A Summary
[Preface: In the discussion I've referred to several times over at Greg Kendall-Ball's blog, one of the participants asked others to sum up their view of scripture. I have copied my response and modified it slightly. I hope this serves as a broad overview of my thoughts about scripture in the specific context of the so-called 'gay debate.' Specific arguments (i.e. arguments from nature, arguments about the nature of sin, arguments about meanings of greek words) are important, but I think it's important that we understand where these arguments fit into the big picture. I appreciate suggestions, comments, or questions. Feel free to question anonymously if you don't feel safe throwing your name out there.]
I believe Scripture to the be the word of God, and I believe it should be the primary, though not the exclusive, source of our ethics and norms. However, it seems to me (and many others) that Scripture comes to us through imperfect beings who lived in a certain time and place and who recorded the word of the Lord as they understood it in their specific context. Since we exist in a different context than that of the writers, we must look critically at the text, using our minds, hearts, and the prophetic spirit that flows through our community to try and figure out exactly what the scripture tells us. Scriptural inerrancy and infallibility are falsehoods we need to throw away, and the sooner the better for our denominational health. This does not mean that all scripture is a lie (as some assert); it simply may mean we are asking too much of scripture and that we need to rethink what exactly scripture is intended to be and how exactly it should function in our lives and in the life of the church.
Often, context and critical reading changes nothing about our reading of the text (e.g., ‘love your neighbor as yourself’). Sometimes, though, critical reading tells us that maybe we should rethink the way we view a text(e.g., ‘Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him,’).
Critical reading must be employed with prudence, as it is easy to import our own morality into the text. Context changes our reading on some occasions, but we shouldn’t remake the text in our own image. Another danger arises with the wildly divergent readings that can come out of a critical hermeneutic. When we reach varying conclusions, we have to commit to sticking together (“e pluribus unum”, to quote the back of my penny). Our diversity can actually be our strength: I grow when someone challenges my assumptions and conclusions just as I grow when someone challenges my unjust or unloving behaviors.
And I think it is important to state our goals. To what end do we read scripture? So often, we are reading so that we can figure out how to avoid hell. Poor form, in my opinion. Constantly trying to dodge some sort of divine bullet doesn’t seem like a very pleasant way to live, nor does it align very well with scripture. Instead, we should be reading the text so that we can become better people whose hearts are ever more closely aligned with the will of God. The question becomes “which behaviors are just, loving, and Godly?,” instead of “which actions must I avoid if I want to stay out of jail?” Remember that whole grace thing?
So, what do I do about the Biblical proscriptions against same-sex sexual activity? I read the text critically, using all of the intellectual and community sources of knowledge I possibly can (reason, tradition, consensus, history, etc, etc):
First, I try to put the verses in context. The statements come to us from a vastly different world from our own. In Leviticus, continuation of the tribe is paramount, as is setting up a barrier between "us" the chosen and "them" the unchosen. In this world, the people must bear children if they are to survive. In this world, males penetrate and females are penetrated. In this world, it is acceptable to own a slave. In this world, tattoos are abominable. In this world, mixing together two different kinds of cloth is contrary to the will of God.
Likewise, to Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, certain behaviors seem to be completely unnatural (para physin). Sex between men is unnatural. Why? Perhaps because, again, men penetrate and women are penetrated. Perhaps because all, or almost all of the male-male sexual relationships Paul ever heard of involved domination and exploitation (men with young boys, men with prostitutes, men with their slaves). Perhaps Paul just thought it was gross (I think it is difficult to overestimate the weight of this factor in Paul's and our own time). And as a reminder of how different Paul’s ideas about sex and marriage are from our own, just take a look at 1 Corinthians 7 (Wait, what? Paul would rather we stay single than get married, and he thinks of marriage as merely a prophylactic against porneia? I never heard that at my CoC university/marriage factory!).
