Should gay and lesbian people be full members of the Christian community? Should they be priests? Should the sacrament of marriage be extended to them? Should they even be welcomed into the building?
A lot of people point to passages in Leviticus, which call homosexuality an “abomination.” But are those passages valid and binding?
For that we need to consider the book of Acts, written by the author of the Gospel of Luke. In the sixth and seventh chapters, Stephen is arrested by a religious council and charged with saying that Jesus came to “change the customs Moses handed down to us.”
Stephen does not (and cannot) deny the accusation, since Jesus did specifically reject Torah passages on vengeance, divorce and dietary restrictions, but instead, after demonstrating his full familiarity with Scripture, turns on the council and accuses them of “forever opposing the Holy Spirit, just as your ancestors used to do.”
In the tenth chapter, Peter has a vision of “something like a sheet” coming down from heaven, and on it are all manner of animals designated by Moses as unclean. “Get up, Peter; kill and eat,” says God. Peter protests: “I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean!” But God responds, “What God has made you must not call unclean or profane.”
Then Peter goes to Caesarea to meet with Cornelius, a Roman centurion. Peter, remembering the lesson from his vision, greets Cornelius by saying, “You yourselves know that it is unlawful for a Jew to associate with or to visit a Gentile; but God has shown me that I should not call anyone profane or unclean.”
After talking with Cornelius, Peter declares, “I truly understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation, anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” But Peter’s Jewish followers were troubled, because Hebrew Scripture quotes God as saying, “Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant,” yet they “were astounded that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.”
Peter answered them by saying, “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
Just as Peter understood that his vision of the animals applied not just to dietary restrictions, but the inherent sanctity of all creation, it is to be understood that Peter is not referring just to circumcised or uncircumcised people, but rather the invalidity of Scriptural passages that put barriers between people and the God who calls them. God wants you just as you are. No man is unclean. No change is necessary to be worthy of God’s love.
Yet people still insist on building barriers to the church. Yesterday, The New York Times reported on an Episcopal bishop in Connecticut who has authorized religious blessings for civil unions.
Rev. Canon David C. Anderson, of the American Anglican Council, criticized Bishop Smith and called it “proof of his disregard for the larger Anglican Communion and further evidences his militancy with the homosexual gay agenda” (someone call the Department of Repetitive Redundancy!). “Bishop Smith and some other bishops as well are literally choosing to pull themselves and their churches out of the broader religious community. In the future…there might be no place for people like Bishop Smith.”
Anderson tries to blame Bishop Smith; but it’s not Smith trying to fracture the church, he’s one of the many heeding Peter’s lesson that the church is open to everyone. For all their citation of scripture in oppressing gay and lesbian people, what many Christians miss is that the New Testament explicity forbids restricting Christian fellowship. Anderson closes the door not just on gays, but on everyone who takes the Gospel message seriously. How does a priest manage to claim that “there might be no place” for anyone?
Bishop Smith said, “I believe that it is time for us to rethink, repray and reform our theology and our pastoral practices; to welcome, recognize, support and bless the lives and faith of brothers and sisters who are gay and lesbian in the equal fullness of Christian fellowship.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
73 comments:
Is simply being gay a sin? Or is it an act of homosexual lust or love that is the sin? And are those sins enough to ban one from being a church leader?
Have church leaders been guilty of other kinds of sins? What level of sin can stop one from being a church leader?
How can it be a sin to be what God made you? I reject the theory that being homosexual is a choice. Having homosexual sex is a choice.
The vow of chasity is the same for a hetrosexual as for a homosexual.
I see no reason for a gay person not to be a church leader. I see no reason why a woman cannot be a church leader.
the issue here andy, is behavior.
just substitute 'gay' for 'pedophile' or 'bestiaphile', and then you come to the same i answer i would.
Gino, Gino, Gino...
Eating "unclean" food is a behavior. Circumcision is a behavior, no?
I will thank you to stop equating the physical expression of intimacy of same-sex couples with criminality. Pedophilia and bestiality are opportunistic crimes where the perpetrator takes sexual advantage of another being who is unable to fully comprehend what is happening or competently express consent.
In your mind, seriously, is there NO DIFFERENCE between consensual physical intimacy occurring between two adults and pedophilia and bestiality? I mean, really.
"God wants you just as you are. No man is unclean. No change is necessary to be worthy of God’s love."
Where is that in the Bible, we are all sinners-all of us. That is an irresponsible, vain, and condemning lie!
I encourage you to think about what the Bible says sin is and what repentance is and how knowing what those two things mean are essential to salvation.
Well, but you've hit it right on the head, Gary. We are ALL sinners, and salvation is granted to those who are repentant. There is no justification for any person to say another person is such a terrible sinner that they are not welcome as a member of the Christian community.
Homosexuality, however, is not a sin. It is not a sin to have and express love for someone. In fact, it's one of the two commandments Christ gave us.
OK then, should a church welcome into membership a person that is in a known adulterous relationship? Why or why not.
Well, if we are to take Jesus' example from the Gospels, then yes, a church should embrace adulterers, turn to the congregation and say, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and then turn to the adulterer with a smile and say, "Go and sin no more."
Like Gino, you are starting from the presumption that homosexuality is inherently sinful. But I assure you, it's not.
I think, and I am sure you will agree, that embrace and be admitted into membership are two totally different things. May I ask you, would it be sinful for me to marry my sister?
Well, you are missing the larger point here. Homosexual "behavior," if you want to call it that, is what people who are homosexual do. Homosexuality is an innate identity, not a hobby. Therefore, it really is not comparable to anything other than heterosexuality.
As an Episcopalian, I am not opposed to applying rational discourse to theology. So here's how I would answer your question: how do you determine if something is sinful? My answer would be: if there is an identifiable harm that comes from it. If the church can rationally argue that a prohibition on certain behavior results in an aversion or lessening of harm, then it is a reasonable position.
The main objection to marriage between close relatives, as I understand it, is the health risks that are posed to children of consanguineous couples. That is an identifiable harm, and also a public-interest health risk, which is why civil marriage laws forbid consanguineous heterosexual marriage, independent of religious beliefs or cultural prejudice.
Having identified both a real harm and a rational way to avoid said harm, the church would be right in opposing your marriage to your sister.
but you said, "there NO DIFFERENCE between consensual physical intimacy occurring between two adults..." I said nothing about wanting or even being able to have children.
So from your definition of sin and since I don't want to have children... I am in the clear?
I am still interested in knowing how you reconcile your statement, "God wants you just as you are. No man is unclean. No change is necessary to be worthy of God’s love", with what the Bible teaches about repentance?
In all honesty, I'd say you have to pray over it and see what the Spirit says to you, and then do what you believe is right. Jesus himself taught there are always exceptions to Old Testament laws -- which of you would not pull your ox out of a ditch if it fell in on the sabbath? We are empowered to follow our own conscience. God gave us both a heart and a brain for a reason. Based on the criteria we have laid out, no, I can't think of a specific reason why you should not marry your sister...
...other than to say I strongly suspect that you do not want to marry your sister, therefore this is a hypothetical question (are there people out there desiring to marry their siblings?), whereas the situation I am talking about not only isn't hypothetical, it is the reality for millions of people around the world.
As for your second question: this is about identity, not sin. It is not a sin to be who you are.
My argument is thus: God made me gay; God has declared to Peter that nothing he has made is profane or unclean; therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong with me just the way I am. I do not need to be anything other than the way God made me.
I am not saying it's okay to go around sinning, or that we shouldn't strive for spiritual perfection. I'm saying that your understanding of sexuality as it relates to salvation is based on a scriptural understanding that has been overturned by the New Testament.
thank you for the blessing on marrying my sister... I hope others can see where the argument ultimately leads.
you said, "that your understanding of sexuality as it relates to salvation is based on a scriptural understanding that has been overturned by the New Testament", does that mean that the Old Testament actually did condemn sexual relations between people of the same sex? And you are claiming that Peter said that that is no longer valid? So to follow that argument all the way out, I can just about justify anything that I "inherently" feel, since that is the way God made me. So anything and everything is "ok", right. Is that your stance, really?
