So, What Exactly Did the Bible Tell You?

Last year, I was ready. I was going to meet Richard Land, the President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy wing of the Southern Baptist Convention--and one of the most prominent evangelicals on the scene today. Yes, yes, there was a lot to talk about--the fact that he wrote a letter to President Bush justifying the invasion of Iraq, that he compared pro-choice doctors to slave owners, but I could only ask one question and I wanted it to be about homosexuality. I rattled off the parts of the Bible that we, as a society, have discarded because we have evolved past them: sanctioning the sale of women into slavery, not touching a felled tree or the skin of a dead pig (which pretty much rule out Christmas and football), etc. I quoted scripture--which is not a habit of mine--and asked when the church was going to evolve past the condemnation of homosexuality. He came back at me with one sentence: "Those examples are from the Old Testament, we take the New Testament as gospel." Damn it.

What I realized later, was that the answer he gave--while suave--did not explain his position on gay rights. First of all, Christians (while not wild about divorce) accept practitioners who have separated despite Mark 10:9, "What God has joined together, let not man separate." Second of all, the two passages of the Bible most frequently used to justify hatred of homosexuals are from the Old Testament: Leviticus 18:22, which refers to lying with man as with woman as an abomination, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis. What I learned at the premiere of the film, For the Bible Tells Me So, is that even those passages are widely disputed in meaning and importance.

The film portrays five religious families with gay members that have struggled to incorporate their love and their faith. For some, as with Dick Gephardt and his daughter, it was easier than others. What unfolds is a film that is both poignant and intellectually informative--a hard balance to strike. I didn't always feel that this film was directed towards me, it included a cartoon discussing why gay people are gay, and a lot of explanation that homosexuality is not a choice, it's really aimed at these families in the early stages of realizing they have a gay child. This is not to say it wasn't worthwhile or enjoyable--in fact the men and women of the cloth that are interspersed in the film discussing different interpretations of the Bible were wonderful in their depth of analysis. They combated every argument against them with ease, explaining that accepting homosexuality is not a new 'liberal' interpretation of scripture, but steeped in historical understanding, and illuminating the historical use of the Bible in minority oppression. But the beauty of the film, is that it never once decries religion or its followers--only those who promote hatred without understanding.

I had a chance to talk to Gene Robinson--one of the leads and the first openly gay Bishop in the Episcopal Church, and he said "I think it's easier right now to come out as gay and lesbian than to come out as religious." I think that would depend on where you're standing, but point well taken, the communities that accept homosexuality are often intolerant of religion and vice versa. The men and women in this film that seek both a relationship with a member of the same sex and with god, could use more tolerance from all of us.

Comments

[dadw5boys]

The bible TELLS you WHAT SEVERAL THOUSAND MEN wnat you to belive.
Over the century's Men with different agenda have decided what is to be included in the bible and what is not included.
HOW MANY OF YOU TRUST MEN TO WRITE YOUR REGLIOUS BELIEFS FOR YOU?
What were their agendas?
Control of Minds? Control of hearts? Control of labor? Control of thought? Control of thought?
TO WHAT END?
To keep the Controlers in charge?
To keep the people from refusing to fight wars?
To keep the people in line?
To gain access to their money? 10% of it at least.
To put individuals in fear of being different?

[radmul]

The assumption that any part of religion is true is ridiculus on its face. To argue which part of a fairy tale is true is pointless. If you wish to end bigotry end any respect for the irrational. No proof no seat in the discussion.

[johnnyjust]

It's always surprising how ignorant people are of the bible.

The Old Testament was the law, which, in short, is the immediate consequence of sin. For example, for the sin of committing an adulterous or homosexual act, there is the immediate consequence of death.

(A brief aside: If God created homosexuals, why did he then list it with other sins such as adultery that were such an abomination He gave it the sentence of death? The only answer the homosexual must come to: God didn't write the bible, hateful men did, therefore it can and should be rejected as meaningless. I truly feel homosexuals should take this stance as it is more honest than trying to pervert scripture. And if you're right you have nothing to worry about.)

