Many people have been surprised to see me, a professor of biblical studies, at "Vote Against" forums and rallies. I am referring to voting against Amendment One, the unfortunately overreaching amendment to North Carolina's state constitution, the one that was voted in this week by a margin of ~20 percent. It is precisely because I see the motivation to support this amendment as grounded in how people read the Bible that I felt an urgency to speak out, then and today.
Regardless of a person's perspective on the additional unintended consequences of this amendment, it was the fact that it was tied to how to define marriage that got the "For" people out to polls. All of the other personal or social implications become irrelevant when something biblical (read "God's will") is on the line.
There is a line in the movie "for the BIBLE tells me so," which I show in my introductory courses at Greensboro College, that I identify with. One of the pastors interviewed says, "I have a soft spot in my heart for biblical literalists, because I used to be one." I, too, can appreciate how a person's understanding of God's will for humankind does resonate to her very core, and that doing whatever she can to uphold such views will take precedence over all other efforts. There is nothing more important, for this person, than holding forth the truth and even enforcing it on others if needed.
Over the course of the past month, specifically due to one exchange with a kind Pentecostal Holiness pastor, it became clear to me that the need to support Amendment One is based on two things. The first is a terribly distorted reading of various biblical passages, and the second is the fear that acknowledging who/how non-heteros love will lead to the cessation of procreation. As far-fetched as either might sound, the former-literalist in me whole-heartedly would have agreed with this assessment.
On the first issue, several key passages are at play, most specifically "go forth and procreate" (Genesis 1:28), "Adam and Eve" (Genesis 2-3), "Sodom and Gomorrah" (Genesis 19), Leviticus 18:22, and Paul's infamous invective in Romans 1:18-27. But before we can address the passages, we all need to come to an understanding that for a literalist every word in Scripture is as God intended, and is therefore not suspect to scrutiny of any kind. The problem, here, is that not only is this a very recent development in the way to read the Bible (last 100 years or so), but it also, ironically, means that the literalist is not taking Scripture seriously enough. None of the cultural, historical, social and/or political realities that went into producing the biblical content get to be taken into consideration. Thus, something as basic as pointing out that there are, indeed, two different and conflicting creation stories (Genesis 1:1-2:3, Genesis 2:4-3:24) cannot be heard simply because that contradicts the beliefs that God is consistent and clear and is the author of every biblical word.
So, the command in Genesis 1:28, to go forth and procreate, is the crux of the creation story that gives the Hebrew people motivation to make lots of babies. This was important for a small group of people who had been promised they would be so numerous as to outnumber the stars. This is lovely, but the planet as a whole has an overpopulation issue today. Thus, the only way procreation is a concern to God today, it seems to me, is that we figure out how to curb it not compound it.
When a "plain reading" is employed to "Adam and Eve," people see that God intends that a man and woman be joined together in Genesis 2:24: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." Our English translations put onto this passage the "wife" label, though curiously enough not the "husband" label. In short, a passage that talks about a man leaving his parents and procuring a woman has been translated to imply that a marriage has taken place, and this is the part that matters to many Christians today.
Enter here the first of many disconnects in terms of the meaning of labels or relationships as we see them in the Bible and as they play out in the 21st century. Did marriage happen the same then as today? Was a wife 3,000 years ago the same social and political creature that wives are today? Did the Hebrew people view sex the same way as we do today? No, no and no. Thus, reading these passages literally is an act of insulting the God who gave us the ability to reason, it seems to me.
The misunderstanding of the Sodom and Gomorrah passage comes from reading about the men of Sodom wanting to gang rape -- for whatever reason -- Lot's visitors. Well-meaning people today will see that as "homosexual behavior," and the years of having seen it this way do make seeing it purely as an act of cruelty quite difficult. The stories in this part of the Bible are infamous for making their point through rather extreme consequences and scenarios. This is one of them: the Hebrew people were to be hospitable. As a fun side-note, Jesus is said to have referenced this passage in Matthew 10:1-15, where he tells his disciples what to do when they are not warmly welcomed by their own people. The issue is not one of sexual practices, but of hospitality.
