Jack Rogers, "Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality"

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I've just started reading a new book, <I>Jesus, the Bible and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church</>(Westminster/John Knox Press, 2006) by Jack Rogers, former Moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA), professor of Fuller Theological Seminary and an evangelical. Rogers writes about how his mind has changed about homosexuality and how he now supports the full inclusion of LGBT persons in the church.

Perhaps this thread can be a place where we can discuss this book. I'll post something from time to time as I read it.

Has anyone else gotten there hands on it?

Steven Webster

[tdogg]

Hi Steven,

I recently ordered and received that book. Haven't started reading tho - but sounds like I better so we can have a discussion!

I have just pulled it out of my waiting to read queue and into full reading duty!

[Steven E. Webster]

Jack Rogers addresses the fact that the story of Noah's curse on his son Ham became the justification of the enslavement of African Americans and the claim of African racial inferiority. This interpretation of scripture was not something invented to justify the Atlantic slave-trade, but goes back to ancient times. Author Stephen R. Haynes who wrote a book titled "Noah's Curse" is cited by Rogers as documenting this scriptural interpretation back to Jewish Rabbis, early church theologians, medieval Christendom, the Reformation, the early modern period, the Enlightenment, down into the nineteenth century.

St. Augustine, "provided a formulation that virtually became church doctrine," according to Rogers. Augustine wrote: "It is with justice, we believe, that the condition of slavery is the result of sin. And this is why we do not find the word 'slave' in any part of Scripture until righteous Noah branded the sin of his son with this name. It is a name, therefore, introduced by sin and not by nature."

Rogers, a Presbyterian evangelical writes: "Prior to and, for some, even after the Civil War, the leading theologians of the Presbyterian Church were absolutely confident that Africans were cursed and deserved slavery both for their nature and their willful sin. These theologians were not evil people per se. They were among the best thinkers and church leaders of their day. The church wholeheartedly agreed with them."

[Steven E. Webster]

Jack Rogers also refers to the Christian oppression of women as another analogy for our current debate over homosexuality.

Just as there was a curse on Ham by Noah in the early chapters of Genesis which was then extended to all Africans, so also there was a curse on Eve that was extended to all women. Eve was tempted by the serpent. She decided that the fruit of the forbidden tree would be a good thing to eat. She convinced her husband to eat the same fruit. Finally, there came this curse from God extending to all women: "Unto the woman [God] said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." (Genesis 3, KJV)

In another thread here, Dash quotes Paul (or pseudo-Paul in one of the Letters to Timothy--Dash, you didn't give us the citation. Am I right that it's Timothy?), who refers back to this passage in Genesis:
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."

As with the case with slavery and Africans, Rogers gives details of a long history of Christian theologians justifying the inferiority and oppression of women right down to the nineteenth century (and truth be told in continues in some circle to the day.)

Rogers writes:

"Men argued that (1) the Bible records God's judgment against the sin of women from their first mention in Scripture (the curse on Eve); (2) women were inferior in moral character and incapable of rising to the level of full white, male Christian civilization (because women were seen as emotional and not rational); and (3) women were willfully sinful, often sexually promiscuous and threatening and deserved punishment for their own acts (women tempt men)."

Does this sound familiar? Rogers concludes his chapter 2 of this book with the following:
(1)the Bible records God's judgment against the sin of people of African descent and women from their first mention in Scripture; (2) People of African descent and women were somehow inferior in moral character and incapable of rising to the level of full white male, "Christian civilization"; and (3) people of African descent and women were willfully sinful, often sexually promiscuous and threatening, and deserved punishment for their own acts.

Interestingly, the standard rap on gay people begins with those early chapters of Genesis ("God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" and "It's the only sin for which God destroyed a whole city!"). Rogers does an excellent job of showing how strong the analogy is between Biblical justification for racism and sexism and the present day justification of heterosexism. Naturally, our adversaries argue that there is no such analogy. I find Rogers convincing, especially because he knows his history and brings out good historical documentation to show how it really was when the church was debating slavery and women's roles.

[Dash]

Dash, you didn't give us the citation. Am I right that it's Timothy

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner Steven. Yes, it was from 1 Timothy 2:9-15.

[pnggrad79]

I read about the book on www.whosoever.org and sent the article to my brother in law. Consider his response:


Hi Margie,

I hope that you are well and are having a nice day. The weather here is a pleasant 60-65 with clouds but no rain. I really think Alaska is beautiful, but I do miss Texas!