Gary, which of you is irreversibly and 100% infertile? There's a big difference between not wanting to have kids and actually not having kids.
Andy, I think you're missing an ingredient regarding incest taboos. Besides consanguinity (which is a BIG reason, of course), societies create incest taboos to prevent adding conflict to families/households. Adding the possibility of a sexual relationship between members of one family complicates inheritance, sleeping arrangements, and puts a strain on all members of the family.
Plus, I would guess that uneven power relationships between family members (especially between generations, I'm thinking father/daughter but could also be based on age between sibs) would result in a less-than-consensual arrangment a lot of the time.
Not a Biblical scholar. Just my two cents.
Andy, I have to take (minor) issue with you on this one. Yes, I wrote a (slightly incoherent) post awhile back on how God isn't looking for us to be perfect, but to serve Him in and through our manifest imperfection, and I still believe that. My own view of Divine love, though, is slightly different: It is not so much that we need to change anything about ourselves to deserve it, for there is nothing we can do that will ever make us worthy of it. Therein lies the wonder: God's love is the most sublime gift, freely and unconditionally given, for no reason other than that it proceeds naturally from God's supreme and ineffable perfect goodness, and wholly unmerited by us, the recipients of His Grace.
No, I am saying there is no basis for restricting Christian fellowship by imposing limits based on identity. That is a very far cry from an "anything goes" theology.
I don't have a well-thought out response to questions about sibling marriage because it's not an issue for me, it's not something I've been thinking, reading, praying and studying about for a decade and a half. I gave it my honest best response based on my present understanding, which is I think all that can be asked of any Christian.
Much of Mosaic law was clearly overturned by the New Testament: an eye for an eye; divorce; a man is made unclean by what comes out of his mouth, not what goes into it; circumcision is unnecessary, etc. Furthermore, the Christian church has prayerfully moved away from a lot of the gender bias found even in the New Testament (especially in Paul's epistles).
We are simply not bound to the letter of Moses' laws where it is in conflict with the Gospel.
The Bible is not the inerrant word of God. It is an edited, selected anthology of historical writings about God. While it remains our most authoritative source of information about God, it must be understood in the historical and cultural contexts in which it was written, and contemplated critically and objectively.
If you read the Old Testament -- have you checked out Deuteronomy lately?? -- there are a great many laws in there that I'm sure you would find morally repugnant. (If you need a specific reference, how about Deuteronomy 22:28-29?) There is nothing in the New Testament specifically overtuning that law. But I think you will find that this "law" cannot possibly have come from a just, loving, compassionate God. I believe the prohibitions on homosexuality came from exactly these kinds of ugly ancient cultural customs and need to be abandoned.
God's love is the most sublime gift, freely and unconditionally given, for no reason other than that it proceeds naturally from God's supreme and ineffable perfect goodness, and wholly unmerited by us, the recipients of His Grace.
Yes, thank you. That's what I was aiming for. I just didn't phrase it well at all.
Great post, Andy. Lately I've found myself leaning on God a lot, which is encouraging -- but also discouraging that it's taken a few rough weeks to get me here. I agree that God does not create us simply so he can reject us... it's interesting, actually, my mom and I were just talking about this last night. I'm having some issues at work (which I won't go into) and was struggling with what I should do. I felt very strongly that I should act in a certain way, and yet I had serious fear about the repercussions of so acting. Yet at the same time I felt it was *the right thing to do*, and I couldn't shake the feeling that sitting on my hands and doing nothing would be wrong. And my mom reminded me of the neatest thing -- God gives us our desires and our abilities and doesn't do so with the intention that we should sit around and live a life that is completely wrong for us. God knows our hearts and our feelings, and he finds ways to work in all of us, imperfect as we are.
I may not be making any sense... I can be like that when I'm stressed out :) Anyway, I think this is a great post and I agree with you. Sin isn't about who you are, it's about displeasing God. If our very existence displeases God, I have to ask why we are here.
And as for Captain Redundancy, I blame the rap hip hop music for his lack of proficiency with the English language ;)
andy, if you claim the bible is NOT the inerrant word of God, then why do you cite it at all?
it is either all inerrant, or none of it. you cant cite the parts you like as if they are infallable, and then go on to say the bible is errant on the stuff you dont like.
this argument is over until you pick a standard of rule and stick to it.
Gino, there is no direct and unmediated revealed truth that would give you the rules you're looking for until God comes to earth and tells you to take dictation.
To use your language, I would respond to you that "the argument is over" until you pick a standard of argument and stick to it. That is the essence of Western education and of Biblical scholarship since way before a bunch of fundamentalists took over the GOP. What we have in theology is a long tradition of argumentation and proofs and the truths derived from them.
chiron,
are you being foolish enough to associate me as a fundamentalist belonging to the GOP?
you dont know me.
i'm neither.
would you like me to associate you with NAMBLA? i'm sure they may agree with you on some things.
visit me. you may be suprised at a few things.
"God wants you just as you are. No man is unclean. No change is necessary to be worthy of God’s love."
GDJr
"Unclean" in the biblical sense is not the same thing as "sinful," although certainly many modern Christians use the terms interchangably. "Unclean," as I understand it (Jewish scholars are welcome to jump in here!), means either "too profane to touch," or "too holy to touch"--something that, if you touch it, you have trodden upon ground God told you to avoid. (Some "unclean" things seem to have been health issues--lepers, shellfish, pork--so who knows what to make of that.)
Noone is "unclean" in this sense--though we are all sinners. God loves each of us at every moment precisely as we are--that doesn't mean he is happy with our choices.
The question that will probably garner no agreement in this string is whether homosexuality is God's creation (Andy's pov) or a warping of God's creation (the pov of many conservative Christians). I don't think either of these views will ever be "proven" to the satisfaction of the other side, so we had better all keep praying and listening--because God has the answer. (Sorry Quinn, FG--Christian audience.) In the meantime, considering how to accept and how much to accept homosexuality is clearly a bright theological need, right now.
---------
Andy.
1) Astounding civility.
2) This is a much better comeback to my objections than those that have come before. Kudos :).
I am not at this time flipping sides, but you have built a very solid argument which can bang around in my head for awhile and we'll see where it takes me. ("The word 'yellow' banged around in his head, looking for something to hold onto ...")
misc, I've heard a beautiful theological construction that women are not supposed to be priests because the priesthood is supposed to be fundamentally incomplete--the priesthood is not supposed to stand on its own as representative of humanity to God, nor as representative of the whole of God (male and female in Our image) to humanity ...
which makes the exclusion ... different, if still not easily palatable for the modern mind. A structurally implanted admission of each human's incompleteness without others, a structurally implanted reminder to the priests themselves (if they were taught to be aware of it) that they should not expect to be the "all" of the Church ...
there are lots of ramifications.
Gary: a couple of further thoughts, having slept on it.
I think it would be wrong for you to marry your sister; exactly why that is, aside from the reasons I have already listed, I can't put into words, but it is the sense that I have, and I assume you have the same sense. So really, we are not far apart.
That "feeling" I'm talking about is, to my mind, the combination of heart, conscience and Holy Spirit I refer to earlier, and that is probably what -- again, I presume -- informs your opinions on homosexuality.
As it does mine.
Therefore, I would like to propose to you that you examine just what it is you think homosexuality "is" and what homosexuals "do" that is sinful. And again, I'm going to surmise that we are in agreement: if homosexuals are and do what you think (again, this is all my presumption), then yes, that is a sinful way of living.
But I want to ask if you actually know any gay people of faith. I think you will find that there are a great many gay and lesbian people deeply and truly gifted with the Holy Spirit. There are gay and lesbian people to whom issues of commitment, fidelity, family and faith are all paramount virtues.