Jesus brought grace, meaning you don't have the immediate consequence of sin, just the eternal consequence. If you don't repent, that is. Then you have eternal life.

Homosexuality is mentioned in the New Testament, though never in glowing terms. I'd ignore that, too, if I were in your pumps. And Jesus says all you need to know about gay marriage, divorce and evolution--for him who has ears--in Matthew 19.

Happy editing!

[Lisette]

I never heard or read any mention of homosexuality in the New Testament.

Christians are not very Christlike at all. And all they think about are sex acts.

There are a million ways to be a good Christian and those people practice none of them.

There are no corporal works of mercy. No spiritual works of mercy and on and on.

These people who hate are "Whited Sepulchers".
That is what Jesus called them

[ms.understood]

Personally, I think people need to mind their own business when it comes to gay issues and worry about what's going on in their own bedrooms. If everyone would just believe in the Bible, or not believe, and stop trying to condemn everyone else for sins that THEY believe are greater, this world would be a much better place.

[FatherWolf]

"Those examples are from the Old Testament, we take the New Testament as gospel."

So much for the Ten Commandments.

[JohnJames]

The Soddom and Gomorrah story really isn't contoversial. Anyone who reads it ought to see it's not about homosexuality. It's about men threatening to rape other men in order to humilitate them - to put them in the position of women - the worst possible shame in a patrarchal society. It's also the same thing that goes on in our prisons.

[skyblue]

Also, another reason Soddom and Gomorrah were burnt was because of the way they treated the poor.

[carly7]

For a summarized but educated look into the origins of homosexuality in the bible, read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_homosexuality

It's about time..someone has revisit the the origins of homophobia in order to remove yet another layer of discrimination in our society.

Course, the battle is not over -- considering that a great many continue to dispute the theory of evolution !!

In reality, the bible contains many gay-positive affirmations of love, compassion, and heroism. The idea of condemning homosexuality came partly from Philo, a leading Jewish scholar (20 B.C.E. to 50 C.E..) He had a significant amount of influence on biblical interpretation. He argued "that it was the primary duty of every male to procreate, and any sexual expression which did not produce legitimate offspring was "against nature."

Moreover, the Roman church does not want to be branded as a "homosexual" church, especially since its clergy and nuns are not permitted to marry.

We also know the Bible was written 300 years after Christ, that it was used by the Roman Empire for political reasons, and that no one has ever seen the original manuscripts - since "God" did not write them, they were written by Divine Interpretation - and therefore all translations are subject to the interpretation of their authors and the times they lived in.

Plus, the earliest manuscripts were written in Hebrew and the ancient language, Chaldee. Ancient Hebrew contained no written vowels. One determined which vowels went where by the context of what was being written. Try understanding a paragraph once you remove the vowels.

Given these arguments, one has to say that there is "reasonable doubt" that GOD condemns homosexuals. Then of course, we have the argument about laity (secular state) and the influence of religion (whether Islam, Christianity etc) in terms of "Morality" and in in relation to the economic and social governance of an economy and its people.

Spread Love

[drblack]

The bible will tell you nothing...read up on science.
If you really want to know what the bible says learn some Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic because the bible has been doctored ,mostly by the catholic church in order to control people more tightly.
Forget the bible....live life and get rid of superstition.

[slobone]

It irritates me that so many liberals seem to have swallowed the myth that evangelical Christians get all their beliefs straight from they Bible. They don't, for one simple reason: it's impossible to do so. The Bible (Old and New testaments both) is full of internal contradictions, peculiar injunctions, fascinating but incomprehensible statements. The evangelicals, like all other Christians, base their beliefs on interpretations of the Bible by theologians who came along later -- sometimes many centuries later.

[YellowPanties]

Are you irritated by the evangelical quoted in this article who says they take the New Testament as gospel? The fact is, liberals can be religious or not, Christian or not.

But you're going to find that those of us who are progressives/liberals are those who have a healthy respect for science, rationality, and reason. Those things do tend to fly out the window when Bible thumping happens.

There are plenty of Liberals who are Christian and who can also discern that the Bible is awash with distortions, intentional mis-translations, inaccuracies, myths and contradictory passages - and yet they still have faith in God.