In reading the message you sent I found it interesting that this message calls us to go back to the church's roots of "neo-orthodoxy." This is self-contradicting. Neo-orthodoxy is just what it calls itself. The word "orthodoxy" means "right practice." "Neo" means "new." Thus, "new-right-practice" is the meaning of "neo-orthodoxy." That neo-orthodoxy did not come on the scene until the early 20th century just shows that this is not the "roots" of the church. Yes the Church is built on Jesus Christ. But that He himself took a literal approach to interpretation of Old Testament Scripture is plain to see in His own teaching. Yet neo-othodoxy does not!

On another note, You have said before that Jesus does not address homosexuality as such. That is not really true. When he addressed DIVORCE he stated very clearly said: "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one fleah. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6, NASB) (The capital letters represent Jesus quotation of scripture, and are in the NASB text as caps, not my personal addition.) I wonder how you can justify having an adulterous relationship with Rebecca and then divorcing your husband, and say that Jesus is O.K. with that when he clearly states here that Divorce is wrong, and that from the beginning it was male and female! Margie, I do not hate you or Rebecca, and I know that Jay was not an ideal husband. I would even say that you had grounds for a legal separation, but not for a divorce. I hope that you will not hate me for sending this to you, but if you do I am in good company. Jesus told his disciples that the day would come when they would "be hated by all on account of [His] name." (Luke 21:17) Paul the apostle told Timothy of our day when he said that "the time would come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3-4). This is exactly what has happened to you.

Byron



Now this is just an example of the onslaught of hate and misinformation that I receive frequently from my family. What do ya'll think of his response? I haven't even answered him yet. :confused:

[tdogg]

Your brother-in-law is quite the martyr, oh and the expert too. My initial reaction was that he certainly doesn't deserve someone like you in his family. Then again, perhaps him and his family are lucky to have you in their lives, maybe they will eventually learn something, say like love??

I have those in my family too pnggrad - it's frustrating, irritating, and heartbreaking. I'm never sure exactly how to respond. Usually no matter how I approach it, this is the type of crap that gets shoved back on me.

If the Bible is God's definitive and literal word, then why are so many different translations and interpretations necessary? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that it would be one word, one document, one translation, one version? That's something that is very confusing to me. The other issue is, your brother in law using a lack of confirmation by Jesus to indicate something is sinful. I could probably list a couple pages of activites and traits that your brother in law may engage in or have that isn't specifically addressed or affirmed in scripture, therefore, according to his response it would be wrong.

Just some ideas anyway. Sorry you have to deal with this!

[Dash]

Yes the Church is built on Jesus Christ. But that He himself took a literal approach to interpretation of Old Testament Scripture is plain to see in His own teaching.

First of all, dear pnggrad, Ugh!!! I'm sorry you must endure such nonsense.

I encourage you with Jesus' words: "Be careful! Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Saducees." (Mat. 16:6) Today's teachers of the law are no less dangerous than the old Pharisees. (Over on the UMC Forums, they liked to say, "The Pharisees got a bad rap!" Hahah!!)

It would be a good exercise to look through the Gospels and take note of the times that Jesus actually quoted the scriptures. It wasn't very often, in truth, but when he did, it often went like this: "If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' (Hosea 6:6) you would not have condemned the innocent. Or..."Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions."

I get the feeling that Jesus' used scripture 1) to show who he was, 2) to explain how a true righteousness did not come from obeying the law, and 3) to offer hope for the average person who was unduly burdened and ostracized by the teaching of the Pharisees and Saducees. Our modern day conservatives might say that Jesus was "prooftexting" by using scripture in that way, but it remains that Jesus, while obviously well-studied in the text, generally looked at it quite differently than the teachers of the law.

On another note, You have said before that Jesus does not address homosexuality as such. That is not really true. When he addressed DIVORCE he stated very clearly said: "Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, 'FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH'? Consequently they are no longer two, but one fleah. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." (Matthew 19:4-6, NASB) (The capital letters represent Jesus quotation of scripture, and are in the NASB text as caps, not my personal addition.)

Of course, we know that Jesus was talking about divorce, not gay people. It's rather silly to assume that everytime "male" and "female" appear in the same sentence in the Bible that homosexuality is specifically being condemned. It still remains, despite all the prooftexting of our modern day teachers of the law, that Jesus did not address gay and lesbian people as such in the Gospels.


I hope that you are well and are having a nice day. The weather here is a pleasant 60-65 with clouds but no rain. I really think Alaska is beautiful, but I do miss Texas!
........

I wonder how you can justify having an adulterous relationship with Rebecca and then divorcing your husband, and say that Jesus is O.K. with that when he clearly states here that Divorce is wrong, and that from the beginning it was male and female! Margie, I do not hate you or Rebecca,

Absolutely disingenuous to begin a letter that way, condemn the person he's writing to, and then say, "I don't hate you." Love would never treat another person with such ugly inauthenticity. If you were to respond, I'd recommend you only reply regarding the weather.

