitai" would be "male bed". Consequently, it is not surprising that Martin Luther would think that what "soft male bed" referred to was masturbation.
There has been much disagreement as to what "arsenokoitai" means, and much moreso in the last twenty years, as these passages have come under closer scrutiny. Most scholars will admit to being unsure of the meaning, as it is a very unusual term. My point was simply to make clear that there is no firm interpretation of this rather obscure word.
As I mentioned before, an early understanding of the term was "male prostitute." I'm not sold on that one, but it may be close.
To figure it out, 1 Timothy 1:8-10 is helpful, where the term is also used. Some things can be deduced by the structure of the passage. Various terms are yoked together, forming a pattern, such as "Murders of fathers / murders of mothers / manslayers." But "arsenokoitai" is placed between "pornoi" and "andrapodistai", translated in the KJV as "whoremongers / them that defile themselves with mankind / men-stealers." They don't seem to fit together in the same way that the other parts of this passage do.
If we look at the other two terms more closely, a possible pattern emerges.
"Pornos" derives from the verb "pernemi" meaning "to sell." "Andrapodistai" is a slave dealer, kidnapper or "man-stealer."
So, if we place "arsenokoitai" (male bedder) between the prostitute and the slave trader. what might this term be? One who beds the prostitute, to the profit of the trader.
This may have been a reference to the boy prostitutes common in that culture, referred to "catamites." These were boys or young men who were kept for the purposes of prostitution. This practise was common in the Greco-Roman world.
Would bedding a boy prostitute be a sin? Sure. It's all about lust, and abusing a child. Sex as a response to nothing but lust is usually sinful. Abuse of a child is always sinful.
"Askemosunen" is, literally, "not outward appearing." If something is showing that shouldn't be, it could be shameful. But it could also be a reference to one's inner being.
PT provided you some good names. My choices would also include Countryman, as well as David Fredrickson, John Boswell and the scourge of all things conservative, John Shelby Spong.
Arguing the bible is usually an end run around what is really going on, it seems to me. We probably aren't going to get anywhere with these kinds of discussions.
For instance, let's assume you convince me that Paul was condemning all forms of homosexuality. It wouldn't change my view of things. Paul is well known for being a mysoginist (women should be silent, submissive, etc.), yet it is recognized that this is a perspective he inherited from the culture in which he lived. Both the Jewish and Roman cultures were very partiarchal. Paul also did not speak out against slavery, even though he had many opportunities. If Paul was indeed condemning all homosexuality, he would be responding to the Jewish tradition in which he was raised, which found homosexuality to be shameful because the male would be placed in a submissive position.
Most Christians today recognize Paul's cultural biases, and no longer treat women as inferior beings and have condemned slavery as an evil institution. In the same way, some Christians have come to recognize that is wrong, regardless of what Paul said (or didn't say, depending on what scholar you choose), to treat gay Christians as second class citizens in the kingdom of God.
Beyond that, it was assumed by Paul, and the authors of the OT, that everyone was born heterosexual. Consequently, the concept of homosexuality, a person born with that particular sexual orientation, was beyond their comprehension. Thus my comment that "homosexual" is a term that is not an appropriate translation of any biblical text.
And finally, we are not primarily talking about lust today; we are talking about love. I find no place in scripture where two people of the same sex in a committed, long-term relationship are mentioned. To assume that every relationship is all about sex is unrealistic, unless you are 20 years old. Let me assure you, as a 50 year old man, my relationship with my wife is not primarily about sex! It is about companionship, caring, and commitment.
Why should the heterosexual majority be allowed to dictate to a minority sexual orientation who they can choose as a life partner?
As I've said before, having led quite a few discussions on these matters, I am convinced that the disagreement is not about the bible; it is about the "ick factor." And, until a person is willing to address that factor, all the words in the world are but straw.
One final consideration. If you are willing, take a look at this article, which offers some insights that I found rather revealing; Fear of the Feminine.
–Jake
------------------------------------------------------
I responded to all of these defensive attacks by giving them three separate open letters. Here was my response to John G:
------------------------------------------------------
John G;
First of all: about your comment that
"To assume that anything resembling our modern day understanding of homosexuality existed in Paul’s day is a stretch to say the least":
I couldn’t disagree with you more. The modern day understanding of homosexuality involves a man in bed with another man, which is clearly seen in a verse of the Old Testament that Paul and the people of his day knew quite well (Leviticus 20:13: 'If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination). Regardless of whether or not there is any devotion or love between them, men in bed with men has been prohibited in Scripture since mankind can remember.
Are you actually suggesting that 21st century homosexuality is some new thing that was non-existent in ancient times? If you REALLY believe this, could you please ask certain people from the gay community to stop insisting that David and Jonathan from the Old Testament were gay? Should we really say to these people "How could they have been gay? Our modern day understanding of homosexuality didn’t exist yet?" I have also been told be some people from the gay community that the verse saying "men left the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another" (Rom. 1:27) means that the natural function for THESE PARTICULAR men was for women, and so even though THEIR homosexuality was a sin, it is NOT a sin for men to be gay if THEIR natural function - unlike the men spoken of in Rom 1:27 - is for other men. My response to them has always been "The Greek word in Rom. 1:27 is the word for ‘THE’ function; not ‘THEIR PARTICULAR’ function". Should I have instead told them "Rom. 1:27 CAN’T be allowing men to be gay if their natural function isn’t for women, because our modern day understanding of homosexuality didn’t exist in Paul’s day"?
