"When are you going to talk about scripture that condemns homosexuality?"
The question came from a young woman who attended a workshop based on my book Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. This particular workshop was held a couple of years ago on a college campus and attracted a cross-section of students who were both supporters and detractors of homosexuality.
This question is usually asked by a pro-gay person who wants to know how to answer challengers who quote scripture. This woman was different -- she had come for an argument and intended to challenge me with anti-gay interpretations of scripture.
"We're not going to talk about those passages specifically," I told her. "Instead, part of this workshop is on why we should never argue scripture with anyone ever again."
She was visibly disappointed and left halfway through the workshop. I now realize that I should have given her a more in-depth answer to her question, because there are still plenty of people, both for and against homosexuality, who insist on arguing about what the Bible does and does not say about homosexuality.
There are several reasons that gays and lesbians should never argue scripture. First, it's pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a "they said, they said" argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.
Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it's simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.
Thirdly, the arguers on either side never share the same starting point on scripture. Those who are anti-gay are more likely to see the Bible as the infallible "Word of God" -- which means the words literally dripped from the lips of God through the pens of the scribes and onto the page. Each jot and tittle is God-breathed and never to be contradicted. (Never mind that much of the Bible is full of contradictions and much of it we disregard with impunity these days. Those sorts of inconveniences never actually apply to the argument around homosexuality.)
Those who argue from the pro-gay side are generally those who see the Bible as inspired by God, but not the literal, infallible words of God. This means they are more open to different interpretations and approaches to scripture. Those who see the Bible as "God's literal word" only know one way to read any passage, and it's usually to back up their current beliefs about God, homosexuality or any other issue.
The most important reason, however, that gays and lesbians should never, ever argue about scripture is because the Bible has nothing much to say about homosexuality. We have to remember that this is an ancient book. It was written at a time when people believed the world was flat and that the earth was in the middle of a three-tiered world with heaven above and hell below. It was written at a time when people believed that the whole of human reproduction was held in the sperm of a man and a woman was merely an incubator. Speaking of women, this was a time when they were seen as chattel -- property to be passed along from father to husband, from husband to brother and so on. It was written at a time when slavery was seen as God-ordained and animal sacrifice was the way to cleanse sins.
In short, we cannot extract modern ideas from an ancient book. The writers of the Bible no more understood homosexuality than they understood that a spherical Earth orbited the sun. At most, we have a commentary on same-sex sexual behavior involving lust and abuse, but nothing -- pro or con -- about the modern concept of sexual orientation. We don't take the Bible's word for it that the earth is flat and women only incubate babies and contribute nothing else to the process. Why on earth would we take it as an authority on sexual orientation?
The Bible remains a holy book because it maps humanity's journey with God, and not the other way around. Because it maps our journey with God, it maps our evolving understanding of how the Holy works in this world. Humanity has moved from seeing God as a harsh judge and lawmaker to a seeing God as full of grace, mercy and love.
We don't learn about God by pulling out tiny details of the book and proclaiming them as true for all time. Instead, the Bible puts us in touch with God when we recognize its overarching message, which can be summarized by 1 John 4:7-8: "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."
The reason gays and lesbians should never argue over scripture is because, not only does scripture not condemn homosexuality, arguing over it produces nothing but strife, division and hatred. Anything that does not promote love is not of God. Instead of arguing, let us love one another, even those with whom we disagree. This is God's message to us. Nothing else matters.
Follow Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revtheodyke
Rob Thomas: The Big Gay Chip on My Shoulder
What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality
The Bible and homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bible Verses on Homosexuality - What the Bible Says - Christian ...
Theologian Claims Bible Does Not Condemn Gays | Christianpost.com
In reality, regardless of the motive of those who use the Bible, the fact is that it does not support homosexual relations or marriage nor heterosexual fornication, and obeying its laws work for our benefit and our hurt when we do not: Now and forever if we will not turn to Christ in repentance and faith.
Throughout the history of mankind, prophets revealed the will of God. Obviously (or not) God can reveal his will to anyone at all.
Either way, it makes more sense to allow modern prophets to declare the *current* intentions or will of God in the unlikely event those intentions have changed.
Make this FIRST.
"In short, we cannot extract modern ideas from an ancient book."
Unless of course the ancient book supports your point of view :-)
"The reason gays and lesbians should never argue over scripture is because, not only does scripture not condemn homosexuality, "
The way to START an argument is to declare to the whole world what you think it means!
Which, by the way, you just did.
In no place does the Bible sanction marriage between same genders, despite attempts to extrapolate it, and it only condemns homosexual relations - by design and decree, in principle and by precept - and only condemns them, and the injunctions against them are part of the transcendent moral laws. (Lv. 18:22; Rm. 1:26,27) All homosexual relations are rendered fornication, and that of a most perverse kind.
The idea that either Moses or Paul were only condemning certain forms of homosexual activity based own motive or association with idolatry, while sanctioning "loving caring" homosexual relations is as untenable as supposing that bestiality or adultery was only forbidden within a certain context. Motive is never the determinative factor in laws against illicit sexual relations, while idolatry is the mother of all sins, more than just homosexual relations. (Rm. 1:28-32)
However, there is yet room at the cross for all who will turn to Christ, wanting Him over sin, and believe in Him with all their heart. (1Cor. 6:9-11)
My guess is that for early 1st Century Christians, wanting to distinguish themselves from their pagan compatriots, probably took up on the anti-homosexuality which was recognized in both Rome and Greece at the time. In any event, arguing scripture is a waste of time.
