The Bible & Homosexuality

[revtj]

There seems to be two strands of thought among those concerned with studying the Bible as it relates to homosexuality. One strand is related to the translation & etymology of Greek and Hebrew words found in the Biblical passages commonly used to make arguments about homosexuality.

The other is represented by scholars like Walter Wink whose excellent essay can be found right here at www.soulforce.org. I recommend everyone read this as well as Mel White's essay, also found on the website, entitled "Why We Can't Wait...Until this Debate is Over."

Wink does not view any specific biblical words as containing divine authority sufficient to finalize the debate and sees homosexuality as we know it in the western world as something unknown to biblical contexts. (This is consistent with the UCC's majority understanding of the Bible as a testimonial document rather than a fact-book.) White encourages LGBT peoples to declare that the debate is over. He insists that so long as we continue debating the texts we are in essence trying to justify our human rights. Yet there should be no debate, biblical or otherwise, as to whether LGBT peoples are deserving of human rights.

No doubt Christians can find encouragement and enlightenment in studying both avenues of thought. Nonetheless, it is a relief to me that the Soulforce perspective is weighed toward White's contention that we as a people are not moving toward liberation if we continually engage the anti-gay industry in debate over chapter and verse interpretation.

[schoolboi]

great insights rev!

[Love4All]

I am working through a wonderful book with a dynamic hermeneutical position. The book is called Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis: http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=15614&netp_id=244862&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW by William J. Webb. It argues that a static interpretation leaves a lot to be desired.

A static interpretation, for example, would argue that biblical pronouncements allow for no movement, but are meant as binding in all times and all places. Of course, most major seminaries don't argue for such a rigid interpretation of Scripture anyway, but Webb goes on to demonstrate his position that the Bible takes on what he calls a "Redemptive-Movement Hermeneutic," or that we should view the Bible's pronouncements as typically demonstrating a movement toward a more redemptive purpose of those facets of Scripture that are clearly cultural in nature.

So taking the three major areas of the book, Webb demonstrates that relative to the cultures in which the Scriptures were written, the Bible views the equality of women and slaves as redemptive movements toward a more actualized equality that we should strive for. The opposite is true, however, with respect to homosexuality, in which the Bible is always more restrictive than the culture.

It would look like this:

Women: cultures largely restrictive toward women; Bible redemptive and liberating
Slaves: cultures largely restrictive toward slaves; Bible redemptive and liberating
Homosexuals: cultures largely liberating toward homosexuals; Bible more restrictive.

His conclusions are obvious. I highly recommend this book for those looking for another way to view the issues of cultural transcendence and biblical thought; especially so for those, like me, who have already dealt with the ancient text and are moving on to new horizons in this field.

Scott

[Ziggy]

How do you account for the fact that in the beginning God gave Eve to Adam. That Jesus reaffirms the fact that a marriage is between one man and one woman. All of the gospels, when we see marriage, are between one man and one woman. All of the epistles talk about marriage in the context of a man and a woman. All of the qualifications for offices talk about marriage between a man and a woman. And that all other sexual relationships are fornication regardless if they are homosexual relationships or not?

You cannot read the Bible and come away with the fact that God did indeed have a very specific plan for marriage. One man and one woman and that is it. If you are finding something else in the Bible, it is because YOU want to find it and not because God put it there.

[SolInvictus]

If I may state so: the Bible also promotes (Old Testament) polygamy & most of the Patriarchs have many wives. Depending on how one reads the Bible (interprets it), masturbation for men would be a sin (fallen seed).

In the New Testament, Jesus advocates celebacy for all because it was believed the world would be ending soon. He also states if you can't remain celebate, then get married or in a committed relationship.

What I am trying to say, in my opinion, the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. It needs to be in seen in its historical, cultural, and mythological context to be understood.

The "sin of Sodom" is not homosexual relationships, but poor treatment to visitors and foreigners.

[revtj]

The point is that I am finished "accounting" to homophobes for what the Bible says about marriage (or slavery, or polygamy, or marrying a virgin daughter...) I am saying that there is a deeper truth that wins out, just as abolitionism won out over the enforced labor of kidnapped Africans. The principle is biblical, but not in any literal sense.