Gino, I think you need to explore the realm of Biblical scholarship a bit more! Most Christians do not believe in scriptural inerrancy. Anyone who has actually read the Bible (and paid attention to what is in plain sight) cannot hold that belief, because it is factually contradictory in many places. That is part of having an objective understanding of the book and its value and meaning.
But that is not to say that there isn't vast and important wisdom about God; that is not to say that just because the world wasn't created in its present form in six days doesn't mean the Sermon on the Mount has no value or meaning for us. That evolution is real does not mean the resurrection is not.
because the priesthood is supposed to be fundamentally incomplete
? That sounds very strange to me (being mindful via Isaiah that God's ways are not our ways). I don't think I've ever thought that the priesthood was necessarily supposed to be representative of larger humanity, but rather simply the people God calls to His service in this way. Having met and worshipped with some truly inspirational women priests, I would say anyone who would automatically disqualify a woman's capacity for discernment and preaching because "the priesthood is supposed to be incomplete" or whatever is really shooting themselves in the foot.
As for marrying your sister, Quinn hit it on the head - just because you don't plan to have a child doesn't mean you won't.
But there's another difference. Being forbidden from marrying your sister doesn't mean you will never have the chance to marry and be happy. There's a whole world of women out there to fall in love with (or marry out of convenience or political considerations, whatever).
If you are forbidden from loving someone of the same sex, but are not attracted to the opposite sex, you will never know complete fulfillment in a relationship.
In the one case, a specific relationship is forbidden. In the other, it is your entire capacity to be intimate with another that is forbidden.
So the two cases are fundamentally different. One discriminates, the other doesn't.
As for biblical inerrancy: click here (warning: Shameless self linking).
The contradictions in the bible are so numerous that I think the only rational course is to assume that it is completely flawed.
For a Christian, though, it makes some sense to look at all of it, the historical context, the intent behind the words, etc... thus you can arrive at what Andy is doing: trying to figure out the will of god from a flawed set of instructions.
couple of things:
kr,
thanks for making my point. I, too, think that what Peter is writing about in Acts has to do with Jewish ceremonial "things" when he talks about things being unclean. I don't think he is talking about morality. I, too, agree that we are all sinners ALL of us... especially our politicians---amen? =) Seriously though, that was a point that needed to be made.
Andy,
thanks for sleeping on it. It is good that we think through these things. It is amazing now that you are backpedaling on the sister/marriage issue because of some subjective feelings? That sounds like discrimination. You asked me what homosexuality is and what homosexuals do that is sinful... well what gets to determine what is sinful here? Is it your historical erred documents? My subjectivity? Your senses and feelings and heart... I don't trust my heart or my feelings on these things, they are tainted with sin. I don't think either of our opinions amount to anything; what matters is what God has said. There in lies the crux of the argument.
I am not "backpedaling." My understanding is evolving. It's no mark of weakness to back off a previous assertion if new ideas inspire you to do so, even if that means reverting to a previously held conclusion. It is no mark of weakness to say, "I am not sure" or "I do not know."
It's not discrimination in the standard sense, as Future Geek pointed out. "People who want to marry their siblings" are not a social class defined by unique and immutable characteristics. The legal discrimination is justified because the legitimate government interests (public health concerns) outweigh, in this instance, the interests of the individual. It is not an arbitrary stance motivated by animus toward the incestuous subclass.
As tainted with sin as our minds might be, they are really all that we have. Yes, we must rely on what God has said, but I also firmly believe God is still speaking. I don't believe orthodox doctrine as nearly as important to salvation as sincerity. Therefore, I firmly believe that both you and I have a good shot at heaven, despite profound disagreements. Hope to see you there.
I never called you weak, nor would I! I am just pointing out (what I perceive as) the inconsistencies in your arguments.
What is discrimination in the standard sense? So you have to be a social class to be able to be with the person you love now? Is that what you are saying... and it is legitimate govt. interest (whatever that is) that outweigh a persons genuine feelings and emotions toward their (his/her) object of affection?
on a different note...
I am really interested in knowing what you believe God has said? I am open to exploring passages with you that you find hard to reconcile; I don't understand how you could do that though when you don't believe the Bible to be true? Everything falls apart there.
I think I've been very explicit that I hold the Bible in very high regard. But, as I pointed out in the passage in Deuteronomy yesterday, no, I absolutely do not believe that it can be consistently held as God's inerrant word, because if that is the case, then God is a real bastard. He has a terrible memory, because he can't remember whether Judas gave the money back and hanged himself, or used it to purchase a field and then burst asunder. He can't remember the order in which he created life on earth. He can't remember whether He told David to take a census (2 Samuel 24) or whether Satan told David to take the census (1 Chronicles 21). Either way, "God" apparently was so pissed off at David for taking a census, that he sent a pestilence and killed 70,000 innocent people, because He was angry at David. (Who, by the way, was God's chosen king of Israel, even though he fell in love with a married woman and had her husband killed.) He believes a rebellious child should be taken out to the city gates and stoned (Deuteronomy 21:18). He believes the "punishment" for a man who rapes an unbetrothed virgin is to pay the virgin's father 50 shekels and then marry the victim without possibility of divorce.
Is that consistent in your mind with the God that Jesus told us about?
Many Old Testament ideas about God are deeply, deeeply flawed in many places. That accusation is supported by the Old Testament prophets and the coming of Jesus himself.
On this incest issue, you are trying to entrap me, as the Pharisees tried to entrap Jesus. I am not Jesus, so I don't have a pithy, dead-on yet vague response for you. We both feel that an incestuous marriage is wrong, but you are trying to goad me into somehow defending something I don't defend. I have said that in addition to religious beliefs on the matter, there are pragmatic concerns which justify and reinforce those religious beliefs.
I am not trying to entrap you at all. They were questions that I honestly wanted your answers too.
On the Old Testament passages; which one would you like to discuss first? You will have to be patient with me as I try to do a little research on the passages you listed.
What do you make of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, or Jesus saying in Matthew that He had not come to abolish the Law (the Old Testament) or the Prophets, but to fulfill them?
Future Geek: The contradictions in the bible are so numerous that I think the only rational course is to assume that it is completely flawed
But if I submit to you that the Bible is an anthology of historical writings about God by different authors across centuries of history, then it does not follow that if one book or passage is flawed, subsequent passages are similarly flawed.
Gary:
I'll answer some of your points. You said: "What is discrimination in the standard sense?"
The word discriminate (without reaching for my dictionary) means basically to separate things out. If you separate someone out especially because of their race, social class, education, gender, religion, or whatever, you are discriminating in the sense that we are talking about. Generally agreed on to be a bad thing in 21st century America.
If I don't like you because you have bad breath, I'm not discriminating against you. If I dislike you because you are black, then I am discriminating against you.
Your not being allowed to marry your sister is not discrimination in the sense we are talking about because your desire to marry her is not an immutable part of you. You weren't born with that desire.
Also, I bet there's a pretty small segment of the population that wants to marry their siblings like you do. Gay folks, on the other hand, are a significant minority.
Let's take another example. I've always wanted to have a harem of slave women from around the globe. It sure would be a lot of fun right? But it's morally repugnant, and the activities I would have to engage in to do it would be illegal for good reason. Am I being discriminated against because the law won't allow me to do that?
You said:
"So you have to be a social class to be able to be with the person you love now? Is that what you are saying..."
Where did anyone say that?
"and it is legitimate govt. interest (whatever that is) that outweigh a persons genuine feelings and emotions toward their (his/her) object of affection?"
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying here... but I'm going to assume.
Yes, there are some cases where government interests might outweigh the interests of the individual. Marrying your sister would be one of those cases, for the reasons already given: complication of family relations, the possibility of coercion, danger to offspring, etc. All those reasons, taken together, might be enough of a threat to society if enough people did it, that (one could argue) it should be outlawed.
Gary: pick whichever passage interests you most.
I would say -- because it is indisputable that Jesus overturned much of Old Testament scripture -- that yes, he did come to fulfill the law and the prophets; by which, we must infer that there's a lot things that got written into the scripture that are not God's law.