Jesus told his disciples that the day would come when they would "be hated by all on account of [His] name." (Luke 21:17) Paul the apostle told Timothy of our day when he said that "the time would come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and will turn aside to myths." (2 Tim. 4:3-4). This is exactly what has happened to you.

Such passages always blow right back in conservatives' faces. We're not the one's hating... We're trying to love. They always believed that homosexuality was disgusting, and only seek out teachers to support that teaching.

We could also quote 1 Timothy 4 back at them: "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hyporcritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, becuase it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer."

Blah...blah... It doesn't do any good. It's all too easy to cut and be cut by scripture. It's more pleasant to find your own good news and inspiration in scripture and leave the Bible bludgeoning to those who hands are more fit for that than comforting. Continue to give God thanks for the blessing of your spouse, and pay no mind to the foolish words of the ungrateful and unkind.

You may walk in a dark land, pnggrad, but your light is not dimmed by the darkness of those around you. :love:

[Blossom]

If the Bible is God's definitive and literal word, then why are so many different translations and interpretations necessary? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that it would be one word, one document, one translation, one version? That's something that is very confusing to me.

Yes, there are many different translations of the Bible, but these translations are remarkably accurate. On the rare occurence when they do not agree, it usually reflects the fact that the original Greek or Hebrew text could be interpreted different ways. Sometimes, a phrase will be difficult to translate because we don't know the immediate context from which the author is writing. Just think of how difficult it is to learn idiomatic phrases in different languages--the literal word-for-word translation ain't necessarily right! (Just try translating "off the top of my head" and "on the tip of my tongue" into another language.) So, it takes great scholarly minds to translate, and any mistake made in the translation does not invalidate the original text.

In translation, we also have issues of the scribes' remarks (the asides, or commentary, written by the scribes who were copying the text), which were meant to be written in the margin only, sometimes being inadvertantly placed within the scriptural text rather than in the margin. But this is usually fixed by comparing it with other ancient manuscripts. When you take into account the difficulty of translating the Bible into English (with all that going from one language to another entails) and take into account the difficulty of putting together the many, many Scripture fragments that survived through the ages, we recognize that our modern English Bibles are miracles. Try reading the same Bible passage in several different Bible translations, and you will likely see that each version is saying the same thing.

If this is still confusing, please ask some more questions. There are a number of faith questions that can be confusing, but this doesn't need to be one of them. :)

Blossom

[Daniel]

Rogers, a Presbyterian evangelical writes: "Prior to and, for some, even after the Civil War, the leading theologians of the Presbyterian Church were absolutely confident that Africans were cursed and deserved slavery both for their nature and their willful sin. These theologians were not evil people per se. They were among the best thinkers and church leaders of their day. The church wholeheartedly agreed with them."

And the church agreed with them by making slave gallery's, one of which is still extant here in NYC.

http://www.artsusa.org/animatingdemocracy/reading_room/critical_perspectives_essays/002.asp#essay4

[tdogg]

"Yes, there are many different translations of the Bible, but these translations are remarkably accurate. On the rare occurence when they do not agree, it usually reflects the fact that the original Greek or Hebrew text could be interpreted different ways. Sometimes, a phrase will be difficult to translate because we don't know the immediate context from which the author is writing. Just think of how difficult it is to learn idiomatic phrases in different languages--the literal word-for-word translation ain't necessarily right! (Just try translating "off the top of my head" and "on the tip of my tongue" into another language.)"

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. Not to get into an argument on Biblical translation, but I just don't buy it as totally literal. I'm fairly well versed in the Bible having been raised AG since age 10 and having read it deeply since then. There are a lot of other issues regarding Biblical translation - I wasn't necessarily asking for assistance, more that I was pointing out the inconsistencies. But I appreciate the help and will definitely let you know when I could use some!! Thanks Blossom! :)

[Blossom]

Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm talking about. Not to get into an argument on Biblical translation, but I just don't buy it as totally literal. I'm fairly well versed in the Bible having been raised AG since age 10 and having read it deeply since then. There are a lot of other issues regarding Biblical translation - I wasn't necessarily asking for assistance, more that I was pointing out the inconsistencies. But I appreciate the help and will definitely let you know when I could use some!! Thanks Blossom! :)

Hi tdogg,

I'm not sure what you mean by literal. I was mainly responding to your statement:
If the Bible is God's definitive and literal word, then why are so many different translations and interpretations necessary? Wouldn't it be safe to assume that it would be one word, one document, one translation, one version? That's something that is very confusing to me.