We do not live in either of the worlds I just described. We don’t own humans (though often we outsource work to those who do). We think women and men are equally capable, equally intelligent, and equally valuable (well, we’re getting there). We don’t think that if a man dies without producing a male heir, we should pass his wife off to his brother as though she is nothing but child-producing chattel. We have gradually learned over the past millennia that sexuality is a little more flexible than we thought. We have learned there are men who want to love, honor, cherish, and commit themselves to another man, and who want to express that love in a sexual way. So maybe in our world, we should rethink the way we read Pauline and Levitical prohibitions on same-sex-sexual activity. Maybe it’s not always shameful and unnatural.
At the same, we must continue to affirm that domination, subordination, and injustice have no place in the life of a Christian. Sleeping with everyone you come in contact with is bad, not just because God once said it is bad, but because it is unhealthy for you and because you begin to view other human beings as items which you can use up and throw away. We should shout the message from the rooftops that people aren’t toys to be played with and tossed out. We should shout the message from the rooftops that pornography is bad because it always involves some form of coercion and domination. We should shout the message from the rooftops that women are not objects and that it is unjust to coerce them into taking their clothes off for the pleasure of someone who can afford to pay for it. Just scolding the American public for violating some random scripture doesn’t cut it.
It’s important that we avoid word games with arsenokoites and malakos if the only reason we are doing it is so we can get around a rule and avoid hell. If we are trying to attain greater contextual understanding, that’s swell and we should keep it up. Greater understanding never hurt anyone. But we must remember that we aren’t lawyers trying to convince a judge that our client isn’t guilty. And we must remember that concepts like faith, hope, love, and justice trump context any day of the week.
I think it is okay to be gay because I have, to the best of my ability, put certain verses in the Bible into context and come to the conclusion that Paul wasn’t really talking about my situation when he talked about same-sex sexual activity. Beyond this, I see no reason (from logic, nature, community, tradition, etc, etc), why LGBT persons must be excluded from the Kingdom.
I think that Paul would rather I focus on pursuing a just sexual ethic wherein I don’t treat people like a fast food meal to be consumed (and the wrapper discarded). I think that sex shouldn’t involve rape, power, domination, and exploitation, and I hope that I can be an example to others in the gay community of what commitment and love are. I think that by living like I hope to live, I can not only dodge the fires of hell (whew!), but I can better myself and align my life more closely with the will of God.
But whatever happens, I think the unity of the church is paramount. We can’t help those outside if we are fighting those inside. Vitriol and name-calling will get us nowhere, and I hope we can all (myself included) learn to be eager to listen, slow to speak, and never to judge.
I think I’ve gone on long enough. You get the point.
-GR
I believe Scripture to the be the word of God, and I believe it should be the primary, though not the exclusive, source of our ethics and norms. However, it seems to me (and many others) that Scripture comes to us through imperfect beings who lived in a certain time and place and who recorded the word of the Lord as they understood it in their specific context. Since we exist in a different context than that of the writers, we must look critically at the text, using our minds, hearts, and the prophetic spirit that flows through our community to try and figure out exactly what the scripture tells us. Scriptural inerrancy and infallibility are falsehoods we need to throw away, and the sooner the better for our denominational health. This does not mean that all scripture is a lie (as some assert); it simply may mean we are asking too much of scripture and that we need to rethink what exactly scripture is intended to be and how exactly it should function in our lives and in the life of the church.
Often, context and critical reading changes nothing about our reading of the text (e.g., ‘love your neighbor as yourself’). Sometimes, though, critical reading tells us that maybe we should rethink the way we view a text(e.g., ‘Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him,’).
Critical reading must be employed with prudence, as it is easy to import our own morality into the text. Context changes our reading on some occasions, but we shouldn’t remake the text in our own image. Another danger arises with the wildly divergent readings that can come out of a critical hermeneutic. When we reach varying conclusions, we have to commit to sticking together (“e pluribus unum”, to quote the back of my penny). Our diversity can actually be our strength: I grow when someone challenges my assumptions and conclusions just as I grow when someone challenges my unjust or unloving behaviors.
And I think it is important to state our goals. To what end do we read scripture? So often, we are reading so that we can figure out how to avoid hell. Poor form, in my opinion. Constantly trying to dodge some sort of divine bullet doesn’t seem like a very pleasant way to live, nor does it align very well with scripture. Instead, we should be reading the text so that we can become better people whose hearts are ever more closely aligned with the will of God. The question becomes “which behaviors are just, loving, and Godly?,” instead of “which actions must I avoid if I want to stay out of jail?” Remember that whole grace thing?
