Dear Anonymous

A BELATED REPLY TO MY FIRST NEGATIVE COMMENTER

When I started this blog I decided that I would post any and all comments, whether they sided with me or not, as long as they were stated respectfully. Personal attacks, bad language or name-calling are not allowed, but pretty much anything else goes. I also decided that I would not reply to every comment that I received. I did not want to get caught up in a back-and-forth of endless argumentation that would consume my time and energy and deflect the planned trajectory of this blog. So when this post received my first negative comment, I posted it, but said nothing in reply. I would like to revisit it now. It may be a bit after the fact, but my anonymous commenter made some points that I feel I should have addressed. Let me quote the comment in full:

Anonymous said...

Yet, in our current society there is a "cultural conditioning" to view incest as unacceptable. Should we learn to understand this differently as well?

Concerning judging, there are numerous examples throughout Scripture showing God's clear judgment against homosexual *behavior* (while still loving of those with same-sex attraction difficulties). The ELCA, however, views its own politically-correct interpretations of Scripture as higher authority than the Scriptures themselves-and therein lies the problem.

Dear Anonymous,

Thank you for your comment. It is nice to know that someone is reading my work.

I think that you invoke a variation on the Slippery Slope argument. If we allow for gay marriage or homosexual clergy, what is to prevent us from approving of incest? (Some of the more histrionic versions of this argument suggest that the Churchwide Assembly Decisions will open the floodgates to pedophilia and bestiality). There is no reason to think that allowing for consensual same-sex relations will lead to any of these things.

I have actually encountered arguments favoring ethical, consensual incest. I disagree with them for three reasons. First, is the genetic danger of inbreeding. Second, and more important, is my experience working as chaplain to a home for troubled children. Many of the young people I met there had been sexually abused by members of their own families. While ethical, consensual incestuous relationships may exist in theory, in the real world I have only encountered examples of abusive, coercive incest. Third, an important function of marriage is establishing a legal family relationship for the purposes of inheritance, property rights, etc. In the case of blood relations, this already exists.

As for the “numerous examples” of God’s judgment on homosexual behavior in Scripture, there are, in fact, five passages that deal with the subject. I have treated all of them in various posts.

Finally, as regards the ELCA’s “politically-correct” interpretation of Scripture, I would point out that everyone who reads the Bible interprets it. Even the most abject literalism is a form of interpretation. What you call “the Scriptures themselves” is, in fact, your interpretation of the Scriptures. As I have tried to establish by blogging here, the ELCA reads Scripture according to sound Lutheran principles. Understanding the Bible as not only God’s word, but also the product of a particular culture and time, we are not bound to perpetuate homophobic interpretations today. Sometimes, dear Anonymous, political correctness is political, but sometimes it is correct.

God bless you,

Brant

Worth Reading

Back on January 28, Obie Holmen blogged on the question "Is Lutheran CORE Fundamentalist?" He does a nice job of refuting CORE's attitude toward the Bible. Click here to read about it.

Hesitant? Here is a teaser:

There are smart and educated persons in CORE, and they ought to know better than to spout such unscholarly and fossilized views of the canon coupled with accusations that the rest of us are unbiblical. It is not that we don’t take the Bible seriously, as CORE alleges, it is that we take it too seriously to avoid challenging questions informed by reason, experience, and the lessons of scholarship, both traditional and modern.

With Apologies...

...TO ALL OF MY FRIENDS CALLED STEVE, BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY.



I have been looking at the second chapter of Genesis, which I maintain is not a historical account, but a description, in story form, of the human condition. Adam and Eve are us.

When God makes Eve from Adam’s rib, Adam, delighted, exclaims:

“This at last is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh….” (Genesis 2:23)

Then the narrator comments, “For this reason, a man leaves his mother and father and clings to his wife and the two become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24)

This describes what is, for the vast majority of humans, their experience of being attracted to the opposite sex. Please note, however, that this is a description and not a prescription.

Sometimes this passage is taken as a mandate for heterosexual marriage, or a sanction against homosexual attraction. A bumper sticker slogan says, “It’s Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve.”

Yes, God made Adam and Eve (us) and most Adams are attracted to Eves. We can all agree that this is a good thing. If men and women were not attracted to one another, none of us would be here. Even Big Gay Steve can get on board with that idea.

But, here is the thing: God made Steve too. God made some Adams to be attracted to other Adams. Genesis 2 describes a norm, but does not prescribe that norm.