Andy,
Forgive me for implying that all Christians are irrational.
I think there are a lot of different (rational) ways to look at the bible: a collection of historical documents, a collection of myths, a flawed book of instructions from the deity (flawed because of human error in transmission)... looking at it as the inerrant word of god is
irrational though. Personally I think that there are enough contradictions in the bible to make the Christian viewpoint suspect... that doesn't make you irrational for trying to find some truth in it.
I might disagree with you on how rational Christian beliefs are in the first place, but I wouldn't say it's irrational for a Christian to look for the proper interpretation of their holy book.
"But if I submit to you that the Bible is an anthology of historical writings about God by different authors across centuries of history, then it does not follow that if one book or passage is flawed, subsequent passages are similarly flawed."
That's true... but you should be suspicious of subsequent passages, no?
Yes.
Here's how I look at it, though. For all the inconsistencies, the general sweep of the New Testament is remarkably coherent, especially the Gospels -- perhaps not in terms of chronological or historical aspects, but in terms of the picture they paint about who God is and what He expects of us, there are more passages that agree than disagree.
Therefore, when we come across a passage that sticks out as potentially inconsistent, we need to examine it. Is it because we have an inconsistency in our understanding -- such as my recent radical revision regarding determinism -- or is it because the weight of the Gospel goes in another direction?
We pray, we read, we talk to people we trust, and we eventually come to a reasoned conclusion (hopefully), that we can share with other people.
It's not disrespectful or sacrilege to take part of the Bible and say, "I disagree with this" when the support for your argument comes from the Bible itself.
fg,
by you own definition, "separating someone out especially because of their race, social class, education, gender, religion, or whatever..." I think you are contradicting yourself by saying that not being able to marry my sister is not discrimination in the sense you are talking about because that "desire" to marry her is not an immutable part of you, I wasn't born with that desire. Ummmmmm and you know that because...? You really can't say that... You definitely can't substantiate it. And how you say what is and what is not morally repugnant? What is your standard? Anyway...
Andy,
Deuteronomy 22:28-29...
(I will concede that we are not under that aspect of the Law now, I would not say that it is any less part of God's Word)
lets get it in context. God is giving the nation of Israel 'Laws', right? And, in your opinion, God doesn't have the right to spell out a set of rules and ordinances (however weird they may seem to us in this culture)? And you keep referring to Jesus overturning aspects of the Law. What did Jesus do when he talked about morality... he upped the ante`, did he not? Not only is it wrong to do the action, it is sin to want to do the action in your heart.
What I am learning is that to hold to your positions, you have to throw the Bible out. You cannot believe the Bible and hold to your positions. I say that with utter sadness, how does one come to know Jesus and why He came and what He came to accomplish or who He was and is and how that relates to us as individuals and how that relates to our relationship with God or how that relates to our sin...
It saddens me!
Grant and Horne say it better than I ever could:
"It is the sad tendency of modern men to either do the right thing the wrong way or to do the wrong thing the right way. We either hold to the truth obnoxiously or we hold to a lie graciously. We are either a rude angel or a polite devil. Often what poses as a cruel orthodoxy is defeated by a kind heresy."
Where do you get the idea that I am throwing out the Bible? My entire argument is scripturally based; you have given me zero reference to support your argument.
If we're talking about God's laws, then let's analyze the Bible just as we would the laws of the United States. Does the existence of a law make it right? Historically we'd argue no. America's laws have historically supported slavery and many other heinous forms of discrimination -- and often relied upon the Bible for justification! But when we go back to the overriding principles set forth in the constitution, we find a basis for revising our thinking about certain laws and a process for tossing them out when we find them in conflict with fundamental constitutional principles.
I find much of the Old Testament in fundamental conflict with the essential Gospel principles; even Judaism does not regard what we call the "Hebrew Bible" as inerrant and sacrosanct. Why on earth should we?
Of course God has the "right," if you want to phrase it that way, to establish the rules for moral living. But as Christians, I think we have to give primacy to the Gospel. Have I sat here and said that all of the Old Testament is invalid? Have I said the ten commandments are bunk?
No. I have pointed to certain, limited passages of Scripture, and using rational thought supported by other Scriptural arguments, have made an effective case that they do NOT reflect the will of God, but rather the prejudices of an extinct culture.
The obnoxious truth is that not only am I not tossing out the Bible, I seem to be the only one actually referring to it here.
I will concede that we are not under that aspect of the Law now
Under what basis? As I pointed out, there is nothing in the New Testament that specifically cancels out this rule.
Are you saying that at time we can defer to our own conscience as it is shaped by evolving cultural standards of decency?
My spirituality has evolved in much the same way my identity as a queer person has ... in solitude, through reading, reflecting, and by making connection to friends, and with community. The basis of my spirituality ... a relationship or dialogue with God in prayer, a regular practice of reading and study, relationships with friends and chosen family... has laid the foundation on which I continue to build my understanding of God, God’s presence in my life, and God’s presence in the world.
I don’t expect ever to be able to fully explain all that God is for me, yet I have joyfully discovered much about God as I have grown in faith. We cannot know all there is to know, and are very finite in time. We must therefore exercise great humility when interpreting events and moralizing the lives and actions of other people. We must remain true to Jesus’ example and not become oppressors ourselves.
In queer community, I believe God is revealed profoundly in the stories we have to share with each other. As queer Christians, we are only beginning to discover how to articulate in words the living Gospel written in our bodies. This is a Gospel that tells of our oppression, our experience of the closet, of loneliness, of betrayal. This is a Gospel that tells of our continuing liberation from theologies that divide the body and spirit, the human and non-human, the rational and the mysterious. This is a Gospel that is reconciling us and through us all people into relationship with a God of love and of life.
When so-called Christians deny queer men and women the presence of God in our lives, and in our bodies, they are also denying the presence of God in their own bodies and lives. People of our faith, following Jesus example, have known for millennia what science claims to have recently discovered ... that the whole universe forms one, continuous web of life. When we know the earth is holy we will know that our bodies are holy because our bodies are from the earth, are sustained by the earth and return to the earth. There is no place, space or time where God’s presence is not.
From my earliest days as a little boy, I had an early and profound sense of otherness which other people labeled as gayness. I was regularly taunted, sometimes beaten by bullies. It wasn't until I fully embraced my faith that I came to understand my queerness as an integral and beautiful part of myself. My body is holy. The physical expression of my sexuality in my relationship is holy.
I continue to learn as a Christian that as I am seeking God, God is also seeking me. To those who see me as immoral, or unworthy of being welcomed and loved by their church community, I say this: It is the inability to comprehend just how great and wonderful and loving our God is which causes you to perceive as evil and reject the natural presence and birth into this world of queer people like me. In diminishing me, you are diminishing youselves and our God. Jesus, whose life, teaching, suffering, death, resurrection, presence and promised return gives to us the example of how to open the eyes of our hearts to love and justice, and gives us the hope that one day all illusion, all oppression, and all hatred can be overcome.
Peace.
Paul
You have already stated that there are verses in Deut. that you reject. That is where I get the idea that you throw out the Bible. I wonder what you do with the verses that condemn immoral behavior (adultery, fornication, incest, homosexuality, etc.)I was just stating an observation that I had made... as soon as one throws out inerrancy, there are no guidelines; or the guidelines are fluid and controlled by subjectivity.
For my references, scroll up... 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Matthew 5:17-20, Moses said in Exodus 24:4 that he wrote down everything the LORD had said... I know you have read the numerous accounts in the Prophets, "Thus says the LORD"... how then, do we reject any one part of it, sure there are parts that were given at a particular time in history to a particular people that had been set apart for the worship of the LORD and that people had very specific "laws" that they were to follow (ceremonial, dietary, etc.). And on the statement about where in the NT that the Law gets fulfilled, read Matthew 5. I don't think it is responsible to lump everything together and take things out of context though.