We ALL pick and choose how we use (and abuse) the bible: conservatives, liberals and moderates. And we do it based on the presuppositions we bring to the bible. The conversation among differing communities is fine but the oppression and the denial of human rights is unacceptable. That is what I presuppose when I interpret scripture.

[ps403]

Enjoy your thoughtfulness. Great reminder about what the true issue behind homophobia.

Thanks for your reminder.

[SolInvictus]

Thank you - I agree w/ you. Basic human rights are essential to everyone.

The point is that I am finished "accounting" to homophobes for what the Bible says about marriage (or slavery, or polygamy, or marrying a virgin daughter...) I am saying that there is a deeper truth that wins out, just as abolitionism won out over the enforced labor of kidnapped Africans. The principle is biblical, but not in any literal sense.

We ALL pick and choose how we use (and abuse) the bible: conservatives, liberals and moderates. And we do it based on the presuppositions we bring to the bible. The conversation among differing communities is fine but the oppression and the denial of human rights is unacceptable. That is what I presuppose when I interpret scripture.

[Legion]

Quoting Sol Invictus:
"If I may state so: the Bible also promotes (Old Testament) polygamy & most of the Patriarchs have many wives. Depending on how one reads the Bible (interprets it), masturbation for men would be a sin (fallen seed).

In the New Testament, Jesus advocates celebacy for all because it was believed the world would be ending soon. He also states if you can't remain celebate, then get married or in a committed relationship.

What I am trying to say, in my opinion, the Bible cannot be interpreted literally. It needs to be in seen in its historical, cultural, and mythological context to be understood.

The "sin of Sodom" is not homosexual relationships, but poor treatment to visitors and foreigners."

The Bible establishes laws and ordinances in order to control the sinful nature of mankind, AFTER the Fall. These involve polygamy, etc. However, the original, natural, essential order in which God created men and women was a heterosexual relationship. Though I do appreciate your observation tha the Bible must be read in terms of its context. I'm assuming that when you said the bible cannot be interpreted literally, you did not mean that it can in no circumstances be interpreted literally.

[SolInvictus]

Dear Legion,

Personally, I do not the believe the Bible cannot be taken literally. My denomination, the UCC, interprets the Scriptures from a metaphorical & allergorical perspective. Some do interpret in literally as the denom. is diverse as its name suggests. Overall, it is a liberal & welcoming denomination.

The story of Adam & Eve, to me, is a myth inspired by Mesopotamian religion in ancient times. Indeed, the mentioning of Leviathan suggests a re-interpretation of the Babylonian Tiamut, the evil searpent slayed by the good god El. In one were to take it literally, then everyone could be interpreted as being born from incestuous union in regards to Adam & Eve.

Diagreed: how does the story of the Fall support one man, one woman relationship only. It does not mention the sin of having too many wives...

In regards to Scriptural interpretation, why would the Bible only be interpreted literally? Isn't God bigger than simple stories? Jesus used parables (allergory) to teach lessons about life. Why couldn't the Bible be an allergorical story? Regardless, differences in opinion are & should be diverse. If you take a conservative approach, then okay, but I can disagree.

Anyway, I don't see why one (or more) sacred text should be used to legislate discrimatory laws, and prevent basic human rights to everyone based on one interpretation.

[Catt of the Garage]

Legion: some good points. I have to agree with you particularly in your stance on Biblical literalism - I get a bit frustrated sometimes with how polarised these arguments get, with people being forced to choose between taking an absolutely literal translation of every paragraph, or else rejecting its literality out of hand. I believe there are very many parts of the Bible which are literal; some which may be metaphorical; some which are literal but their relevance is very specific. Prayerful discernment is the key.

I have to point out that it was not Jesus who advocated celibacy, but Paul. Jesus did not mention marriage very much but the impression I get was that he was all in favour of it - in fact he took the committment of marriage a good deal more seriously than his disciples did, who were accustomed to the Mosaic idea that you could divorce your wife as soon as you got tired of her (see Matthew 47:19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=19&version=31)).

Also clear in this passage, however, is that Jesus approved of singleness, which is a state which does not conform to the "created order" portrayed in Genesis any more than a homosexual relationship does. I can see where you are coming from, but I hope you can also see that, although the joining of a man and a woman and the procreation of children is a key factor in the way our race is made and is the way that the majority do express their love and true humanity, there is also a minority who express it through singleness or homosexual union.