[slobone]

Hmm, I think you misunderstood my point. I didn't accuse liberals (among whom I number myself BTW) of being biblical literalists, I accused them of being naive about the fundamentalists when they claim that THEY are. Read my post again, I don't think it was that hard to understand.

[johnnyjust]

Name one.

You'd be the first.

[Zanti]

Something tells me Jimmy Carter would laugh at your statement....

[realitytrumpsbull]

Jesus is my buddy
Jesus is my pal
If'n you don't like Jesus
Then you can go to HAL

[RogerHWerner]

Alex has a great bio statement!

Why waste time rationally arguing with someone with irrational beliefs? His response to your question about homosexuality was typical. I have listened Southern Baptist leaders and they use Old and New Testament canon when it's convenient.

Truth is, Southern Baptists don't follow original Baptist doctrine set down 17th century and brought to American by Roger Williams. Historical Baptists considered scripture to be the sufficient and exclusive rule of faith, and, every individual enjoyed unrestricted freedom in its interpretation. Further, Baptists rejected taking scripture out of context and cherry picking phrases; the practice of using one part of the Bible to prove a point while ignoring others parts that don't. Southern Baptists constantly take scripture out of context and cherry pick. What's more they demand doctrinal conformity within the Convention: Individual scriptural interpretation is rejected as dangerous.

Some other important differences between historical Baptists and Southern Baptists: The former believed in total individual religious liberty and strongly supported well rounded education (they founded Brown University).

I seriously doubt if Land would know that Southern Baptist faith bears little similarity its historical predecessor. About the only things they have in common are a reverence for Jesus and similar name. I'd argue that Southern Baptist is only marginally Christian since it places greater emphasis on Old Testament law when it's convenient to do so. Of the three Baptists conventions in North American, the Northern Convention adheres most closely to the original faith. Southern Baptists broke for the north over slavery.

[YellowPanties]

Great post, Roger, thanks for that information. From what you say, the original Baptists sound more like modern Episcopalians.

[meandmagoo]

I'm sorry,but people who depend on an ancient accumulation of Near Eastern religious mumbo-jumbo as a moral guide are pathetic and should not be allowed to reproduce.Neither should they be allowed near children.This idiocy needs to eradicated.Enough is enough.

[richw23]

Wow, lighten up. People have trouble breaking away from what they were raised on. I agree about Dobson, Robertson, etc. But a lot of people aren't in it because they're on a power trip. There's nothing wrong with Christianity as a moral guide if you sort out the left-over cultural crap.

We've fought wars to prevent the kind of thing you're suggesting. And though I'm an atheist and I despise fundamentalists, I'd join in, and not on your side.

[fightorleave2]

I wonder if that evangelist even knows what the word "gospel" means because while we all think of the gospel as meaning the honest-to-jesus truth, gospel's actual meaning is "good news" or "good tidings" so this man is an idiot or, better yet, an ideologue!

[PaulMauriceMartin]

Unfortunately, homophobes who happen to be Christian manage to overlook the fact that they're simply reading the Bible as it suits their purposes. The Bible isn't a sex and reproduction manual. It just isn't.

You can read it any way you want on these issues. Here's another example: In one of his letters, St. Paul declares that celibacy is the preferred lifestyle but for those who burn with desire it's best to marry. (Unfortunately, the Catholic Church didn't hear that second part...)

If the Bible thus recognizes that the vast majority of heterosexuals can't manage celibacy, how can we possibly avoid the inference that it"s patently unrealistic to expect the entire population of homosexuals to remain celibate?

"We don't condemn homosexuals; we just feel they should give up the practice of homosexuality." This is surely the height of something or other - dishonesty, hypocrisy, lack of empathy, failure to recognize the humanity of others... Pick one, I guess...

Paul - originalfaith.com

[Lilybart]

Also, the Catholic church cannot expect the hundreds of thousands of men it takes to fill the priesthood worldwide, to be happily celibate.

We know what happens to the kids they are in contact with and it is not pretty.