Life
was harsh in Old Testament times. The Israelites did not permit prisons or
rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated from the norm was stoned to death or
exiled. The norm included the death penalty for crimes of murder, attacking or
cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine an animal resulting in death,
witchcraft/sorcery, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, homosexual acts,
blasphemy/cursing, false prophecy (pundits beware), perjury in capital cases,
adultery and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage.
Contemporary
prejudices, fears, misconceptions, beliefs and attitudes make being homosexual
more negative in our society than being as guilty of most of the other deadly
'sins' mentioned above. Cultural and political bias (or simple misguidedness) influence
those sentiments veiled as religion.
Heresy?
Guaranteed eternal condemnation from a vengeful God?
Homophobic
proponents claim Biblical dogma as the basis for their conviction. But what of
all the other above 'heinous crimes/sins?' They still carry a death sentence
today and are still as vile as being a homosexual because Biblical dogma
doesn't change. It would be an interesting statistic to see the size of our
incarcerated population awaiting execution for working on Sunday.
The
challenge of accurately interpreting Bible text is to determine what message
was originally intended, its context for people of that time and what universal
message it contains that is applicable in our time.
Presbyterian
theologian Mark Achtemeier thought and prayed about this more than most of us.
He staunchly supported traditional anti-homosexuality views, but in his book,
The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage, An Evangelical's Change of Heart, he
writes:
"I was a conservative church activist working hard to
defend the “traditional” teaching of my own Presbyterian Church (USA) that was
condemning homosexual practice. Those efforts proved successful, and the result
was a constitutional ban on gay ordination in the Presbyterian Church (USA),
beginning in the summer of 1997. The passage of fourteen years found me working
to repeal the ban on gay ordination I had once helped put in place."
Achtemeier
concludes that traditional condemnations of homosexual acts are based on a
fragmentary reading of the Bible that is inconsistent with overall Bible
teachings:
"I found strong reasons for doubting whether the church’s
traditional condemnations of homosexuality were in line with the 'will of God.'
...how it was possible for those teachings to be mistaken, even though they
seemed to be based on a reasonably straightforward reading of individual
passages taken from the Bible. I found strong evidence, both in the history of
the church and in the testimony of the New Testament...that (a) fragment
approach to interpreting biblical Law is unreliable and highly prone to error.
...(and) that the traditional condemnations were contrary to the 'will and plan
of God.'"
He
goes on:
"The predecessor denominations of my own Presbyterian
Church (USA) split over the issue of slavery in the mid-1800s. Going back and
reading about that history, one discovers that the pro-slavery churches were
defending their positions by appeal to the Bible! Isolated fragments, pulled
out and interpreted apart from the overall witness of the Scripture, led those
devout southern Presbyterians to conclude that their pro-slavery cause was
blessed by God. Another such episode, which extends into more recent times, saw
well-intentioned Christians appealing to isolated scriptural fragments as they
argued to keep women in subordinate roles within both church and society. The
fragment method clearly has a long and sad history of providing 'biblical'
justification for teachings that we can recognize in hindsight as contrary to
the will of God."
If
we are sincere about using the Bible for guidance, we must not assume the Bible
passages on homosexuality support our own conservative or liberal viewpoints.
Are these teachings not like the Bible teachings on slavery and subjugation of
women, i.e., remnants of a human-designed, fear-mongering, bible-control era
incompatible with Scriptural teachings about God's love and mercy for all
people?
Our
answers are strongly influenced by learnings from authority figures in life
that develop into personal feelings about homosexuality, never objectively
learning for ourselves by leaving past bias behind in the search.
Christians
opposed to political and social equality for homosexuals appeal to moral
injunctions in the Bible. Scripture is
claimed to be very clear on the matter; verses are cited that support their
opinion.
They
accuse others of perverting and distorting texts contrary to "THEIR
CLEAR" meaning. They do not, however, necessarily see quite as clear a
meaning in biblical passages on economic conduct, the burdens of wealth, the
sins of greed, lying, envy, cheating, adultery, divorce, sex outside marriage
or eating shrimp, lobster and pork.
The
inconsistencies never get reconciled in any other way than, "it's just
what I believe; my Bible is my Constitution."
It
is through the lens of a prejudiced belief, not a religious belief, that
literalists "read" Scripture and morph a personal view into being
self-righteously indignant based on Higher authority. We ALL interpret
Scripture: make no mistake. But no one is truly a literalist, despite pious
temptation.
The
hypocritical part is that literalists 'cherry pick' what sins are to be piously
read as still being, literally, 'deadly,' and what sins from that ancient
culture can be ignored or slip by in our contemporary society as now being
accepted behavior. THAT discussion is avoided. The topic is very uncomfortable,
especially if you are divorced, had sex without a husband or wife or like to
eat shrimp.
Religious
fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept ambiguity and diversity.
It is inherently intolerant. Such intolerance, in the name of virtue, is
ruthless. It switches to a human system of political power to destroy what it spirituality
cannot convert.
It
is dangerous, especially in America, because the human system it uses is
anti-democratic. It is suspicious of "the other," in whatever form
that "other" might appear. To maintain itself, such conservatism must
always define "the other" as deviant and unequal.
But
the chief reason fundamentalism is dangerous is that, in the hands of worrisome
clerics, preachers, pundits and politicians, it uses Scripture and Christian
practice to encourage ordinarily good people to act upon their moral fears and
human prejudice rather than their virtues--all in the name of a God that
changed His/Her mind over the last 3500 years as to what was a sin and what
wasn't.
Fortunately,
those who speak for the religious right do not speak for all American
Christians. The Bible is not theirs alone to interpret.
The
same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked
self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators
to action.
The
same Bible that the predecessors of fundamentalist preachers used to keep white
churches white is the source of inspiration for Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and
the social reformation of the 1960's.
The
same Bible that anti-feminists use to keep women silent in churches is the
Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in Christ there is
neither male nor female, slave nor free.
The
same Bible that cites an archaic social code from the ancient Middle East based
on sameness, and uses a tortured reading of Paul to condemn all homosexuals,
includes metaphors of redemption, renewal, inclusion and love. Principles that
invite homosexuals to accept their freedom and responsibility in Christ and
demands that their fellow Christians accept them as well, "that through me
the proclamation might be completed and all Gentiles might hear it" (2 Tm
4:17).
The
political piety of the fundamental religious to express themselves is not more
righteous, nor does it trump, other freedoms. In this summer of discontent, one
of the freedoms for which we must all fight is freedom from a prejudice whose
assumed biblically-based premise is as biblically incompatible as slavery.
It
is realistic to say that religious feelings won't easily change. But perhaps,
after the recent US Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the Constitutional
right to human dignity for all living in America, it is time to replace
homophobic and xenophobic prejudice with tolerance, inclusion and love.
Citation:
Mark Achtemeier. The Bible’s Yes to Same-Sex Marriage, An Evangelical's Change
of Heart, Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. 2014. (Mark
Achtemeier, PhD, serves the Presbyterian Church (USA) since 1984 as pastor,
writer and theologian. He taught theology and ethics for 15 years as a faculty member
of the Dubuque Theological Seminary.)