Is it, at the end of the day, a lot of use to talk about what we see as God's ideal for creation? We are where we are, and for whatever reason, a lot of people are gay. I think it's reasonable to assume that God made them that way, and who are we to say that God has called everyone here to lifelong celibacy? I don't think I have that authority, frankly.

[revtj]

Well, at the end of the day a few things seem clear...

Scholars and christians themselves do not agree in interpretation (or method of interpretation) of the Bible. Things were the same way in Jesus' day among the religious authorities and the people.

It is in that context of not agreeing on interpretation and method that Jesus was asked to cite the greatest commandment. It was good news to the people who were being made to feel guilty and doomed for this, that, and the other, as it was coming against them from many differing schools of thought.

We don't need to agree on these things in order to love God with everything that we are, and our neighbor as ourselves. As Hosea Ballou said, "If we agree in love, there is no disagreement that can do us any injury, but if we do not, no other agreement can do us any good. Let us endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bonds of peace." :D

[NonLemming]

If one follows the thought process that God created Adan and Eve literally and that all other followers must be of their partcular persuasion, a very limited precedent is set. Since they were North African (if you even believe in Adam and Eve as real people as opposed to an illustration) then all of God's true followers must be of North African origin. Even the smallest of brains can realize that this sets up a very limited scope on life on Earth, and if that's the case then we're all doomed. I'm just amazed how small some brains can be in our species. I pray for even more evolution. Good luck.

[revtj]

non, I agree that the bible is a book mostly originating from an African people. Not entirely sure what the rest of your post meant unless you are pointing out how narrow-minded some people are when they explore the bible.

clarify?

[NonLemming]

sorry. You are right, I was just demonstrating how silly following knucklehead logic can get. I've always thought that God created Adam and Eve, And Steve and Lois, and Jeff and Tim, and Juanita and Peggy. Goc has created a lot of people and such a vast number of people have been blest with vast ways of showing love. Whether a single person can wrap their mind around the way another person loves is quite irrelevant. The important thing is love.

[Emproph]

I've always thought that God created Adam and Eve, And Steve and Lois, and Jeff and Tim, and Juanita and Peggy.

Don't forget Eve 'n Steven... :D

P.S. I get it now, Non-Lemming. That's clever. :)

[photosynthesis]

How do you account for the fact that in the beginning God gave Eve to Adam. That Jesus reaffirms the fact that a marriage is between one man and one woman. All of the gospels, when we see marriage, are between one man and one woman. All of the epistles talk about marriage in the context of a man and a woman. All of the qualifications for offices talk about marriage between a man and a woman. And that all other sexual relationships are fornication regardless if they are homosexual relationships or not?

You cannot read the Bible and come away with the fact that God did indeed have a very specific plan for marriage. One man and one woman and that is it. If you are finding something else in the Bible, it is because YOU want to find it and not because God put it there.
yeah, I'm all for reading the Bible for what it actually says, and not twisting words around for what we want it to say.

[NathanATX]

yeah, I'm all for reading the Bible for what it actually says, and not twisting words around for what we want it to say.

We can certainly read it as it is, but we have to consider what it is we're actually reading.

If it's the King James Version, we're reading a text that was translated several hundred years ago into English from ancient greek & hebrew texts.

That is a very watered down picture of the translation process, but even so, to say the bible is "in-errant" and shouldn't be re-evaluated for today's world lacks integrity and denies the the truth of our ever expanding knowledge base.

For example, the catholic church threatened Galileo with excommunication unless he recanted his theory that the earth revolves around the sun. According to the church's interpretation of a certain text in the Old Testament where God was said to stop the sun in the sky so a battle could be won, they believed the earth was the center of the universe.

But our scientific knowledge today has clearly shown otherwise.

Another point to consider is that people have always twisted the bible to back their various viewpoints. Using "proof-texts" they have justified slavery, subjectification of women, sexual orientation discrimination, etc.