God, according to Genesis 2:18, made Eve because it was “not good for the man to be alone.” Human beings are made to live in intimate and caring partnership with one another. Most of us desire partnership between an Adam and an Eve. Some of us, however, desire partnership between an Adam and a Steve.

It is not good for Steve to be alone, either.





The Scripture quotes, as usual, are from the New Revised Standard Version. The illustration is my own mash-up of the elder Cranach's Adam and Albrecht Durer’s Adam. "Big Gay Steve" is a reference to the character Big Gay Al on South Park. I'm embarrassed to admit that I've watched South Park, but I assure you that I did not laugh.

Much.

Are You Calling God a Liar?

NO. ARE YOU?

The second chapter of Genesis tells the story of Adam and Eve. Let me be clear from the start. I do not believe that Genesis 2 is a factual account of human origins. You may disagree. Many Christians do. But, please bear with me while I present my evidence.

First, there is the internal evidence. The Book of Genesis contains two accounts of creation. The first is found in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. It includes the beautiful, poetic account of the seven days of creation. The second account begins at Genesis 2:4b and tells the story of Adam and Eve. The two accounts disagree in many details. For example, in the first account, birds are created before human beings (Gen. 1:20-23). In the second account, humans come before birds (Gen. 2:18-20). In the first account, plants are created before humans (Gen. 1:11-12). In the second, humans are made before plants (Gen. 2:4b-9). In the first account, man and woman are created simultaneously (Gen. 1:26 ff.). In the second account, the man is created first, and the woman is made from his rib (Gen. 2:21 ff).

Apologists try to reconcile these two creation stories. As with the story Judas’ death, their attempts only work if one ignores the plain meaning of the text. The very fact that anyone tries to reconcile the two accounts indicates the problem. As I see it, the two accounts were not meant to be reconciled.

Even the names “Adam” and “Eve” suggest that Genesis 2 was not meant to be a factual record of human origins. The Hebrew word “adam” means “humankind.” “Eve” means “life bearer” according to a footnote at Genesis 3:20 in the HarperCollins Study Bible. I take these names to indicate that Adam and Eve were not historical persons. Rather, they are symbolic representations of all humanity

Then there is the external evidence. The biblical accounts of creation indicate that the earth would be about 6,000 years old. Some young earth creationists will stretch that to 10,000 years. On the other hand geologists and physicists who examine the physical record tell us that the earth is closer to 4.5 billion years old.

Again, a literal reading of Genesis suggests that human beings were created about 6,000 years ago but the fossil record indicates that modern humans existed in Africa 200,000 years ago.

And again, Genesis tells us that human beings were created in their present state. The best science tells us that human beings evolved from earlier life forms. Although some Christians reject the evidence, evolutionary theory explains physical reality better than the biblical accounts do.

The question of human origins is another case where the General Revelation contradicts the Special Revelation. If science is right in this case, then Genesis 2 is not factual.

At this point, I expect an inerrantist to exclaim, “Wait a minute. The Bible is the word of God. Are you calling God a liar?” To which I reply, “No. Are you?” After all the hand of the Creator is revealed in the creation. If Genesis 2 is a literal, historical account, then God must have falsified the physical record.

More importantly, although I do not believe the story of Adam and Eve to be factual, I absolutely believe that it is true.

I’ll take this up again in my next post.






Two recommended books for those who are interested in reconciling Christian belief with evolutionary science: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief, Francis Collins, Free Press, 2006, and Can You Believe in God and Evolution: A Guide for the Perplexed, Ted Peters and Martinez Hewlett, Abingdon Press, 2008. The HarperCollins Study Bible (Wayne A. Meeks, general editor) was published by HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. The painting of Adam and Eve by Lucas Cranach the Elder was found at www.libart.com.

All Slogans are Lies!

THAT’S MY MOTTO

If it can be printed on a bumper sticker, it is not the whole truth. Bumper sticker slogans may be clever. They may express a bald opinion, but they do not, and cannot, communicate subtle and nuanced thought. They do not reflect the reason, if any, behind the opinion.

The bumper sticker pictured above was distributed free-of-charge by Pat Robertson’s 700 Club. According to its conservative algebra “Marriage equals one man plus one woman.” I frequently hear this norm attributed to the Bible.

I counter with a bit of doggerel verse I memorized long ago.