I took this not as questioning of whether the words of the Bible are to be taken literally (parables, for instance, aren't literal...but I don't think this is what you meant), but whether or not they are trustworthy (or definitive).

Maybe it didn't come across, but one point I wanted to make was that even if there were major errors in translation, it would not reflect on the original document (or on God's original revelation through Scripture). Of course, there are many people who do not find the Bible to be the revealed word of God, but the issue of variant translations can't be used to support their belief/lack of belief.

Blossom

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Daniel mentioned the slave galleries in an old Episcopal Church in New York City. Here is a link to a story about an old Methodist Church in Philadelphia with a similar story, except it tells of African American resistance to such practices.

http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_stgeo.htm

The two significant African American figures referred to, Richard Allen and Absalom Jones, went on to become important leaders. Richard Allen founded the denomination still known as the African Methodist Episcopal Church and became its first Bishop, and Absalom Jones was ordained as the first African American priest of the Episcopal Church.

I've read Richard Allen's autobiography. The acts of resistance by African Americans in the late 18th century were inspiring. It was sad that the Methodist Episcopal Church, which was founded by abolitionist John Wesley, and which consisted of 25 percent African Americans in the early years in this country, eventually gave rise to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South that defended slavery. It was a transition from a small church of poor, low class whites and blacks to a huge denomination dominated by the wealthy and "upper" class.

I know a United Methodist ordained minister from Alabama who believes that the United Methodist Church today is dominated by the unwritten traditions of the Methodist Episcoapl Church, South, and that is what we face as we oppose anti-LGBT discrimination.

Also Kevin Phillips, in his new book, "American Theocracy," believes that the political turn to the right in our country involves a resurgence of "southern religion."

Steven Webster

[Jamie McDaniel]

Just a reminder, if members want to write a review for Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality you can do so here:

www.soulforce.org/application.php?application=amazon&action=showdetails&amazon_id=37 (http://www.soulforce.org/application.php?application=amazon&action=showdetails&amazon_id=37)

You have to be logged in to post a review.

Also if you have read a good book that:


isn't on the list (http://www.soulforce.org/amazon)
would be of interest to Soulforce members and visitors
you are willing to write a review for


send me a private message and we can add it.

[Joe Brummer]

Your brother-in-law is quite the martyr, oh and the expert too. My initial reaction was that he certainly doesn't deserve someone like you in his family.

First of all, dear pnggrad, Ugh!!! I'm sorry you must endure such nonsense.

Hi All,
I apologize in advance in my take on this is out of line with others beliefs or if I have oversteped my bounds.

I see the quotes above in response to the letter from a family member in the same thread about Jesus and Nonviolence, yet in our own way we responded with violence. We dismissed the brothers beliefs about the bible as nonsense, yet those are his beliefs. We may not agree, but we must respect that is what he believes. I would be more apt to ask why he believes it before I would violently dismiss it. I teriibly dislike it when my beliefs are dismissed, so I try my best not to dismiss others.

Falls into the quote from Janice Demujian: "get curious, not furious". Why does he believe this and can I respect that is what he believes. We can't change him, but we can change our response to him.

EVen to say that anyone doesn't deserve loving family members. That seems rahter violent too in my eyes. Of course this man deserves such a loving family member like you! We all deserve loving families even when those family member choose to live outside our own "beloved community". I try to keep even those I disagree with as part of my "beloved community". I have come to understand that living nonviolently means starting the beloved community with in myself and in my beloved community, all are welcome.

I say these things only so we will grow. I purposely left those quotes nameless since it does't really matter who said them, it is what we can learn from them. I learn from reading this how hard it is to live a nonviolent life both in word and deed. It is so easy to to be violent and takes such work to live nonviolent, but so worth every effort.

Again, I apologize if I have overstepped.

[tdogg]

Your brother-in-law is quite the martyr, oh and the expert too. My initial reaction was that he certainly doesn't deserve someone like you in his family. Then again, perhaps him and his family are lucky to have you in their lives, maybe they will eventually learn something, say like love??

Hi all and Joe - here is my response in entirety. My initial response was just that, he doesn't deserve someone like pnggrad in life. It was just my initial response. Of course Joe, I agree with you, everyone deserves loving family members - even those who have a difficult time expressing love. After the initial thought, I agreed, he is lucky to have pnggrad in his family. I appreciate your thoughts on this, but hope you read the quote in the entire context - I included my initlal thought to show the instant reaction and the ensuing process of dismissing my initial reaction. I'm not so sure I would call it violent however, but it is signficant to point it out.