"Abominations" in the Bible had cultural contexts that are simply not at work for Americans, for starters, today. They were things that Hebrew people were not to do; they were things that were counter to what made them the people of God. I invite anyone who wishes to focus on Leviticus 18:22 to expand her or his horizon to include all biblical passages that discuss abominations. Most of the other references are things that people do today without blinking, such as investing money with the expectation of earning interest, eating shrimp or anything that has many feet or crawls on its stomach, wearing clothing made of more than one fabric and so on.
Paul's invective, too, is culturally specific. But even if it is not, please pay attention to the libel and name-calling he also engages in in the surrounding verses (he misrepresents the worship practices of others for the sake of denouncing them, and offers a list of judgmental labels -- gossips, slanderers, God-haters, arrogant, boastful, disobedient to parents, unloving, unmerciful, etc.). His anger and hatred are assumed to be legitimate simply because, well, he is Paul and his words are in the Bible. Again, my reasoning faculties call the whole passage into question as "God's truth" given his temperament.
It is fear that drives this issue. As I stood there trying to understand what was at stake for the Pentecostal pastor in front of me, I informed him that gays and lesbians getting together does not stop heterosexuals from procreating. In all honesty, it seemed this point had not occurred to him. I understand his fear. But it, like so many, is not a reasonable one. And the best way to dispel a fear is to understand it first and hear it out. Then and only then can something more informed take its place.
Paula Skaggs: The Civil Rights of a Generation
It’s too bad that there isn't an accountability board in place concerning those who practice under the title, "a man of God". There is simply too much liberalism (quacks posing as true men of God) in Christianity and the deviation from sound principles.
On the other hand, there is no proof that the bible was even written by god. So you can either look at the actions of the god you believe in, or the words that were written by man and supposedly inspired by god. I think most people realize that actions speak louder than words.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5702
Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife ; and she conceived , and bare Enoch : and he builded a city , and called the name of the city , after the name of his son , Enoch .
Genesis 19:5 And they called unto Lot , and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night ? bring them out unto us, that we may know them.
You can twist and twist the Bible any way you want, but to say that the incident in Sodom is not about homosexual behavior is simply untrue.
Which makes me wonder why this never ending chain of arguments about who is interpreting the bible "correctly" is even put to text. Clearly all interpretations are valid if the only criteria voicing it.
As usual, the pro gay proponents distort the scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).
The problem, as I see it, is found in the words "Professor of Religion" in the writer's title, and in the first paragraph, "professor of biblical studies." In Romans 1:22 Paul says "Professing to be wise, they became fools.." (Read the rest of the chapter to get the Lord's point of view reading this issue). Paul exhorts in 2 Timothy 2:15, "Be diligent ("STUDY" - KJV) to present yourself APPROVED TO GOD, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, RIGHTLY dividing the word of TRUTH." The word of truth is the bible (John 17:17), not the thoughts and opinions of mankind (Isaiah 55:7-9).
The reason many politicians and others are condoning gay marriage is that they seeking the approval (or votes) of men (specifically gays and lesbians). Paul nor any real Christian would do any such thing: "For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ (Galatians 1:10).
"Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter" (Isaiah 8:20)!
44 “However, you may purchase male and female slaves from among the nations around you. 45 You may also purchase the children of temporary residents who live among you, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, 46 passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat them as slaves, but you must never treat your fellow Israelites this way.
You can't be serious! This was not merely an act of being in-hospitable, as you contend. Your explanation of in-hospitable doesn’t make sense. Who was in-hospitable? Lot or the crowd? Lot might be accused of being in-hospitable here. He was holding back the two strangers from the crowd. Yet, Lot and his family were the only ones saved duing Sodom's destruction. In fact, Lot begged the crowd not to do such a wicked thing. Was the wicked thing In-hospitablity? That doesn't make sense. The crowd's actions were enough to alarm Lot to protect his guests..