Isn't enough that that (The Law) was what Jesus quoted when he was rebuking or teaching? The Bible doesn't need me to prove it... it is self-authenticating.
My original concern was that you were lumping all the ceremonial "rituals" of the OT and equating them with biblical morality; hence my question about your statement that, "God wants you just as you are. No man is unclean. No change is necessary to be worthy of God’s love" and how you would reconcile that with repentance. And to talk about repentance, we would have to talk about sin and to talk about sin we (I) have to go to the Bible...
on your question about my conceding that we are not under Mosaic Law, we are not living in a Theocracy. That was what I meant by that.
andy,
i've stated that the bible is inerrant. as a christian, you need to beleive that if you desire to study and quote the bible.
i am not making, even for a moment, the claim that the bible is literal, nor conclusive, all the time. i am a catholic, not a literalist.
every word of the bible is inerrant in its context. context is most important of all, for without it, all you have are words.
Paul: thank you for your personal testimony.
Gary: Thank you for the challenge.
When Paul wrote his letters to Timothy, there was no such thing as "The Bible," and there were more than four gospels floating around. The New Testament canon was not generally settled until Athanasius, who lived from 298 - 373, the bulk of his ecclesiastical life occurring some 300 years after Paul. Even today, the contents of "The Bible" are not completely agreed upon. As an Episcopalian, my Bible contains the Apocrypha, which we define as "not necessary to salvation" but nonetheless worthy of contemplation. Of the Gnostic Gospels rejected by Athanasius and Irenaeus, many scholars today nonetheless find authority in books such as the Gospel of Thomas. These other gospels were contemporary, but were deemed heretical by the early church fathers. We may hope and pray that conclusion was guided by the Holy Spirit, but nonetheless, Paul could not possibly have known which "scriptures" would be included in the final canon by people living centuries after him.
Moreover, we do not have a single original copy of any book of the New Testament. You do know that, right? The oldest manuscripts we have date to the 300s, and most of those are in bad shape and incomplete, and where they are complete, they often disagree. Within Paul's letters -- 1 Corinthians especially -- scholars have a plethora of reasons to believe that certain passages are not part of Paul's original text. (There are also many Gospel passages which are subject to similar scholarly debate: the woman taken in adultery story is not found in the manuscripts considered to be the oldest and most authentic; there are several others.)
Therefore, it is entirely possible that at the time of writing, what Paul considered to be "Scripture" was all the things he said it was, but he may well not agree with that statement today if he'd seen how the Bible turned out.
The Matthew passage: as I said, I believe Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the Prophets; therefore, where the Law of Moses is in conflict with the Gospel, it cannot be viewed as valid Law. If the Laws of Moses, as they stood, were sufficient for salvation, there would have been no need for Jesus to preach.
Ah yes, Moses and the Torah. Well, most Biblical scholars believe that the first and second chapters of Genesis have different authors. Numbers 12:3 says, "Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than anyone else on the face of the earth." How odd of Moses to write about himself in the third person, no? And for Moses to say, of himself in the third person, that he is more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth...that's kinda not real humble, isn't it? Just asking.
Now, have you read the last chapter of Deuteronomy? You know, the one that describes when Moses died, where he was buried, and what happened next? You think Moses wrote that, hmmm???
You claim because I find justification for disregarding these passages -- certainly not all of the Old Testament, not even all of the Pentateuch -- that I am "throwing out the Bible."
No way. I believe in the sermon on the mount. I believe in the passion and resurrection. I believe in passages like 1 Corinthians 13 (which, btw, is one of the passages scholars believe is authentic, UNLIKE 1 Corinthians 14:33-36, which scholars believe is a later addition).
Honestly, did you think any gay person could have this conversation with you?
every word of the bible is inerrant in its context
Well, then explain to me this, because I think this is a rather important part of the Christian story:
We all know that Judas betrayed Jesus for the sum of 30 pieces of silver, all the Gospels agree on that.
Matthew tells us that after the betrayal, Judas, "remorseful," went back to the temple and threw the pieces of silver at the feet of the priests, then went and hanged himself. The priests took the money and purchased a field, in which they buried Judas (Matthew 27:3-8).
Acts, written by the author of Luke, tells us that not only did Judas not return the money, he himself purchased the field, in which he "fell headlong and burst asunder, and all his entrails spilled out." (Acts 1:16-20)
Those statements are factually irreconcilable. At least one of them must be historically incorrect.
Please now defend Biblical inerrancy.
written for two different audiences. and stressing two different aspects of the same story.
remember, mark wasnt there, so his first person account cant be taken as such. matthew wasnt there either, and was writing based on what another told him as well.
judas could have fallen headlong while hanging himself. it was his 30pcs of silver, for after he rejected it, nobody else claimed it and it was still his, and was used to purchase the field. possibly in his name since the money had become too unclean for another to admit having anything to do with it.
they dont appear factually at odds to me at all.
just different takes on the same facts.
if you beleive the bible is errant, dont study it, because you might be led astray.
Now this is a real brainbuster. You can admit that a story might have been told differently to two different people, with different facts each time? Well then, what about the other stuff? Like, when Paul said something about marriage and women, was he only saying it because he was talking to a particular audience? In that case, maybe he wasn't speaking the word of god eh?
Where do you draw the line? As you say, either the bible is inerrant or it's not. If there are factual errors and contradictions, then it's not inerrant. Simple as that.
Explain to me how that's not so?
Gary:
Jesus quoted a scripture we don't have in the Bible at least once (I think it's in Matthew, I believe it was Second Daniel, I know they found it among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were of course contemeporary to Jesus)--which complicates, albeit doesn't disprove, the whole "he quoted from it the whole book should be taken as true" thesis.
I am curious to which denomination, if any, you belong? I ask because generally non-Catholics are willing to be uncomforatable with the (Catholic-chosen) canon. And certainly anyone using a Lutheran Bible (sans Apocrypha) has to admit that sometimes A Person has severely affected which scriptures are considered "true," even counter to 1200(ish) years of established accepted theological tradition.
Gino, you are totally reaching. I am willing to give flexibility to the synoptic gospels (certainly if Jesus had a good stump speech he would give it more than once--hence the Sermon on the Mount is also a sermon in the field), but seriously.he hanged and split open?? I am like the most orthodox Catholic I know, and that is silly.
The Church teaches that the bible is _morally_ inerrant, not factually inerrant (um, sun going around the earth?? probably never happened). And (Gary/Andy) the Church also fully recognizes the revolutionary aspects of Jesus, cutting flotsam from the OT. Good grief, his entire ministry he grumps at the Pharisees for entangling the people in human-constructed rules that do not help them spiritually ... and he denies support for all the capital punishments that are strewn through the OT.
As Christians we must look first at the Gospels, then at the rest of the NT (I'd put Acts first here), and THEN at the OT, for moral elucidation. Andy has pointed out several places where Jesus said, "Yeah, that one? WRONG." (And like the good Protestant he is, he even cited them :). ) To take the OT wholesale is to ignore Jesus own example.
What would Jesus do?
His parables specifically call us to question instinctive/learned assumptions. That is what they are specifically structured to do.
He himself specifically refutes specific OT items.
He teaches a life based on fundamental morals instead of nitpicky ones.
He lets his disciples "work" on the Sabbath.
He IS The Law. He is the fulfillment by his nature. If the "law" disagrees with Him, He wins--the written law is only legitimate inasfar as it matches Him.
Jesus used his brain in context of the inherited law, and specifically tried to teach his followers to use theirs--and then sent the Holy Spirit to guide them as well (so presumably all the answers we not obvious and further thinking needed to be done).
I am so sorry for the (huge number of) typos--I had a kid talking at me and I'm tired.
That last "we" should be "were." I think you all can figure the rest out with only winces.