King David and King Solomon led merry, merry lives
With many, many lady friends and many, many wives
But when old age crept over them with many, many qualms
King Solomon wrote the Proverbs
And King David wrote the Psalms.

–James Ball Naylor, 1935.

The simple truth is that the Bible does not define marriage. There is no verse in Scripture that says “Marriage equals one man plus one woman” or something to that effect. In fact, the Bible describes several kinds of marriage and does so without judgment. Certainly the norm of one man and one woman is most common in the Bible, as I believe it has been in every time, place and culture, but polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage are also found in the Bible.

What-irate marriage?

Levirate marriage was the practice of a man marrying his brother’s childless widow in order to raise children for his dead brother. This kept the deceased’s name alive and his inheritance intact. It also provided a measure of security for the widow in a society that treated women as chattel property. The word “levirate” derives from the Latin word “levir" meaning “brother-in-law.” The practice of levirate marriage is described in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 and features in the stories of Ruth, Tamar (Genesis 38) and Jesus’ dispute with the Sadducees in Matthew 22:38 ff and parallels.

Jacob, who became Israel, and whose children gave their names to the twelve tribes of Israel, was a polygamist. His children were born to his two wives and their two handmaids. See Genesis, chapters 29 and 30.

As for Israel’s two greatest kings, David had multiple wives and concubines, but Solomon takes the prize with “seven hundred wives…and three hundred concubines” who led him into idolatrous worship (1 Kings 11:3ff.). If that seems a bit excessive, it may account for the command, no doubt written after the fact and postdated, found in Deuteronomy 17:17

And he (the king) must not acquire many wives for himself, or else his heart will turn away….

To sum up, the Bible does not mandate that marriage equals one man and one woman. The Scriptures recognize several forms of marriage, including polygamy, concubinage and levirate marriage.







Next: a look at Genesis 2

Questions about Patriarchy, Slavery, Racism, Sexism...

...GENOCIDE, SUPERCESSIONISM, HOMOPHOBIA AND THE CHRISTIAN USE OF SCRIPTURE

If the Bible is patriarchal, does that mean God is patriarchal?
Does it mean that Christians should be patriarchal?

If the Bible is pro-slavery, does that mean God is pro-slavery?
Does it mean that Christians should be pro-slavery?

If the Bible is racist, does that mean God is a racist?
Does it mean that Christians should be racists?

If the Bible is sexist, does that mean God is a sexist?
Does it mean that Christians should be sexist?

If the Bible advocates genocide, does that mean God is genocidal?
Does it mean that Christians should be genocidal?

If the Bible is anti-Jewish, does that mean God is anti-Jewish?
Does it mean that Christians should be anti-Jewish?

And of course, if the Bible is homophobic, does that mean God is homophobic?
Does it mean that Christians should be homophobic?

Arguably the Bible is, at least in some parts, patriarchal, pro-slavery, racist, sexist, genocidal, anti-Jewish and homophobic. Also arguably, the Bible, at least in some parts, teaches us that God is not patriarchal, pro-slavery, etc. What does this mean for Christians and our use of Scripture?

Romans 1 and the Cause of Homosexuality

OR, WHAT DETERMINES SEXUAL NATURE?

We do not know exactly what causes homosexuality. Research into the subject is ongoing. We can be quite sure, however, about some things that do not cause homosexuality. Bad parenting, for instance, does not cause homosexuality. In spite of the fact that some prominently placed preachers claim that a weak father and a domineering mother will create a homosexual boy, the best research says otherwise.

We can also be certain that idol worship does not cause homosexuality. Some homosexuals may worship graven images, but others are devout monotheists. I have known some homosexuals who are, in fact, committed, church-going, God-fearing, Jesus-loving, devout, dedicated, pious Christians.

Yet, in the first chapter of Romans, the Apostle Paul states quite unequivocally that homosexuality is caused by idolatry.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. (Romans 1:22-27)

Either we have here another case of the general revelation contradicting the special revelation or the Apostle Paul had in mind something other than what we know of homosexuality. From context, I am inclined to think that Paul was referring to orgiastic pagan temple rituals.

Again, though we may not know exactly what causes homosexuality, we do know that it occurs quite naturally. Yet, in Romans 1, Paul refers to homosexual sex as unnatural. In the time of the Apostle Paul, sexual identity was thought to be determined by anatomy. What kind of genitalia you were born with determined your sexual nature. We now understand sexual identity to be much more complex. Factors such as “chemistry, brain, and hormones” contribute to our sexual nature.