I do like and appreciate your suggestion to understand why people like pgngrad's brother in law (as well as certain family members of my own) believe like they do, and feel I have a pretty good understanding of that, although it is difficult to accept. Having been treated with what I do consider violence by some very close family members who consider themselves die-hard fundamental christians, it is very difficult for me to accept their beliefs and reactions. Understand how they arrived at these beliefs - yes. Accept and appreciate - absolutely not. If that is violent, so be it.

Thanks anyway for your thoughts!! :)

[Joelheflin]

My fiancee recently gave this book to me as a gift and so far I think it is very good. His story is very similar to mine so it has been interesting seeing how God worked so similarly in both of our lives.

[Pablo Rafael]

This conversation has gotten a little off track from a discussion about the book. I haven't read it yet but plan to. I agree with Joe's comments about pnggrad79's brother in law's letter. I understand how people have such a fear and hatred of homosexuality. I grew up in a culture that soundly condemned it. (I assume most of us did.) I believe that only through love can this hatred be conquered. One of the best books I have ever read is Philip Yancy's "What's so Amazing About Grace?" God gave His grace to us though we deserved none of it. It is up to us to break the culture of "ungrace" and show God's grace to others.

My mother was very anti-gay in her upbringing and outlook. When she married my step dad (after all the kids were grown up and out of the house) and got to know his gay son, her outlook started to change. My step brother and his partner have been so kind and loving, taking extra time and effort to help my mom and accept her as a member of the family. He has been much more involved with my mom and step dad than any of my other step brothers and sisters. Through his efforts my mom's attitude softened. My mom's contact with my step brother paved the way for her acceptance of me as a gay son. I have reaped the benefits of the love that was shown by someone else. She still is against homosexuality, but she feels it is not her place to speak against anyone else. She thinks everyone has a right to live their lives as they feel called. (Not a complete acceptance I agree, but an amazing change nonetheless.)

It was through love that the chain of hatred was broken. It was through the grace shown to us on the cross that God broke the chains of sin and death. My opinion is this: Love shown to others will achieve results, maybe for others down the road or for later generations. If we are beacons of God's grace to our family members, change will come. We must repay evil with love; it's the only way.

Pablo

[Zerbie]

k
Love shown to others will achieve results, maybe for others down the road or for later generations. If we are beacons of God's grace to our family members, change will come. Pablo

Yep. Right on! :applause:

Sometimes we're fortunate enough to live to see the positive effects of our actions years down the road - but I'm sure most of the time we never know what good ripples went out there from our efforts. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Wonderful story Pablo. Your mom has come Light Years!! (So has mine, in 20 years.)

[nitenitezebras]

I have yet to come across a anti-gay Biblical scholar that didn't address this. Funny how it appears OK for Lot to offer his two daughters out for a village gang rape (that horrible act is declared as a righteous one). There are so many prohibitions that could used to argue, for instance it is an abomination to weave two different fibers into cloth. Wonder if the Southern Baptists have given up poly/cotton blends? My son is openly Gay and I am openly PROUD of him. He "came out" at age 18 but I knew from the time he could toddle that he was gay. True Christian love should be just as a Mother's love should be, unconditional, accepting and compassionate. Yesterday I went to church for the specific purpose of openly asking to have my membership removed from the church rolls. They are openly hostile to the gay/bi/transexual population and I first got up to sing a song and afterwards told them why I was leaving and that I would pray for them. I walked out to a stunned crowd of fundamentalist Baptists in a small country church of 70 in attendance. I live in a very rural area of Tennessee close to Rhea County where they have banned Gay citizens. How's that for hate and prejudice. I quoted two passages yesterday before leaving, 1: Christ spoke saying "Insomuch as ye have done these things to the least of these my brethren, ye have done them unto me" 2:
First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I was not a Jew
Then they came for the communists and I said nothing because I was not a communist,
They then came for the trade unionists and I said nothing because I was not a member
Then they came for me but there was no one left to speak for me.
Remember, Christ loves you it's just the "Christians" following hate who don't. Don't sweat it....too much important stuff to think about.

[Zerbie]

Zebras - WOW~! Great story.

Welcome to the forums.
:)

[Daniel]

They are openly hostile to the gay/bi/transexual population and I first got up to sing a song and afterwards told them why I was leaving and that I would pray for them. I walked out to a stunned crowd of fundamentalist Baptists in a small country church of 70 in attendance. I live in a very rural area of Tennessee close to Rhea County where they have banned Gay citizens

Wow. Talk about letting your feet do the talking. You have my admiration and hearty welcome.