yoinked from the loverly Lovecraftienne
" . . a Christian response to rightist bigotry against queerfolk."
Jun. 25, 2005.
Bible rarely alludes to homosexuality
PETER MIKELIC
OPINION
1)As the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada heads towards its national convention in Winnipeg next month, the question of scriptural "proof-texts" against homosexuality and the subsequent church blessing of same-sex unions have become issues. While the Bible contains thousands of verses,allusions to homosexuality are confined to a mere handful.
2)Homosexuality is not one of the Ten Commandments nor does Jesus discuss it. In fact, the word isn't even in the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but is a post facto Latin invention. Nevertheless, many Christians have come to the following biblical passages with an anti-homosexual bias which has skewed their interpretation.
3)The creation story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, for instance, is traditionally acknowledged as a paradigm for marriage and the family. But if Adam and Eve were literally the first two people on earth, we would all be products of incestuous relationships - a sin worse than homosexuality.
4)Furthermore, if God's standard for humans is to be "fruitful and multiply," then priests and nuns, as well as millions of others - not to mention homosexuals - have all flouted God's prime directive.
5)Second, an accurate rendering of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:1-9 concludes that the cities are not condemned for homosexuality, but for idolatry and inhospitality, to which Jesus himself attests in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12. The attempted homosexual rape of the angels at Lot's door is not even the central theme of the story.
The problem is that if heterosexual rape does not invalidate heterosexuals and their sexual pursuits, how can homosexual rape nullify homosexuals and their activity, as some Christians argue?
6)Third, Leviticus 18:22, which reads "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman," is actually part of an extensive purity law called the Holiness Code, which also prohibits tattoos, round haircuts, cross-breeding of livestock, eating rabbits, pigs, some seafood and rare meat, wearing clothes of blended textiles, sowing fields with mixed seed, having sex with a menstruating wife, and so on. If performed by the Israelites, these Gentile activities would cause the Israelites to become "ritually impure."
Though this code is plainly obsolete, how many clergy cite the caveat as the basis of their moral position on homosexuality, while conveniently excusing themselves from the other "laws" and their consequences?
7)Finally, while St. Paul seems to argue against homosexuality in his letters, he is in fact speaking about the fallen nature of humankind. In Romans 1:26-27, which talks about men and women "exchanging natural relations for unnatural (ones)" Paul is addressing heterosexuals who behave in a homosexual manner, such as pederasty - adult males who sexually exploit younger males and children. I Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, likewise, speak not of homosexuals as we understand the term today, but of heterosexual immorality, including male prostitution.
8)The fact is, a biased, uninformed and selective scriptural literalism is an abject basis upon which to argue for condemnation of anything, much less homosexuality. Even taken literally, the Bible does not expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God's intentions.
9)What's at stake here is a cultural interpretation of holy writ, which gives credence to doctrinal positions and double standards fuelled by intolerance, discrimination and prejudice - not to mention fear, which lies at the heart of all homophobia. The fact is, the church can no longer blame homosexuals for a behaviour which, by all psychological, neurological and genetic accounts, they can do little to change.
10)What's desperately needed is a church whose mature self-understanding fosters a fresh, sensitive and insightful moral assessment of human sexuality, without being blinded by its own convoluted history of homosexual vilification and repression; whose gay and lesbian members, both lay and clergy, can finally come out, lead open, honest and vulnerable lives, because the Gospel demands that God's grace be witnessed at work in them; and whose love of another is seen as a latitude for genuine redemptive love, and not simply as sex, homosexual or heterosexual.
I feel a Mrs. Crabopple coming on ...
Here it comes ...
"HA!"
Jun. 25, 2005.
Bible rarely alludes to homosexuality
PETER MIKELIC
OPINION
1)As the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada heads towards its national convention in Winnipeg next month, the question of scriptural "proof-texts" against homosexuality and the subsequent church blessing of same-sex unions have become issues. While the Bible contains thousands of verses,allusions to homosexuality are confined to a mere handful.
2)Homosexuality is not one of the Ten Commandments nor does Jesus discuss it. In fact, the word isn't even in the original Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, but is a post facto Latin invention. Nevertheless, many Christians have come to the following biblical passages with an anti-homosexual bias which has skewed their interpretation.
3)The creation story of Adam and Eve in Genesis, for instance, is traditionally acknowledged as a paradigm for marriage and the family. But if Adam and Eve were literally the first two people on earth, we would all be products of incestuous relationships - a sin worse than homosexuality.
4)Furthermore, if God's standard for humans is to be "fruitful and multiply," then priests and nuns, as well as millions of others - not to mention homosexuals - have all flouted God's prime directive.
5)Second, an accurate rendering of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19:1-9 concludes that the cities are not condemned for homosexuality, but for idolatry and inhospitality, to which Jesus himself attests in Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-12. The attempted homosexual rape of the angels at Lot's door is not even the central theme of the story.
The problem is that if heterosexual rape does not invalidate heterosexuals and their sexual pursuits, how can homosexual rape nullify homosexuals and their activity, as some Christians argue?
6)Third, Leviticus 18:22, which reads "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman," is actually part of an extensive purity law called the Holiness Code, which also prohibits tattoos, round haircuts, cross-breeding of livestock, eating rabbits, pigs, some seafood and rare meat, wearing clothes of blended textiles, sowing fields with mixed seed, having sex with a menstruating wife, and so on. If performed by the Israelites, these Gentile activities would cause the Israelites to become "ritually impure."
Though this code is plainly obsolete, how many clergy cite the caveat as the basis of their moral position on homosexuality, while conveniently excusing themselves from the other "laws" and their consequences?
7)Finally, while St. Paul seems to argue against homosexuality in his letters, he is in fact speaking about the fallen nature of humankind. In Romans 1:26-27, which talks about men and women "exchanging natural relations for unnatural (ones)" Paul is addressing heterosexuals who behave in a homosexual manner, such as pederasty - adult males who sexually exploit younger males and children. I Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10, likewise, speak not of homosexuals as we understand the term today, but of heterosexual immorality, including male prostitution.
8)The fact is, a biased, uninformed and selective scriptural literalism is an abject basis upon which to argue for condemnation of anything, much less homosexuality. Even taken literally, the Bible does not expressly exclude loving monogamous homosexual adult Christian relationships from being within the realm of God's intentions.
9)What's at stake here is a cultural interpretation of holy writ, which gives credence to doctrinal positions and double standards fuelled by intolerance, discrimination and prejudice - not to mention fear, which lies at the heart of all homophobia. The fact is, the church can no longer blame homosexuals for a behaviour which, by all psychological, neurological and genetic accounts, they can do little to change.
10)What's desperately needed is a church whose mature self-understanding fosters a fresh, sensitive and insightful moral assessment of human sexuality, without being blinded by its own convoluted history of homosexual vilification and repression; whose gay and lesbian members, both lay and clergy, can finally come out, lead open, honest and vulnerable lives, because the Gospel demands that God's grace be witnessed at work in them; and whose love of another is seen as a latitude for genuine redemptive love, and not simply as sex, homosexual or heterosexual.
I feel a Mrs. Crabopple coming on ...
Here it comes ...
"HA!"