In an earlier post I wrote that the Bible does not say what we think it does about homosexuality. In fact, the Bible says nothing about homosexuality as an orientation. In the five passages that address the subject, the Scriptures are negative about homosexual behavior, but none of those passages can legitimately be used to universally condemn all homosexual behaviors. This does not mean that the biblical writers would approve of same-sex acts. The truth is we now understand homosexuality very differently than they did.

The quote from Romans is taken from the New Revised Standard Version. The phrase "chemistry, brain and hormones" is borrowed from The First Paul by John Dominic Crossan and Marcus J. Borg, HarperOne, 2009, page 163. I lifted Emil Nolde's painting of the the worship of the Golden Calf from this website.

The Story So Far

It might be wise, at this point, to recap some of what I have been saying about the Bible and homosexuality.

First, the general revelation, i.e. reason and experience, has given us a new understanding of homosexuality. We now recognize that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexual orientation. This new understanding was foreign to the thinking of the biblical writers.

Second, while the book of Leviticus prohibits same-sex acts, the prohibition applied only to the men of Israel (not to women, nor to Gentiles). The Levitical code is not a moral code but a purity code. It was intended to set Israel apart from other nations as the Lord’s people. Christians freely disregard most of the laws found in Leviticus.

Third, there are three passages of the New Testament that address same-sex acts. I’ve looked at two of them. The Greek word malakoi occurs at 1 Corinthians 6:9. It literally means “softs” and is, I think, approximately equivalent to the derogatory English term “sissies.” The word arsenokoitai (literally “man-beds”) is found in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. This word is notably difficult to translate, as 1 Corinthians is its first known occurrence. It is likely, though by no means certain, that both of these words describe practitioners of some homosexual act. Neither of them can legitimately be translated as “homosexuals” since the concept of homosexuality did not exist in biblical times. Nor can they be taken as a condemnation of same-sex marriage as that concept did not exist in biblical times either. This does not, of course, mean that the writers of the Bible would approve of same-sex marriage. Even had they shared our new understanding of homosexuality, we cannot say what they would have thought.

In my next post I will be looking at the last of the New Testament passages dealing with same-sex acts, Romans 1:18 ff.

Those Pesky Arsenokoitai

WHAT WAS PAUL THINKING?

Some commentators suggest that, because 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the earliest known use of arsenokoitai, Paul minted the word. Color me skeptical.

I assume that when the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians, he wanted to be understood by them. Including a newly coined word in list of those who “will not inherit the kingdom” is a poor way to be understood. It seems to me much more likely that Paul would use a word that he thought was in the Corinthians’ vocabulary. Probably the word arsenokoitai was in common, if infrequent, use.

Among the commentators who think that Paul minted the word arsenokoitai, there are some who suggest that he based it on Leviticus 20:13 in the Septuagint. (The Septuagint is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. When Paul quotes the Old Testament, it is from the Septuagint). A New English Translation of the Septuagint (2007) renders Leviticus 20:13 as,

And he who lies with a male in a bed for a woman, both have committed an abomination; by death let them be put to death; they are liable.

It reads a little better in the Greek. Trust me. At any rate, the components of the word arsenokoitai, arsenos (“male”) and koiten (“bed”), occur together in this verse. Still it is highly conjectural to think that Paul had this verse in mind when he wrote 1 Corinthians 6:9. Again, assuming that Paul wanted the Corinthians to understand him, we would need some reason to think that the Corinthians, a Gentile congregation, would know this verse from Leviticus. It’s not impossible, of course, but it assumes a lot.

The fact is, we cannot know exactly what Paul was thinking when he used the word arsenokoitai. He apparently had something specific in mind, but it is beyond our ability to know just what that was. The variety of ways that English translations handle the word demonstrate this.

There are some things we can be sure Paul did not mean by arsenokoitai. He did not mean “homosexuals” that is, “people who have a same-sex attraction.” The concept of homosexuality did not exist in Paul’s day. Neither did he mean persons living in a committed, covenanted, publicly accountable same-sex relationship (“gay marriage”). That, too, is a new concept.

In short, Paul’s inclusion of arsenokoitai in the vice list of 1 Corinthians 6 cannot be taken as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, homosexuals, or all homosexual acts. It cannot be taken as a condemnation of gay marriage.

This does not, however, mean that Paul would have approved of gay marriage. The truth is, he saw even straight marriage as a compromise for those who could not live in celibacy.