[NonLemming]

Of course, you are right. There is a lot of good and wisdom contained within, but it has been so misused and abused by those in power. And if the name/title of Jesus Christ isn't the biggest victim of name dropping, I don't know who could be. I do enjoy finding the gems contained within and they ARE there, but give little attention to knuckleheads telling me to interpret it literally.

[Legion]

To SolInvinctus:
If you don't believe in a historical Adam and Eve, what DO you believe in, and why? What other parts of the Bible have you decided are "allergorical" [sic]? Why should Jesu the Christ be any less allegorical, for example? On what basis do you discriminate (is that word allowed here?) between allegorical and historical? Also, how sacred do you consider sacred texts to be? At what point should they establish foundational and firm rules to discriminate between right and wrong? Thanks for discussing. I really do appreciate it.

To NonLemming
After reading your posts, I have begun praying for more evolution too. In fact, why don't you find go yourself a NonCliff and do evolution a favor? There's so many small brains these days, that the process of natural selection is having a hard time keeping up.

To Garage Catt
Note that the first several paragraphs of my post was in fact a quote and NOT stuff that I necessarily agree with.

To NathanATX
What exactly was your point in that last post of yours, with the little bit about the church squabbling with Galileo over the issue of geocentrism? Sorry, I'm just a little confused as to your meaning.


Respects and thanks.

[NonLemming]

Legion: That's so mean. I understand if the only way to express disagreement is to suggest suicide, but it's a little tacky.

I enjoy reading other people's opinions, even if they are different from mine. Makes me think a little. And yes I do pray for my own evolution as well as others. God knows we need it.

Sorry I struck the nerve in you to cause such a response.

Therapy may help, it may not.

Go well.

[SolInvictus]

Dear Legion,
you are in my prayers & you have my pity. I must say you really didn't answer the question I posed & instead began to attack from an emotional, rather than logical, perspective. This form is generally used in debate to derail from the original topic & begin attacking the person, verbally. Please respond w/ logic; not attacking others: its un-Christian & rude.

Now, in response to your question, the sacred in sacred texts, for me anyway, is the meaning behind the words & stories: not the literal words themselves. The Garden of Eden story from Genesis may represent humanity's imperfection & search for a paradise.

Another thing, having read the Bible, your screenname Legion is the name of the demons in the "possessed man." Is this intentional or are you referring to the Roman legion, a group of soldiers in combat? If the former, the name is telling...

In Christ's Love,
Peace & Blessings to You,
Sol Invictus

[NathanATX]

To SolInvinctus:
If you don't believe in a historical Adam and Eve, what DO you believe in, and why? What other parts of the Bible have you decided are "allergorical" [sic]? Why should Jesu the Christ be any less allegorical, for example? On what basis do you discriminate (is that word allowed here?) between allegorical and historical? Also, how sacred do you consider sacred texts to be? At what point should they establish foundational and firm rules to discriminate between right and wrong? Thanks for discussing. I really do appreciate it.

To NonLemming
After reading your posts, I have begun praying for more evolution too. In fact, why don't you find go yourself a NonCliff and do evolution a favor? There's so many small brains these days, that the process of natural selection is having a hard time keeping up.

To Garage Catt
Note that the first several paragraphs of my post was in fact a quote and NOT stuff that I necessarily agree with.

To NathanATX
What exactly was your point in that last post of yours, with the little bit about the church squabbling with Galileo over the issue of geocentrism? Sorry, I'm just a little confused as to your meaning.

Respects and thanks.

From the tone of your response, I question whether you truly have respect for the people you are in conversation with here.

My point was to gently provide another viewpoint than the fundamentalist idea that says the bible is in inerrant and infallible, which I believe are positions that completely lack integrity considering all that we have learned today.

I do not believe in a literal creation story, by any means, with Adam & Eve as the central characters. I do, however believe, all that is has been created by God. I do believe that the story of Adam & Eve was a religious story meant to fill in some of the "holes" in ancient Judaism.

If we assumed that Adam & Eve were literal characters, I would say that I do not believe one act by one woman destined all of humanity to pay the price for her sin. I believe in original blessing rather than original sin.

These are my personal beliefs. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong... this is what speaks to me.

I honor how Spirit speaks to you.

You know, Jesus said the world would know we are Christians by our love for each other. I think we should all keep that in mind as we respond and react to people who think differently.