The crowd demanded the strangers be brought out “so we may know them.” There are other places in scripture where "to know” plainly refers to sex. Even further into this story the verse's meaning is revealed. We know this by Lot’s response. He said “I have two daughters who have not known a man…” Lot means physically and he confirms it by saying “you may do to them as you wish…” Wouldn't you agree this denotes a physical action?
Lastly, there's another scripture that bluntly tells us Sodom’s sin was sexual.
Jude 1:7. “Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.”
It couldn't be any more plain that.
'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.
In order to determine what the men of Sodom meant when they said "so we may KNOW them", there should be another reference of the phrase somewhere in the Bible. There is. In Hebrew and in Greek. Both are of a sexual nature.
1 Kings 1:4; talks of a beautiful woman in service of the king. She actually attends to the him. The verse ends with "...but the king knew her not." Obviously, if she was personally attending him he was mindful of who she was. So it doesn't mean knowing as in a recognizing way, but physically.
Mathew 1:25: The scripture here refers to Joseph and Mary stating "and knew her not till she had brought forth a son..." According to the prior verse, Joseph had already married Mary. So again, the phrase here is not a mindful familiarity nor is it in hospitality. It plainly means sexually.
But more than that Jude 7 tells us Sodom's sin was sexual. If it was inhospitality, it would have said. If it was meant to suggest Sodom was intimidating guests with sex, as some suggest, (again inhospitality), it wouldn't say "having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh", which indicates motives of desire rather than intimidation.
I’m surprised. For someone who holds the title of Assoc. Prof. of Religion, how could you be such a novice regarding the Christian religion? This argument is used by many secularists who don’t understand that the Nation of Israel was under a Mosaic covenant. Jesus didn’t abolish these laws, but fulfilled them and replaced the old covenant with a new one. God put an end to the dietary laws in Acts 10:9-15. God said to Peter “what He has made clean shouldn’t be called unclean.” You said to focus on Leviticus listing the abominations of food stuffs along with homosexuality. Okay, so by drawing comparisons between OT and NT scriptures; NT authors, Jesus himself and his disciples repeated certain commands and prohibitions quoted in the OT. Meaning that NT believers are to pay attention to them as they are still relevant. Sorry, but the declaration of homosexuality being an abomination before God is one such command that was repeated in the NT. (Romans, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy).
Same account but one is chronological, the other summary. Notice Genesis 1 is a day by day account. Genesis 2 focuses on the creation of Adam. Chronological here is less important. No need to explain it again, creation was already explained in Gen. 1.
If you went on a cruise and told about your trip you wouldn't describe it in exact chronological order. You’d skip talking about the important parts. Notice in Gen. 2 the wording referring to the creation of things is in the past tense. It doesn't contradict with Gen 1 that man and land animals appeared on Day 6 while plants, birds, and everything else came before. In Gen. 2:4, 2:5 it says;
“…WHEN the Lord God MADE the earth…” and “Now no shrub had YET appeared…”
This doesn’t mean seeds hadn’t been planted, just that they hadn't grown yet.
In Gen. 2:8 it says; “Now the Lord God HAD planted a garden....", then put Adam in it.
All these are past tense. In Genesis 2:18 when God speaks of forming a “helper”, he was speaking about Eve, not the animals. The animals are not helpers. Adam was to rule over the animals as specified in Gen 1:26, 28.
There is no contradiction. Only that the focal point between Gen 1 and Gen 2 changes from creation’s beginnings to Adam’s beginning.
With as much as you would like to put into this article, I feel like you have much more to say about the topic. As far as the overall opinion of your disapproval of Amendment One, we are in agreement. I also agree with the opinion that the Bible has been distorted to support Amendment One. I find it interesting that you mention "literalists" don't take the Bible seriously enough. I find that the average Christian, doesn't take their own beliefs of the Bible seriously enough. If they did, they would be able to communicate their ideas more effectively through example and not law.
As a Christian, I feel that my religion is so misrepresented so often that even people opposed to it are spreading misinformation about it. Is it too much to ask to judge and/or hate the actions but not the people?
If you read the OT and NT, what was sin never changed. And he told his those who would follow after them that they are to share this information with the world.
I guess that is something the author missed.