So, what do I do about the Biblical proscriptions against same-sex sexual activity? I read the text critically, using all of the intellectual and community sources of knowledge I possibly can (reason, tradition, consensus, history, etc, etc):
First, I try to put the verses in context. The statements come to us from a vastly different world from our own. In Leviticus, continuation of the tribe is paramount, as is setting up a barrier between "us" the chosen and "them" the unchosen. In this world, the people must bear children if they are to survive. In this world, males penetrate and females are penetrated. In this world, it is acceptable to own a slave. In this world, tattoos are abominable. In this world, mixing together two different kinds of cloth is contrary to the will of God.
Likewise, to Paul, a Hellenistic Jew, certain behaviors seem to be completely unnatural (para physin). Sex between men is unnatural. Why? Perhaps because, again, men penetrate and women are penetrated. Perhaps because all, or almost all of the male-male sexual relationships Paul ever heard of involved domination and exploitation (men with young boys, men with prostitutes, men with their slaves). Perhaps Paul just thought it was gross (I think it is difficult to overestimate the weight of this factor in Paul's and our own time). And as a reminder of how different Paul’s ideas about sex and marriage are from our own, just take a look at 1 Corinthians 7 (Wait, what? Paul would rather we stay single than get married, and he thinks of marriage as merely a prophylactic against porneia? I never heard that at my CoC university/marriage factory!).
We do not live in either of the worlds I just described. We don’t own humans (though often we outsource work to those who do). We think women and men are equally capable, equally intelligent, and equally valuable (well, we’re getting there). We don’t think that if a man dies without producing a male heir, we should pass his wife off to his brother as though she is nothing but child-producing chattel. We have gradually learned over the past millennia that sexuality is a little more flexible than we thought. We have learned there are men who want to love, honor, cherish, and commit themselves to another man, and who want to express that love in a sexual way. So maybe in our world, we should rethink the way we read Pauline and Levitical prohibitions on same-sex-sexual activity. Maybe it’s not always shameful and unnatural.
At the same, we must continue to affirm that domination, subordination, and injustice have no place in the life of a Christian. Sleeping with everyone you come in contact with is bad, not just because God once said it is bad, but because it is unhealthy for you and because you begin to view other human beings as items which you can use up and throw away. We should shout the message from the rooftops that people aren’t toys to be played with and tossed out. We should shout the message from the rooftops that pornography is bad because it always involves some form of coercion and domination. We should shout the message from the rooftops that women are not objects and that it is unjust to coerce them into taking their clothes off for the pleasure of someone who can afford to pay for it. Just scolding the American public for violating some random scripture doesn’t cut it.
It’s important that we avoid word games with arsenokoites and malakos if the only reason we are doing it is so we can get around a rule and avoid hell. If we are trying to attain greater contextual understanding, that’s swell and we should keep it up. Greater understanding never hurt anyone. But we must remember that we aren’t lawyers trying to convince a judge that our client isn’t guilty. And we must remember that concepts like faith, hope, love, and justice trump context any day of the week.
I think it is okay to be gay because I have, to the best of my ability, put certain verses in the Bible into context and come to the conclusion that Paul wasn’t really talking about my situation when he talked about same-sex sexual activity. Beyond this, I see no reason (from logic, nature, community, tradition, etc, etc), why LGBT persons must be excluded from the Kingdom.
I think that Paul would rather I focus on pursuing a just sexual ethic wherein I don’t treat people like a fast food meal to be consumed (and the wrapper discarded). I think that sex shouldn’t involve rape, power, domination, and exploitation, and I hope that I can be an example to others in the gay community of what commitment and love are. I think that by living like I hope to live, I can not only dodge the fires of hell (whew!), but I can better myself and align my life more closely with the will of God.
But whatever happens, I think the unity of the church is paramount. We can’t help those outside if we are fighting those inside. Vitriol and name-calling will get us nowhere, and I hope we can all (myself included) learn to be eager to listen, slow to speak, and never to judge.