FG, in case you skipped it, I just addressed inerrancy, but forgot to put your initials in as an interested party.
like i said KR: context. some things are factual, and meant to be taken as such, but the scriptures werent necessarily written as history, but as one method of preserving the faith. the written cannot stand alone without the teaching traditions.
where the author wasnt present, like in the judas death scenario, we cannot take the events as factual,(as for me, i try to reconcile differences, but i am not without error)but the lesson being taught needs to be heeded.
this whole topic has gone way far afield, imv.
scripture inerrancy should be a topic of its own.
maybe i'll start one before i leave town saturday. a good way to get folks involved maybe?
Ooooh, KR, thanks -- great comment.
Gino: No, those passages are not reconcilable. Read them again. Matthew says he went back to the temple and returned the money, and the PRIESTS used it to buy a field. Mark says Judas kept the money to buy himself a field. Plus, there are serious theological implications about the different modes of death: Judas was so guilt-ridden that he committed suicide (which, although suicide is a sin, that redeems him somewhat, doesn't it?); OR, God was so angry that he smote Judas by giving him the worst hernia in history. People don't just fall down randomly and have their stomachs pop open.
1 John tells us "God desires not the death of any sinner." Any. That is the great miracle of God's grace and the redemption through the resurrection. Everything can be pardoned if we come back to God in contrition. And that right there is fundamentally why so much of the Old Testament is clearly...well, whack. The ancient Hebrews were primitive: what they couldn't understand, they attributed to God. But Jesus came to show them how wrong they were about a great many things. God does not show his favor to us by letting us win great battles, or turn his face from us and allow us to be slaughtered by our enemies. He wants us not to fight.
The -- as always -- amazing Slacktivist on Biblical inerrancy:
As errant, fallible humans we cannot judge whether or not a text is inerrant and infallible. But even if we take it on faith that the text is all that they say it is, we're still no better off because we cannot supply this perfect text with perfect readers, or with a reading that is "inerrant" or "infallible."...What we claim about the text cannot trump what we know about ourselves. We are finite, fallible and fallen. (And far too full of preconception and misconception to ever claim our reading of scripture is sola scriptura.) Certainty is a divine prerogative, not a human one.
The whole post is well worth a read. Gary, you really ought to take a look at this blog Slacktivist, if you are unfamiliar with it. The author was raised evangelical and has a background in theology -- and is an amazing writer.
Yes, Gino, we have gotten a bit far afield of the original focus.
But I don't mind, because the arguments here are all central to the point: is homosexuality an abomination because the Bible says so? Or is there a moral and scriptural case to be made to the contrary? The issue of inerrancy is central to this debate.
I barely can keep up here Andy, but I will check out that blog.
I am glad you reiterated the central argument, "is homosexuality an abomination because the Bible says so? Or is there a moral and scriptural case to be made to the contrary? The issue of inerrancy is central to the debate"
If you or anyone else could prove the Bible to be false (something know one has been able to do) then you could throw out the view that homosexuality is an abomination. The fact of the matter is the Bible does speak to immorality (fornication, adultery, & homosexuality) in very clear terms.
As I was reading back over the comments I noticed that you didn't throw out incest because anything that you thought was moral or immoral based on what the Bible says (which was the point of the question; I wanted to know how you reached a conclusion on issues of morality or immorality) meaning, that if you can justify homosexuality you can just about justify anything else (biblically). My views on homosexuality are based solely on what the Bible has said about relations between persons of the same gender. I don't disdain you, I don't know anything about you for that matter, other than you are a kind & intelligent Episcopalian Homosexual that doesn't believe the Bible (in certain select areas) or how you put it, "--oh yeah and you have a blog.
On inerrancy... here is a succinct statement that I fully agree with. Read it if you want my stance on inerrancy.
you said, " Paul could not possibly have known which "scriptures" would be included in the final canon by people living centuries after him." What do you make of 2 Peter 3:16, where Peter refers to Paul's letters as "Scriptures" equating Paul's letters with other scriptures (scriptures being Law and Prophets)?
Take this as a challenge if you want to, I am really trying to find out how you reconcile these things. It is hard to see the tone of a persons heart like this... and yes I know that we don't have any original autograph's.
Well, Gary, suffice it to say that I don't completely agree with that view of Scripture, which is why I'm an Episcopalian.
I recognize that many Christians have scriptural inerrancy as an article of faith, but a great many also do not. Leaving aside disjunctions caused by chronological and historical disagreements within the Bible, I fail to understand how we are to morally reconcile passages like the instruction in Deuteronomy to stone a rebellious "drunkard" child with the parable of the prodigal son in the Gospel.
I do not believe that God intended for us to maintain cognitive dissonances as essential foundations of our faith. Frankly, many in the Episcopal tradition view the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy as a form of idolatry, and therefore heresy.
The reason for that is because even the earliest manuscripts we have are incomplete and often in disagreement, sometimes in very minor ways, but other times significantly. The Bible that you and I are reading -- quite apart from the filter of English translation -- cannot be regarded as "inerrant" because at some point along the way, an editor or a group of editors made a (prayerful) choice about which manuscript or version of a manuscript to defer to. So we have these multiple problems: the text we have has multiple inconsistencies, and we don't have the original text. Asserting definitively then that our modern Bible is "inerrant" is a risky proposition.
Now, on this question of "you can justify homosexuality, therefore you can justify anything else."
Yes and no. First, I am not trying to justify anything else. I am not trying to justify sin or immoral behavior. And I am not just tossing aside the passages from Leviticus or Romans, I have provided a scripture-based argument for why they are incompatible with Gospel teachings.
But yes, the Bible can be used to justify almost anything, if history is any guide. The crusades, the inquisition, the holocaust, polygamy, slavery, the murder of abortion doctors, the war on Iraq. Take your pick. Tremendous evil has been justified using scripture. Of that I am well aware.
I do not claim to be certain that I am correct or certain that you are are wrong; after all, certainty is the opposite of faith.
Proving the bible wrong:
You ought to read Richard Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible - it will give you some good info on biblical scholarship, historical, linguistic, etc.
I'm curious how much of the bible you believe is 100% correct. What about 6 day creation?
I can't understand the insistence on biblical inerrancy. I'm really not sure why it's all that important, anyway. Why can't we accept the bible as flawed and go on with doing our best to understand the message, as Andy does?
Well, it's not that simple, FG, because as I said, some Christians hold inerrancy as an article of faith.
Many people are taught that to question the authority of the Bible is to question God himself. Of course, they don't realize that there's nothing wrong with questioning God -- people do it in the Bible ALL THE TIME. According to the Gospels, the apostles were real lunkheads. They asked Jesus (aka God) all kinds of dumb questions. Abraham questioned God. Moses did it. Job certainly did it. Anyone ever read any of the Psalms? How many of them contain verses that begin, "Why, God...?" It is COMPLETELY okay to question God's authority. I guarantee He doesn't mind; in fact, I think He prefers it.
If you don't ask questions, you never get answers.
I guess it's those articles of faith I have a problem with. I have enough trouble believing that Jesus was the son of god. Adding a belief in 6 day creation, the flood, the parting of the Red Sea, Moses writing the Pentateuch, etc. just adds more absurdities in my view. Voltaire said it best: "Those who believe absurdities commit atrocities."
I feel like, if God gave us rational thought, he wants us to use it. I think you'd agree Andy and KR, but I'm interested in what the 'inerrantists' (I just made that word up) have to say about it).
Reply to Gary: the inerrancy statement:
I want to specifically ask how you interpret Article V, which leaves a lot of wiggle room--wiggle room which we are all worming around in right now:
Article V
We affirm that God’s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. / We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it.
(I cut the last sentence of the article because it isn't pertinent to this question.)
Let's take a specific example: divorce. Is New Testament teaching (Jesus' teaching and church teaching) "progression," or "correction"? I see it as correction of a premission Jesus himself says "Moses" gave--which implies directly, from the mouth of Jesus, that some human stuff got put into the texts of (at least the) Old Testament.
Mt 19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-12 say almost the same thing:
The Pharisees challenged Jesus about divorce, which was allowed (by implication, it was already a cultural practice) by Moses (Dt 24:1-4).