Although my convictions against homosexuality offend people in the gay community, I’ll bet that they’d also be just a bit offended at the view that modern day homosexuality did not always exist within humanity.
Secondly: To say that the Bible gives us a picture of marriage as being "tyrannically headed by a male to exercise control" is to show your complete disregard for:
Ephesians 5:25 (which commands husbands to love their wives as they love their own selves, and clearly implies that men should be ready to give themselves over to their wives as Christ gave himself for his Church on the cross);
Ephesians 6:4 (which teaches men to be gentle with their children ["Fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath"]);
Colossians 3:19 (which teaches men "love your wives, and do not be bitter towards them); and
Colossians 3:21 (which teaches men to give an environment of encouragement to their children ["Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged"]).
Where is the tyrannical control you speak of? When Paul tells wives to submit themselves to their husbands in Eph. 5:22, he is teaching us that God intends marriage to be a reflection of Christ and the Church ("The husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the Church; and He is the Savior of the Body"). Your view of what the Bible teaches about the man’s role in marriage is dead wrong. The Bible’s emphasis is NOT the husband’s authority to govern, but his responsibility and commandment to LOVE his wife and children. (I know that this is off of the homosexuality issue, but I can’t let the ‘tyrannical control’ remark slide).
-----------------------------------------------
Here is my response to PT (and, indirectly, R. Johnson):
-----------------------------------------------
No, R. Johnson, what PT wrote was NOT "well said".
I’ll try to point out to you why I say that in what follows:
PT, Thanks for the list of your sources; (I hope I’ll find some time to look in to some of their views and argumentations). I must ask you though: Why are they "calling for full acceptance of gays and lesbians on BIBLICAL and theological grounds" if the typical view in your circles is that the Bible is not fully and verbally inspired by God? If the Bible is full of "gaps" and "inconsistencies" (as John G. sais), and if Paul was simply regurgitating his "cultural biases (as Jake sais), and if "arguing the Bible is usually an end run around what is really going on" (Jake again), then WHY would people from your circles use this unreliable and fallible collection of human errors to argue that gays and lesbians should have full acceptance into the Church? Why use such worthless literature for anything at all? Why not just say "The Bible is garbage. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with homosexuality". That’s exactly what I would say if I believed that the Bible is full of errors and cultural biases. Jake went so far as to say that some Christians believe that to call homosexuality a sin is wrong "REGARDLESS OF WHAT PAUL SAID"! If this low view of the Bible is held by the scholars in your circles, why did more than 50 professors of biblical studies from the P.C.(USA) sign a statement in 2001 to call for the full acceptance of gays and lesbians ON BIBLICAL GROUNDS?
You say that your problem with my interpretation of arsenokoitai is that I use "clairvoyance rather than reason". Again, are you really prepared to say that NOBODY involved with the Institute for New Testament Textual Research uses reason in this issue? Unless I see William Mounce or the other scholars that I trust agree that its improper to use arsenokoitai in the standard and usual way, I’ll continue to trust the traditional translation and to assume that they are not lying or trying to use clairvoyance. Do you think that Walter Brueggemann [[one of PT’s teachers]] would be willing to tell the scholars involved with the United Bible Society that they don’t always use reason to translate the words in the UBS Greek New Testament?
------------------------------------------------
Here is my response to Jake. (Note my refutation of his shoddy ‘ick factor’ theory):
------------------------------------------------
Jake,
You say that "malakoi" is used in Mt. 11:8 to describe "soft" cloth, and that "soft" is therefore a fair translation. Sure, "soft CLOTH" is a fair translation of malakoi in Mt 11:8 in light of its context. But "soft MAN" (or "effeminate") is a fair translation of malakoi in 1 Cor. 6:9 in light of ITS context.
About your view that arsenokoitai might refer to catamites: the Reformation Study Bible (a popular Bible among some conservative Christians) agrees. A footnote attached to 1 Cor. 6:9 reads "Catamites; those submitting to homosexuals".
If you take a look at the post I sent for PT, you’ll see my thoughts regarding what you said about the ‘cultural biases’ of Scripture. If you read what I said to John G., you’ll see my response to what you have to say about Paul’s treatment of women. Do you REALLY believe that Paul thought of women as inferior beings? Certainly you’ve read Eph. 5:25; 6:4, Col. 3:19, and 3:21 haven’t you?
You theory of the ‘ick factor’ doesn’t really make a whole lot of sense. There are countless thousands of Christians who struggle with same-sex attraction even though they fully believe that God prohibits it in the Bible. Sure, very many people say "ick!" when they see two men kissing (such as myself), but since many thousands of Christians find the same sex appealing to them but do all that they can to discipline themselves to please God instead of giving themselves sinful gratification, this ick-factor you speak of is simply not an issue in this debate. The disagreement is about the Bible rather than the discomfort that heterosexuals have with homosexuality.