It would be nice to think that, if Paul knew what we know about homosexuality, he would have given the thumbs up to life-long, committed, publicly accountable same-sex relationships. Unfortunately, we cannot know what Paul would think.








For this post I cribbed another cool image of the Apostle Paul from http://www.rembrandtonline.org/

The "Softs" and "Male-beds" in Translation

You may want to read my previous post before proceeding with this one. If you get bogged down in my discussion of various English versions of the Bible, you have my full permission to skip to the last paragraph of this post.


As noted in my last post, the dear old King James Version of the Bible (1611), at 1 Corinthians 6:9, translated the Greek word arsenokoitai as “abusers of themselves with mankind.” At 1 Timothy 1:10 arsenokoitai is translated “them who defile themselves with mankind.” I take both of these rather ungainly phrases to mean “men who have sex with men.” The KJV translated malakoi, a word also found in 1 Corinthians 6:9, as “effeminate.”

The 1952 Revised Standard Version translated both malakoi and arsenokoitai in 1 Corinthians with a single word, “homosexuals.” This seems to me a particularly unfortunate choice as it has the effect of condemning persons for who they are rather than what they do. I also think that this translation reflects the understanding and misconceptions of homosexuality that were current in 1952. At 1 Timothy 1:10, the RSV translated arsenokoitai with the word “sodomites.” This, too presents difficulties. Arsenokoitai in Greek would not have meant “sodomite” in the sense of a citizen of Sodom, though it might mean “a practitioner of sodomy.”

The widely used New International Version (1978) translated malakoi as “male prostitutes,” a translation that is followed by several other modern English translations including the New Living Translation (1996) and the Holman Christian Standard Bible (2004). The NIV translates arsenokoitai as “homosexual offenders” in 1 Corinthians. I find this translation rather egregious as the word “offenders” occurs nowhere in the Greek text. I also question exactly what a “homosexual offender” would be. The NIV is also inconsistent in that it translates arsenokoitai as “perverts” in 1 Timothy.

The New Revised Standard Version (1989) also translates malakoi as male prostitutes, and arsenokoitai as “sodomites” in both of its occurrences.

The English Standard Version, an Evangelical revision of the RSV published in 2001, follows the RSV by combining malakoi and arsenokoitai into a single term “men who practice homosexuality.” It translates arsenokoitai alone with the same phrase in 1 Timothy 1:10. Since Paul used two distinct words in Greek, I question the validity of translating the two with a single term.

Curiously, the New King James Version (1982) translates malakoi as “homosexuals.” It translates arsenokoitai, in both of its occurrences, as “sodomites.”

The New English Translation (2005) translates malakoi into “passive homosexual partners” and arsenokoitai as “practicing homosexuals.” A footnote points out that the emphasis is on “actual behavior, not orientation.” This understanding seems to underlie the translation of arsenokoitai in several other recent versions, such as the NLT and the ESV.

Dr. Ann Nyland, translator of The Source New Testament (2004), has an interesting translation for arsenokoitai: “anal penetrators.” In her footnote to 1 Corinthians 6:9, she says that the word “appears to include rape” and “does not apply exclusively to males as receptors as it was also said for anal penetration of a woman.” She translates malakoi as "receptive male homosexual cross-dressers" which may (or may not) be accurate, but is even more awkward than the KJV's "them who defile themselves with mankind" for arsenokoitai.

So in translation the malakoi are treated as "effeminate," "male prostitutes," "homosexuals," "passive homosexual partners," or "receptive male homosexual cross dressers." The arsenokoitai may be "abusers of themselves with mankind," "sodomites," "homosexual offenders," "perverts," "practicing homosexuals," or "anal pentrators."

Obviously, the words malakoi and, especially arsenokoitai pose challenges for translators. The various versions largely agree that they represent practitioners of some homosexual act or acts. Recent translations are rightly careful to distinguish between acts and orientation. (The concept of sexual orientation did not exist in the time of the Apostle Paul). In my next post or two I want to examine whether Paul’s use of these terms in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 constitute a universal condemnation of all homosexual acts.

Paul's Weird Word

ARSENOKO-WHAT?

There is a vice list in 1 Corinthians 6:8b-10, a list of several types of people who will not “inherit the kingdom of God.” The Apostle Paul uses a weird word in the original Greek of this passage. I quote it here from the King James Version of the Bible, emphasizing the phrase used to translate Paul’s unusual word. I am using the KJV intentionally because it was made before the word “homosexual” came into use.