Jesus said, among other things, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so" (Mt 19:8, the New Oxford Annotated--I'm using my most stringent Protestant/scholarly translation so we can avoid translation objections).
(See also Mt 5:31, Lk 16:18, and, from the church post-Ascension, 1Cor 7:10-13.)
To me, this seems not only an admission but in fact a direct Teaching, by Jesus Himself--and repeated, we note, FOUR TIMES in three Gospels--that some of The Law and The Prophets in not only human-caused, it is in fact contrary to the intentions of God, and contrary to the teachings Jesus says ((Mt 19:4-6, Mk 10:6-9) God implanted in previous parts of the Scripture--in the deepest cultural inheritance of the Hebrews, the Creation story.
And now let's look at that Luke passage, 16:18, in context. The Pharisees had "ridiculed" Jesus (16:14) for a parable. He responds (16: 15-31, but specifically 16:15c-18): "for what is prized by human beings is an abomination in the sight of God.
"The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force./But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped.
"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery."
Now the whole argument between Jesus and the Pharisees is about money (and specifically money-grubbing), in both of the parables that bracket the section I've quoted. This divorce statement is completely out of the blue--except if we see it as explanatory of his seemingly conflicting 'the law and the prophets are not longer in effect'/'no stroke of the law can change' assertions immediately preceeding it. Again, we have the implication, by Jesus' specific (and otherwise strangely placed) teaching, that "the law and the prohets" (the Hebrew Bible) is not necessarily equivalent with "the law" (God's moral truth).
Now, I recognize that within this argument, which explicitly touches on marriage and sexual creation, there are many potential inroads into the morality of homosexuality, but I ask, Gary, that you not take them, because, like Andy, I think the question of inerrancy is primary--questions of sexual morality cannot be argued coherently without some agreement on the specifics of inerrancy.
Reply to Gary: Article X, autographical authority:
Which human authority gets to declare in which parts of the Scriptures "the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy"?
Again, huge wiggle room here, and certainly openings through which a truck can be driven by any spiritual enthusiast who sets themselves up on a streetcorner. Or by Martin Luther. Or by a Pope (whether or not one attributes special spiritual gifts to the Popes).
----
All in all, this inerrancy statement is a marvel of political speech (a la John Kerry's statement on abortion)--James White uses strong language that specifically condemns (to people who are looking for that language) the claimed teaching authority of the Catholic Church while poking, with the other hand, many of the same holes in literalist "inerrancy" that the Catholic Church accepts. Now, condemnation of the Teaching Authority of the Roman Church is of course necessary to be a Protestant--that is more or less the point, after all--so it wasn't surprising.
But throughout that statement are a lot of effective 'oh, well, except's, that leave the question of inerrancy squarely on the shoulders of the individual Bible-reader--unless the reader cedes authority to another source: James White, modern scholars, their local pastor, a TV evangelist, the R.Catholic Magesterium ... cult leaders, George Bush, Joseph Smith, King Henry VIII, one's local Felllowship ... . All of these have claims to inerrant (or at least less-errant) Biblical interpretations (some say, "understandings," calling in the tradtional English translation of one of the traditional seven Gifts Of The Holy Spirit to lend authority to their claims).
In any case, James White admits within these Aritcles that the Bible cannot be literally taken every word in any given translation, and gives no specific guidance (in this statement) on which parts can be taken how, and why. Agreeing with his (very non-specific although linguistically rarified) statement tells me very little about your moral interpretations.
Your condemnation of the current manifestation of Andy's (thoughtful, determined, and long-term) deep engagement with the Christian Bible thus far suggests your moral interpretations are all about the logs in other people's eyes. Ever optimistic, I assume they aren't, but you aren't doing a strong job supporting your opinions and you aren't doing a competent job answering questions, which have been fairly specific, about your views on inerrancy.
Andy has the humility to admit that his process is exploratory, and to present his assertions as theories and arguments, and to admit (and admit immediately, which is by itself notable) personal conceptual development through his continuing, prayerful discernment process--which process he explicitly invites people from differing backgrounds to be a part of.
Claiming everything he thinks is Right would be ridiculous. Even the Popes don't claim that (and only Catholics without solid theology think the Popes can). There is nothing weak about Andy admitting fallibility--you yourself wield the concept of fallibility more or less as a rhetorical sword.
I cannot see why you feel comfortable declaring Andy "wrong"--on what authority? James White himself doesn't claim Biblical inerrancy the way you have thus far implied it should be interpreted.
Support why the homosexuality verses still apply, rather than just declaring "they do"--nobody here is impressed with such declarations, and every homosexual, Christian or non-, has heard them before. You have to build their legitimacy.
(I made my case in March--I think it was March 9--of this year; I think mine is the only recent(?) scriptural defense on this blog of the potential sinfulness of homosexuality that went beyond the "it says so" argument.)
This string moves fast.
partial reply to Gary: "scripture"
2 Peter 3:16, from your link: "There are some things in them [Paul's letters] that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures."
OK, but this directly raises the question, who gets to say what is the Right understanding of Paul? Peter apparently believed he had a right understanding and some others didn't ... ?
By your own implication, as fallible sinners, we are none of us 100% qualified. (I'd count myself and everyone I've ever met as observably at least somewhat "ignorant and unstable.")
If God didn't leave a teaching authority and teaching tradition, theology is mere human chaos. Since baptism in the Holy Spirit seems to have been the expected norm in early Christianity, and yet there were still Chritians needing correction (see all of the Epistles, and this verse you quoted), apparently the Holy Spirit does not act in all of us (presumably because we do not let it) in an authoritative teaching capacity.
In a technical sense (again, Jewish scholars jump in--Andy, you live in NYC, can you find us some Jewish scholars?), at Peter's time "scriptures" designated texts from which it is legitimate to learn, not inerrant texts which were universally understood within the Hebrew culture to be literally followed. Witness within the NT the theologically warring sects (Essene, Pharisee, Saducee--there were other contemporary sects that do not appear in the texts--oh, and Samaritans, for that matter, who were at least partly Hebrew), and the teachings of Jesus leveled against different ones at different times. Jesus himself is understood to have been an itinerant preacher, a movement that was not very coherent but was distinct from the others. The scriptures discovered in the Dead Sea caves record, already at that time, a variety of texts for some of our "Scriptures"--and for some that didn't become part of the Christian canon. As I stated earlier, Jesus is portrayed as having quoted directly from at least one of these extra-canonical scriptures. Although I am certain Peter calling Paul's letters "scripture" weighed heavily in their eventual inclusion in our Bibles, their use of the term was very very different from our use today.
I don’t doubt I am failing here… to be honest I haven’t been challenged like this before and for that I thank you.
I definitely don't have an answer to all your questions.
Allow me to dust myself off of the floor, bow-out (for now), and study-
Gary, you're not failing at all, and you're welcome to contribute to discussion here any time.
The Holy Spirit works in conversation, and neither KR nor I nor anyone else whom I would bother "talking" to are under any sort of illusion that we have all the right answers and nothing to learn from other perspectives.
KR's intellectual rigor and passion is intimidating, I know. I am frequently intimidated, myself.
I think this has been a very fruitful discussion, and thank you -- sincerely -- for your contributions.
Faith is a journey. Don't be afraid to question what you think you know. If you are right, by questioning your beliefs you will reinforce them and find new ways to communicate them effectively to other people.
KR, when I met you bact at CE Mason in 4th grade, you in your plaid Catholic school uniform and me in my JC Penney "Husky Boy" jeans (sigh) and we played hopscotch together, I don't think I could imagine someday we'd be sitting on opposite ends of the country having a "blog" discussion about scriptural justifications of sexual morality. Funny how things turn out.
New friend: I have just stumbled onto this site from Parterre Box. After wading through acres of interesting stagnation, I have discovered a fellow opera-loving gay man who has a spiritual dimension. Can't wait to bring myself up to speed with your thoughts, and the responses/observations of your readers.
