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/Christi...N&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.

Originally Posted by 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.

[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).

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."

[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]

Originally Posted by NonLemming

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...

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

[photosynthesis]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by photosynthesis

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.