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Paul’s unusual Greek word was arsenokoitai. It is a plural compound noun made from the words arsen which means “male” and koitai meaning “beds.” What makes it strange is that 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the earliest known use of this word. The same word occurs in a vice list of those who are “under the law” in 1 Timothy 1:10. This is its only other use in the New Testament and is most likely derived from its earlier use in 1 Corinthians.

A word’s meaning is not determined by its etymology. In English, we can understand a thing without actually standing under it. Knowing that arsenokoitai is literally “male-beds” obviously does not define the word. Meaning is derived from context and usage. Since 1 Corinthians 6:9 is the first known use of arsenokoitai context becomes key. From the context of the New Testament vice lists, it is safe to say that being one of the arseonkoitai is not a good thing. Saying exactly who the arsenokoitai are is more difficult.

In my next post, I’ll look at the ways various English translations have treated the word. I should point out first that some translators couple the word arsenokoitai with the word preceding it, which the KJV translated as “effeminate.” That word (which does not occur in the 1 Timothy vice list) is malakoi, a plural noun that could be translated literally as “softs.” In New Testament era Greek it had a range of meaning that spanned from “cowards” to “catamites” and “cross-dressers.” It occurs to me that the derogatory English word "sissy" carries much the same range of meaning.




The picture of St. Paul in prison was taken from http://www.rembrandtonline.org/. Cool website!

Leviticus

THE LOGIC OF ALL SEXX LAWS*

The book of Leviticus is a collection of laws, reportedly given by God to the Israelites through Moses. Its contents include instructions for offering sacrifices, dietary regulations, a version of the Ten Commandments, detailed descriptions of various forms of leprosy, and laws concerning a variety of sex acts. Chapter 18 of Leviticus specifically prohibits incest in several degrees, bestiality and, in verse 22, male homosexual relations: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.”

The penalties for infraction of the sex laws are specified in Leviticus chapter 20. At verse 13, we read: “ If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.”

Sometimes commentators divide the Levitical laws into categories of moral, ethical and civil regulations. These categories are of limited usefulness. First, Leviticus itself makes no such distinctions. The laws are simply the laws for the people of Israel. Second, it is not always clear which category a particular law fits. For example, is the prohibition against murder a civil or a moral law?

In fact, the Levitical code is not much concerned with morality. There is nothing particularly immoral about having sex during a woman’s menstrual period or eating shellfish, but Leviticus prohibits both of these things. Leviticus is much more concerned with holiness, purity or cleanliness. That is, the laws, even the sex laws of chapter 18, are intended to set the people of Israel apart as the Lord’s people, distinct from other peoples.

The rationale for the sex laws is stated in Leviticus 18:3, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes.” In other words, obedience to the sex laws of Leviticus 18 distinguishes the Israelites from their pagan neighbors.

So while Leviticus prohibits male homosexual relations, it does so only for the men of Israel, and this is not for purposes of morality, but to set them apart as the Lord’s people.

In the early days of Christianity, a controversy arose concerning whether gentile Christians were bound to keep the Jewish laws of cleanliness. According to the book of Acts, the apostles in Jerusalem laid aside the Levitical code and required gentile Christians “to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood.” This raises the question of whether homosexual behavior is necessarily considered “fornication.” But that is a topic for another post.







* The subtitle for this post comes from the Song “Sexx Laws” on the Midnite Vultures album by Beck. Scripture references are quoted from the New Revised Standard Version. The image of Michaelangelo’s Moses was lifted from Wikipedia and adapted.

The Bible Doesn't Say What You Think It Does

At Synod Assembly last June the proposed Social Statement on Human Sexuality and the recommendations concerning ordained ministry were discussed. I am happy to say that, though the issues are contentious and feelings run high, the discussions were conducted with civility and charity.

During a break from the Assembly, I had a private conversation with a friend and colleague who holds a PhD in New Testament. I will not name him in case I quote him incorrectly. What I heard him say was, “The Bible doesn’t say what you think it does about homosexuality. No matter what side of the debate you’re on, the Bible doesn’t say what you think.” I believe my friend was right.

Arguably the Bible says nothing about homosexuality. If we understand homosexuality to be a sexual orientation, the concept did not even exist until the nineteenth century. Nor does the Bible speak to the subject of life-long, committed, covenanted same-sex unions, another concept that did not exist in Bible times.