[Legion]

Legion: That's so mean. I understand if the only way to express disagreement is to suggest suicide, but it's a little tacky.

I enjoy reading other people's opinions, even if they are different from mine. Makes me think a little. And yes I do pray for my own evolution as well as others. God knows we need it.

Sorry I struck the nerve in you to cause such a response.

Therapy may help, it may not.

Go well.



Apologies, Lemming-of-the-Non-variety. I was trying to use moderated sarcasm and it did come off sounding mean. I'll do better.
Thanks

To SolInvinctus:
Logic should never be used at the expense of emotion. Nor have I gone to the other extreme and abandoned logic. I was questioning into your reasoning and motivations, which is hardly emotional.
(I do know what Legion means in regards to the demon/pig story. Thanks. It's an inside joke with myself.)

To all you folks:
Obviously, we cannot interpret everything in the Bible as literal, since there are different types of literature within the Bible. And yes, God is bigger than simple stories. On that we agree. However, I am still curious how you decide what is allegorical/metaphorical and what is not. What is the basis of your discrimination between literal and allegorical, besides personal inclination? I appreciate NathanATX indicating that he honors how the Spirit speaks to me, but if the Spirit is speaking different things to us, then how can it be the same Spirit? How can you feel secure in personal beliefs that you do not consider right or wrong? God is unchanging and immutable. His counsels are everlasting throughout all eternity and there can be no contradiction within Him. God does not adapt to us, nor is His Gospel made to conform to our human motives and desires. It is we that must change, that must examine our lives and enter into obedience with the eternal laws of God's wisdom and covenant specified in the Holy Scriptures.

The story of Adam and Eve may indeed be allegorical, but then what is the significance of the characters in the allegory? Are Biblical allegories not used for teaching godly living? Dismissing the Bible as allegorical does not get anyone off the hook. Biblical allegory and parable is just as potent as Biblical history.

Is there absolute truth? Is there any kind of ultimate morality or standard of righteousness? What is the Bible? Who is God?This must be the question we address, rather than the fine points of doctrine and interpretation that only serve as a temporary smoke screen and only get us bogged down.

thanks all

[photosynthesis]

I'm not a fan of the KJV myself and prefer translations such as the New Jersusalem Bible and the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition. But it all boils down to whether or not you actually believe the Holy Spirit is active in the world or not. I myself believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible AND he is working in the world to keep the Church free from doctrinal error and guiding translators.

[NathanATX]

To all you folks:
Obviously, we cannot interpret everything in the Bible as literal, since there are different types of literature within the Bible. And yes, God is bigger than simple stories. On that we agree. However, I am still curious how you decide what is allegorical/metaphorical and what is not. What is the basis of your discrimination between literal and allegorical, besides personal inclination? I appreciate NathanATX indicating that he honors how the Spirit speaks to me, but if the Spirit is speaking different things to us, then how can it be the same Spirit? How can you feel secure in personal beliefs that you do not consider right or wrong? God is unchanging and immutable. His counsels are everlasting throughout all eternity and there can be no contradiction within Him. God does not adapt to us, nor is His Gospel made to conform to our human motives and desires. It is we that must change, that must examine our lives and enter into obedience with the eternal laws of God's wisdom and covenant specified in the Holy Scriptures.

The story of Adam and Eve may indeed be allegorical, but then what is the significance of the characters in the allegory? Are Biblical allegories not used for teaching godly living? Dismissing the Bible as allegorical does not get anyone off the hook. Biblical allegory and parable is just as potent as Biblical history.

Is there absolute truth? Is there any kind of ultimate morality or standard of righteousness? What is the Bible? Who is God?This must be the question we address, rather than the fine points of doctrine and interpretation that only serve as a temporary smoke screen and only get us bogged down.

thanks all

Legion, the questions you pose are exactly the questions the church needs to be asking today. I'll do my best to answer your questions from my perspective or let you know how I am seeking the answers myself.

"However, I am still curious how you decide what is allegorical/metaphorical and what is not. What is the basis of your discrimination between literal and allegorical, besides personal inclination?"