I think I’ve gone on long enough. You get the point.
-GR
posted by GR at 8/15/2005 11:29:00 AM
5 Comments:
Brilliant! From someone who has put some thought into contextual thinking and reading of scriptures and who in many ways is on the same wave length as you in this regard you have reminded me "that concepts like faith, hope, love, and justice trump context any day of the week." I too quickly jump to chapter and verse, greek translations, etc. and may not put the emphasis on the trully important subjects of love, faith ,hope, grace (we could go on). Thank you!
GR-
My question is this: What if you and are both seeking to read the bible as you mentioned, but come to different conclusions?
How do we get around my contextualization being different than yours?
DA (may I call you devil?),
What do we do when we reach different conclusions? Well, we pretend to hug while we try to set each other's hair on fire. Or, we create meaningless labels for each other like 'Liberal,' 'Conservative,' or 'Goober.'
You've asked the million-dollar question, haven't you? The best I can come up with is this:
We talk in community. You say what you think and why, then I say what I think and why. Then, if we're smart, we ask those not-so-squeaky wheels what they think and why (because the quiet ones are usually the ones with the answers). We have to have this conversation out in the open, and we have to actually say what we think and listen to what others say. And then, the hardest part: we actually have to consider the possibility that those with whom we disagree may be right.
After we talk, we have to make a decision, don't we? This is the lame part. It would be nice if the church could both have and not have instruments, or give 90% of its budget to missions, 90% to helping the poor, 90% to building that new rec center, 90% to the orphanage down the road, etc. It would be nice if the church could both have and not have women serve publicly. But it doesn't work that way. We have to decide (usually, this means that the eldership has to decide). A concrete decision has to be made.
Since we have to decide, as part of the decisionmaking process, we have to submit (we Americans are especially good at this one). I have to submit to the leadership of the church and to the church body in the name of unity. The eldership of the church does, in fact, have some authority over me. This means if I don't get my way, I accept the decision. If, after long discussion, the Eldership decides that women are to remain silent and that gays are all going to hell, I have to suck it up and face the fact that I wasn't able to convince them of my position. So I study, pray, study, pray, think, study, discuss, pray, and get ready for the next discussion. In the meantime, though, I can either choose to walk away, or I can continue to submit.
I haven't really answered you, have I, devil (do you like my tactic? say a lot of words and hope they don't notice that you can't answer the question?)? That's because there isn't really an answer I can see beyond this one:
At some point, the bride of Christ has to stop ripping herself limb from limb. We have to commit to sticking together even if we can't agree on everything. The community, and not the individual, has to become the fundamental unit of our theology(it only matters what I think to the degree that it influences what we think). At some point, it may hurt too much and I may have to leave. The gay couple may have to leave to preserve their faith and, frankly, just to keep breathing. The elderly couple may not be able to keep up with the movement of their congregation and may, with deep sadness, have to move elsewhere. But they should be the exception. We should only leave when we can't bear to stay any longer. Hey, no one said this was supposed to be fun.
We listen. We talk. We pray. We commune. We beg each other not to go. We do our best to stick it out, even if it hurts. We submit. But in all things, we love.
that is a great answer!
I'm deeply challenged by your words and thinking. I disagree, but I want to understand your points more clearly. I think I could learn a lot from you.
When I was engaged I really wanted to have sex with my fiance. I tried to rationalize with her that since we were commited to each other we were as good as married in God's eyes. The wedding would only be a formalization of the reality of our relationship.
She didn't buy it.
Now I'm glad she didn't. Waiting, for us, was much better and more fulfilling. But, hindsight is always clearest.
I tried to reinterpret the Bible based on my own desires to do what I wanted to do. Thankfully my fiance wouldn't have any of that and she held me to a standard higher than my own whims.
How does your hermeneutic hold you to a standard higher than yourself? In my opinion, the Bible is useless if it doesn't have authority for you, and it doesn't seem to have any authority for you.
That being said, I think your devotion to justice and love are commendable. Your open desire to live in the community of God's people and to be shaped and guided by that community is often absent from "orthodox" Christians.
I hope we can have an open discussion about this. E-mail me if you would like.
Post a Comment
<< Home