Go out and do something real. Like have some gay sex. It's real and it rocks!
Sin's just somethin' made up to control your mind, your wallet and your vote. Quit being such suckers and grow up!
And so called gay christians, you are doing the same. If you are going to follow any part of the bible as gods word, don't ignore the parts that condemn you for being gay.
What would REALLY make sense would be if you could all think on your own and not have to rely on an ancient book of rules to live by.
Job 26:7, 10, Isaiah 40:21-22, proverbs 8:27 all speak towards the shape of the earth, as a "circle,"a circle upon the face of the waters," where light terminates, darkness begins," the earth "hangeth upon nothing," similar to the moon and sun &c. There are other examples of rain returning to the rivers etc, not running off the corners of a flat earth, and countless other truths on the topic. This was many centuries prior to the round earth being discovered by reasonable Greeks observing the curved horizon.
The new testament speaks (in no indirect terms) about homosexuality, and was written long after the "times of animal sacrifice" of the old testament. The terms were express and I can only assume Reverend Candice Chellew is struggling (admirably) to reconcile her chosen sexual behavior and profession based on a flexible, interpretive word of god. If we interpret "thou shalt not kill" with the same disqualifiers and indifference towards the intent of the scribes, we might as well junk the book and simply rely on as good old literature, and a source of anecdotes when convenient to our purposes.
There is clearly irony in that the flat earth proof used in her argument is correctly a strong argument FOR revelation.
Also, most of the New Testament was written at a time when animal sacrifice in accordance with the traditions of the Old Testament was still practiced (that practice ended in circa AD 70 with the descruction of the Second Temple).
The problem that the author is talking about is one to which you fall victim. You take up the typical argument that the New Testament talks "in no indirect terms" about homosexuality. So many people say, "well I can just read it and this is what it says". However, without very specific knowledge about the time such attempts to interpret Paul's words fall short.
Let me explain. A modern reader conversing in English will look at the words through a 20th century mind and think that they are talking about homosexaulity in general. That is an error. Paul wrote his letters in Greek. The word he used in the passages you are referencing does not simply mean "homosexual". He used a term that referred to a specific form of male prostitution (usually involving boys). This was a practice common among Romans at the time, and one that has no connection to a monogamous relationship between two men. Each time that Paul mentions "homosexuality" it is this word he uses. The Latin Vulgate translates the term somewhat accurately. However, the numerous English translations that have followed have been less stringent in their interpretations.
Now this is a point that my Catholic study bible touches on in the footnotes. However, most bibles do not make this distinction. The Latin Vulgate translates the term somewhat accurately. However, numerous English translations that have followed have been less careful. Very few take the time to explain the practice to which Paul is referring.
Paul was condemning they types of sexual activities common in ancient Rome, not committed homosexual relationships. The concept of two men or two women having a committed relationship was nonexistent when Paul was writing his letters. To argue that Paul was condemning something that did not even exist yet is a stretch. To use your own word, it is a very "indirect" association. It is based more on what you think and have been taught than it is based on what the bible actually says.
There are no known existing copies of Paul until well into the 2nd and 3rd century. There are highly contested fragments of Mark dating back to as early at 150, but not the 70 you mention.
I never mention Paul, or the mistranslation of sodom controversial in Paul’s writings. There are references in Genesis, Jude and countless others in testament both old and new. If we were to cherry pick just Paul, I would refer to Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
I am not here to advocate one view as correct or not to love homosexuals, it’s simply to have a proper debate on the merits of the scripture we must not be in denial of their content, which clearly condemns homosexuality.
Paul didn't grow up in Spartan culture, he didn't live in the time of Barack Obama, he lived in an ancient, homophobic culture. Anything to do with homosexuality was condemned. Homosexuals were viewed as having something wrong with them (like they were in this American culture until very recently). I'm pretty sure any honest secular anthropologist would agree.
It is completely absurd and unrealistic to say that Paul was not a product of his culture (as we all are). When you take the words in Paul's writings apart from cultural context it's possible to say that Paul didn't condemn homosexuality but when you take them according to the cultural context, it's pretty hard to argue that Paul wasn't homophobic.
The argument I brought was in regards to the flat earth comparison. Although I appreciate the thought demonstrated in the personal attacks, no counter argument has yet been presented. Contrarily, Bike Commuter agrees the comparison is false. I don't believe it is merely a comparison but more of a ideological premise, which has been destroyed. With the premise, so goes the argument. Can a truly reasonable mind find fault with that?
I'll continue to refuse to post my personal position on the topic. I don't seek or need approval.
The reality remains that the author’s premise is dead and other than my dating of Paul’s earliest known manuscripts dating to the 2nd and 3rd century (search Wikipedia), nothing in my post has been properly countered. This dating of the scripture does NOT lend credence to its divinity, but rather to its historical verification, a rather atheistic approach for which I was attacked.
The book offers redemption to all sinners, homosexual or heterosexual, thieves, adulterers, you name it. Why bother pointing out that Jesus doesn’t mention homosexuality once? Do you suppose this strengthens a position that he championed that minority? I remember “blessed are the poor” as a resounding theme. Clearly, Christ loves all his children, even the snarky ones. (I needed a dictionary)
Snarky or not, I’ll now expect only character attack rebuttals and dismiss them as agreement with the false premise that debunks the article. Perhaps gays and lesbians (who support the notion of contextual and linguistic misinterpretation of the bible – and straights for that matter whom the article excludes) should refrain from quoting scripture in defense or their position strictly because it doesn’t support their argument - which is quite valid.