Well, I do a lot of reading for one. But the main basis I use is simple, common knowledge that we all have today. Thousands of years after the Bible was first compiled, we understand life completely differently. And the biblical writers' understanding of life was pivotal to the content of the stories and depictions of God they enscribed. If the underlying knowledge changes, doesn't that affect everything written based on that knowledge?

For example: the human-ness of Jesus. Biblical writers understood reproduction to be soley generated from the male. There wasn't a female counterpart needed, other than a womb for the male's baby to grow. Jesus was said to be "God in the flesh" because Mary was suppossed to have been supernaturally inseminated by God. Today we know that it takes the male & the female dna to create life. So the questions we now have are: Is Jesus fully God? Is Jesus 50% God and 50% human? How do these questions affect our Christology?

"I appreciate NathanATX indicating that he honors how the Spirit speaks to me, but if the Spirit is speaking different things to us, then how can it be the same Spirit? How can you feel secure in personal beliefs that you do not consider right or wrong?"

I think our individual traditions & experiences shape how we hear the Spirit. It would be very self-righteous and judgemental of me to hear you share something you believe that Spirit has revealed to you and tell you "you're wrong." Instead, I choose to appreciate that you say you are intent on listening to Spirit. If I have an opinion that is different from yours, I can share it in a way that doesn't leave you feeling evaluated or judged... it's just how Spirit speaks to me.

The security issue is very interesting. Do we choose to believe certain things because we are insecure? In "A New Christianity for a New World," John Shelby Spong talks about the "hysteria of self-consciousness" or the fear that hits people when we realize our frail humanity and our inability to protect ourselves from the finality of death. If that fear is the fundamental reason we believe in God, is our belief genuine? What if we were able to be brave in spite of our frailty? Would our understanding and views of God change? I think so.

"The story of Adam and Eve may indeed be allegorical, but then what is the significance of the characters in the allegory? Are Biblical allegories not used for teaching godly living?"

This line of questioning is right on the money! Through deciphering the meaning and the overall intent of these stories and passages, we can learn how God was known to the biblical writers. Through evaluating the culture and context of liturgies and stories, we can identify the reasons behind a lot of these writings.

One big question this brings up is the theology of atonement. If we understand the story of Adam & Eve to be allegorical and that "the fall" of mankind didn't really happen, then the theology of needing a savior to redeem sinners isn't neccessarily needed.

"Is there absolute truth? Is there any kind of ultimate morality or standard of righteousness? What is the Bible? Who is God?"

These are certainly the questions the church must grapple with and answer if it is to survive what John Shelby Spong calls the "death of theism" or the dying theologies that our current day wisdom and knowledge are disproving. Either Christianity finds a new and relevant interpretation of our faith tradition or we risk losing it altogether.

I HIGHLY recommend reading "Here I stand: My struggle for an authentic Christianity" and "A New Christianity for a New World" by John Shelby Spong.

[revtj]

by a whisker! :eek:

Do I know how to open a can of worms or what!

tj

[NonLemming]

You do indeed, Revtv, but that's what any open discussion on religious topics is going to do. It's still worthwhile after you seperate the wheat from the chaff because I thought of things I hadn't before. Keep on opening cans.:lol:

[Jamie McDaniel]

Everyone,

I am closing this thread due to it containing posts that are in violation of the Soulforce Community Guidelines (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/faq.php?faq=soulforce_faq_item#faq_soulforce_faq_i tem1). Since I was away for a few days this week at a staff meeting, I let this one slip through. I would remove the anti-gay posts, but it would disrupt the thread. And anyway, several of you gave some very good responses. :tup:

We can have a forum-wide discussion on this in the future, but for now the policy is that no anti-gay comments are allowed. Although Soulforce actively engages anti-gay forces in the hopes of changing hearts and minds, our vision for the forums is to provide a safe place for GLBT people and our friends.

Often anti-gay comments are presented as just another "opinion" on this "issue." Well, gay people are people not an issue and oppression is never just another opinion. It needs to be called out for what it is - a moral wrong.

Please, do feel free to discuss the Bible or any other religous book. Just note that those threads tend to attract those who would like for us to stay in our place in society and in the churches. And please continue to report posts that you feel violate our guidelines.

Jamie

p.s. please send me any questions, comments, or concerns you have on this action.