About your condemning Paul for not speaking out against slavery:
You are making the same mistake that many other people make about the slavery issue. You are assuming that the slavery that was present in Paul’s day was similar to the horrible institution of slavery that took place in america. First of all, the slavery in Paul’s day often involved a person voluntarily giving himself as a slave in order to make amends for a debt he couldn’t pay. Secondly, it was not the type of slavery that involved a supposed "superior" race owning and controlling a supposed "inferior" race (like America saw some time ago). The third thing you need to consider is that the Bible commands slave owners to treat their slaves respectfully, with no threats (Eph. 6:9), and to grant their slaves justice and fairness (Col. 4:1). "Slavery" is an emotionally charged word, and for good reason I suppose. But the slavery seen in the Bible isn’t much like the slavery that Americans normally think of, and Paul’s lack of condemning the institution is NOT the same as his not condemning what happened in America!
-------------------------------------
There were a few responses to my last three letters. However, at this point the "God Also Created Adam and Steve: Straight Talk About Gay Marriage" article went into an obscure archive, so I didn't do any responding back. Here are the last responses to me. They are very insightful, shedding light on how liberal theologians "reason".
--------------------------------
I, too, have high view of scripture, but I have an even higher view of the Holy Spirit. When Jesus look his leave of his disciples he didn't tell them he was going to send them the Bible. He said he would send them the Holy Spirit and the Spirit would guide them into all truth. I hold the ancient and univeral theological belief in the inspiration of scripture, but I do not hold to its inerrancy, which is a novel view dating to the last two hundred and fifty years in the church that arose in reaction to the use of methodological approaches coming out of the Enlightenment. Fundamentalists, such as yourself, confuse the Bible with the object to which it points and thus attribute perfection, which is to be ascribed to God and God alone, to something that is not God, which in the faith of both Jews and Christians alike, is tantamount to idolatry.
BTW, Walter Brueggemann and I wrote a review of the Reformation Study Bible, as well as three other study Bibles, in the fall book issue of the journal Christian Century, published in October 2004, which you might want to take a look at.
Regards,
PT
---------------------------
My compliment to PT is not somehow negated by your belief to the contrary.
And I do not wish to turn the discussion in a new direction, but your comments on why Paul did not speak out against slavery, whether factually accurate or not, or based on your own beliefs, have all the trappings of moral relativism. If the slavery of Paul's time should be viewed differently because you can assign some economic justification to the practice, then lets not forget the economic justifications that have been used in the United States to justify slavery here. If you dig deeper in Paul's time, I think you will find that slavery did involve 'superior' and 'inferior' ethnic divisions.
--R. Johnson
----------------------------------------------The concept of "homosexuality" did not exist until the 19th century, when German academics and early phsychologists began using the term.
Previously, especially in the ancient world, people were just "sexual." David was the beloved of Jonathan and of Michal. Judah was married but also felt no restriction from "Coming into" prostitutes on the side of the road. People had sex with one another, not too much thought was put into it, accept in how it related to inheritance. (And because there was no real form of contraception other than to spill your seed on the ground, sexual freedom for women was thus more strongly restricted.)
It is a completely new thing for people to be thought of as having sexual attraction to people based on the GENDER as opposed to must feeling sexually attracted to people because they find them attractive. It is also a relatively new thing for us to think of marriage of this great love-bond based on attraction and love as opposed to a family-bond used to control the inheritance of property.
Sex is often seen as being demonized in the Bible as this dirty thing that seperates us from God. Or people think of sex as a gift from God only to be shared by married couples. The restrictions on sex in the Bible are closely related to restrictions on death, preparing the dead for burial, childbirth, and mentruation. All of these, including sex, are closely connected to the mysterious cycle of life and death. In ancient societies, these are the great mysteries and powers of the divine. Contact with these mystical forces of nature, in ancient Webrew thought, made one contaminated with the power of these mysterious forces of nature. In order to properly interact in the cultic rituals of Judaism, one had to be ritually purified, to have these contaminating factors removed. Not only do these laws of purity apply to the body, but they also apply to the land. The rules on how sex makes one "dirty" are the same rules that apply to how the land is made dirty from murder, or a person is made dirty for preparing a body for burial.
The writings of Paul betray these influences. For him, by not marrying, he is avoiding all of the ritual impurity and purification that he would have to go through if he were married and having sex.
Coming from a fiath tradition that respects these ancient restrictions, we can find ways to apply ancient understandings of nature, the life cycle, and female anatomy, we can garner some insight into how the laws of the past affect us today.
We can see that the Bible is not conserned with validating or invalidating the social order of the time. It is conserned with taking the given social order and making it as just as possible. In a society where we understand and recognize different sexual orientations and gender identities, the call of creating a just social order demands giving equal rights to these people. If the established social order endorses slavery, then the Bible seeks to protect the rights of slaves. If the established social order condems slavery, then the Bible requires us to build a just system without slavery.
--John G.
No comments:
Post a Comment