:).
Sorry I have been gone--our network went down and my resident network maven was out of town.
Gary: Good show. I look forward to hearing from you if you come back. (To your honor, you not only leave behind the log-in-your-eye question, you resisted turning it back on me ;).) I am myself participating here because Andy and the readers he collects are a good challenge for me.
Andy: Since in fourth grade I had marriage ambitions regarding you, the internet didn't effectively exist, and you were (gossiped to be) unconvinced of the intellectual capabilities of girls ... yeah, I think our here and now is pretty Far Out ;).
But whatever, it's good times :).
----
Everyone: a (partial but quite significant) recantation: In my time away from the fray, I pounded on my brain a bit and I think I have remembered more about that non-canonical bit--I'm thinking it was actually not Jesus quoting directly, but the gospel author (I'm still pretty sure it was the author called "Matthew") using a not-in-our-canon scripture to explain or justify Jesus (Matthew being, of course, very centered on textual justification and reaching out to the stricter Jews). I'm still pretty sure it 2nd Daniel--which would make sense since the books of Daniel are an apocalyptic collection, and Jesus was understood to be the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies.
So that claim I made is probably in error, and I am very sorry; it comes of trying to remember reading I did about 8 years ago (pre-kids). I am fairly sure the source was "Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls: A Reader from the Biblical Archaeology Review," edited by Herschel Schanks (c. 1992, 1st Ed. 1993), although I cannot find the passage right now (grr). As I can only get through about 50 pages in a good week now (instead of 100+ pages/day), this book's 290 pages (+notes) are beyond me right now. It is Really Good Stuff, though, from scholars of varied backgrounds, and a super primer on the scrolls and some important parts of first century Judaic culture, as well as adressing the question of canon, both Christian and Jewish.
Also, it's a good base from which to refute sensationalistic "histories" involving early Christianity/late pre-diaspora Judaism ;).
----
Gary: I was previously aware of James White only by reputation (as a specifically anti-Catholic Christian apologist). Catholic Answers (catholic.com) has a variety of articles that mention him, some with more exasperation (less charity) than others. This one, http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp, is not uncharitable, and outlines succinctly the Catholic perception of the primary Catholic/sola scriptura gap, if you are interested.
That sidebar-article was written in 1993, and it sounds like (from the Articles to which you pointed us) his viewpoint is significantly more nuanced now, but many of the non-Catholic callers to the Catholic Answers radio show still evidence this conceptual difference.
Andy: " I believe the prohibitions on homosexuality came from exactly these kinds of ugly ancient cultural customs and need to be abandoned."
You know what, this is an area you and I could both start keeping track of information on. As I have not been reading directly for the subject, I have a general impression from many books that have touched on the topic peripherally that homosexual activity was fairly common and not widely condemned in the Middle East and the Meditteranean ... that the Bible's grumpiness on this is long-term (OT-Epistles) because in fact the surrounding cultures (and the Hebrews, at least sometimes) thought that the anti- rules were at least impractical, if not ridiculous.
One book, specifically about pre-history but fairly well supported (I think) anyhow, suggests it was a prejudice/belief system imported by the northern invaders (Hellenes)--and that the religion we receive from the Bible is such a mishmash because they tried to absorb and impose themselves (and their assumptions) upon the native Hebraic populace.
Recently attended a brief lecture on homosexual practices during Athens' Golden Age. Well, practices among the Citizens. Overall a pretty disgusting business of manipulation and heirarchy (notice that I am saying homosexual practices, not "homosexuality," as most if not all of the men involved would have considereed themselves hetero in our cultural lingo). But an interesting point, speaking of negative cultural attitudes, was that the boys (they were always younger men) were NOT supposed to LIKE being penetrated--that would be "womanly" (and we of course know how horrid Golden Age opinions of women were : P ). So this theoretcially homosexually open culture, with a whole bunch of (largely manipulative, I think) homosexual erotic poetry, is actually anti-homosexual (as we understand the term).
So that's some stuff.
Again, I haven't read specifically for this (and I get very little new reading done now), but it is something you or people you know might know something about. I think if you are going to suggest (and I note that you properly said only "I believe") the OT injunctions are sourced out of cultural prejudices, you should probably start gathering some solid info on that. If that is going to be a leg of your argument, which I don't think you can avoid, make it a reasonably strong one, eh?
Sorry to add ANOTHER long thing to this string, but I finally clicked on a gap in your assumptions that has been buzzing at me, unidentified, for quite some time.
Well, based on the limited references to it in scripture, we can infer that the Hebrews viewed all people as naturally heterosexual, and that to be homosexual was to go against "the use of nature." They did not conceive of homosexuality as innate or of having a biological origin, let alone having a romantic/emotional aspect to it. They thought of homosexual activity as mere gratification of perverse desires, not as a natural expression of a person's particular sexual orientation. The idea that same-sex couples would want to form a household and make a committed partnership together was way, way, way outside the cultural box -- as it remains for many people today.
If that were the case, then yes, surely homosexuality would be sinful. But fortunately it's not.
Yes, the picture drawn in our Bible certainly paints that.
But I am asking the broader questions: was their prejudice common? Were they unique?
I think you'll agree that the intersection of salvation history with these questions is at least interesting, if not deeply important to your construction, ground to explore.
Sorry for the horribly mixed metaphors; didn't get much sleep.
If it's not too late to post a comment to this discussion...
I just read an account written by a seminarian at General Theological Seminary of his conversation with an evangelical stranger aboard a plane.
The seminarian's story offers some helpful insights on the topic of biblical literalism/inerrancy vs. relativism/interpretation. Among other things, he claims that plain reading of scripture is only possible in the original language.
He writes, "when we get into the art and science of translating ancient languages into modern languages, we are engaged in interpretation. I can read an English Bible, but what I am reading is an interpretation, not the "plain" script of the original language."
He goes on from there. It's well worth a read.
h:
but even in the original languages, we have records (from Qumran, among other places) of variety within the individual texts that existed in the original languages--records of the devlopmental and editorial nature of many of them
one of the sections I almost got sucked into yesterday in that Dead Sea Scrolls book was about the settling of the Pharisiaical(?sp) canon (I believe this is the direct precursor of the modern Hebrew Bible, and also affected Christian canonical debates): how mostly they chose the most mature literary form of each book, but they notably specifically chose less literarily mature (generally, older) forms on a few, and how they also had to choose between different "traditions" (overall interpretive editorial views that could affect the literary development sometimes quite disparately, apparently) ...
I'm given to understand (again, I'm not a Jewish scholar) that even by the time of Jesus the Jews were unsure what the too-holy-to-be-written vowels in YHWH were supposed to be ... as of course we don't really know today.
"[T]he "plain" script of the original language," at least as best we can access it (which is very imperfectly), seems fraught with its own interpretive issues ... ?
---
A lighthearted (if somewhat depressing) related story, from a friend who used it to illustrate just how hick her hometown was: she was sitting at a bar listening to two men argue about something, I think the increasing pressure of Spanish-speakers in their state. After awhile, this was loudly declaimed: "If English was good enough for the Good Lord Jesus, it's good enough for me!!"
No surprise, that friend had no respect for Christianity at all.
: P.
Thanks, that was an awesome post!
KR makes a really good point.
(I can't believe this thread is continuing...)
I am particularly amazed by the "inerrant" fundamentalists who insist that the King James in particular is the default standard, when in fact that is generally acknowledged to be [one of] the most problematic translation[s] of all.
Ah, the King James ... quite wonderful in its own way :).
Perhaps partially translated by Shakespeare, they say.
Which is funny not only because of the generally non-pious reputation of theatre-folk, but even more so now that scholars have been debating the question of whether Will was in fact a practicing Catholic (as the otherwise inexplicable ending of Cymbeline seems to not just imply but advertise), and/or was homosexual ... making the inerrancy question that much trickier for non-Catholics using the King James ...
;).
Post a Comment