What the Bible does address is certain homosexual behaviors. The five passages that speak to the subject are Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Timothy 1:10. I specifically omit the story of Sodom (Genesis 19) from this list as it deals with rape and not consensual sex. In each of the five passages listed the described behavior is judged negatively. In the next few posts I will examine each of the five passages. As I look at the Bible’s statements on homosexual behavior, I want to keep these questions in mind:

Do these Scriptures make a universal condemnation of all homosexual behavior?

Do the ancient condemnations still apply in the light of what we now know about homosexuality?

Do the Scriptures view homosexuality, or homosexual behavior, as “inherently sinful?”







There are more than 300 passages of Scripture that address our need to care for the poor. I'm only saying....

Homosexuality

THAT'S RIGHT. I SAID THE H-WORD.

Issues surrounding homosexuality are hot-button topics in both the Church and society today. My beloved Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is currently dealing with the aftermath of a Churchwide Assembly that approved ordination for qualified individuals living in committed same-sex relationships. Some ELCA members find this intolerable and are leaving our church body. They say that the ELCA is going against both Scripture and tradition, that is, the Special Revelation.

It is true that the Christian Church has no tradition for same-sex marriage. It is also true that the Bible, in the five instances where it addresses homosexual behavior, is negative.

But, the best empirical evidence—reason and experience, that is, the General Revelation—has given us a new understanding of homosexuality. We have learned that same sex attraction is neither an illness nor a willful perversion. It is, rather, an innate orientation. Very simply, some people are born gay. In theological terms, God made them that way.

The examples of Copernicus, Galileo, and Darwin teach us that the Church gives privilege to the Special Revelation over the General Revelation at its own peril. Mistaking the content of the Special Revelation for the content of the General Revelation not only embarrasses the Church but also puts it at risk of denying the Truth.

I would suggest that, in light of our current best knowledge concerning homosexuality, the questions facing the Church are whether and how persons of homosexual orientation can ethically express their sexuality.

In the next several posts, I intend to examine some of the issues concerning homosexuality, beginning with an understanding of what the Bible says.

Welcome to the Borg

Marcus Borg is brilliant and gentle. He is worth reading even when you disagree with him. I like the distinction he makes between the Word of God and the words of God in this quote from Reading the Bible Again for the First Time (The full citation is at the bottom of this post).

What then does it mean to call the Bible “the Word of God”? It is important to emphasize that the Christian tradition throughout its history has spoken of the Bible as the Word of God (capital W and singular), not as the words of God (lowercase w and plural). If it had used the latter phrase, then one might reasonably claim that believing the words of the Bible to be God’s words is intrinsic to being Christian.

But the use of a capital W and the singular suggests a different meaning. Namely, “Word” is being used in a metaphorical and nonliteral sense. As with metaphors generally, this one resonates with more than one nuance of meaning. A word is a means of communication, involving both speaking and hearing. A word is a means of disclosure; we disclose or reveal ourselves through words. Words bridge the distance between ourselves and others: we commune and become intimate through words.

To call the Bible the Word of God is to see it in all of these ways, and no doubt more. The Bible is a means of divine self-disclosure. The traditional theological phrase for this is “the Bible as the revelation of God.”

If I have any quibble with Borg here, it is that I prefer to reserve the capital W for references to Jesus as the Word of God.







Marcus Borg, Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but not Literally, 2001, HarperOne, NY. Quote is taken from pages33-4 of the Harper Collins first paperback edition, 2002

The Authority of Scripture

THE BIBLE DID NOT DESCEND FROM HEAVEN ON A GOLDEN CHAIN

The many and various books of the Bible were written, redacted and collected over a long period of centuries. The Bible is not the product of a single author, but was written by many individuals, some of them anonymous. The canon of the Bible was not decided by a formal process, but came about by consensus and common usage.

Let’s face it, the Qur’an and the Book of Mormon have better origin stories.

Some Christians claim that the authority of the Bible is proven by its inerrancy. They say that the Bible contains no errors or contradictions. I find this idea untenable. The notion of inerrancy requires too much denial of fact, too many mental gymnastics for me to find convincing.

Some Christians claim that the authority of Scripture derives from its divine origin. Among these, some say that God dictated the Bible. If this is the case, God would have benefited from the services of a fact-checker. Others say that God used ghostwriters (that is, God told the scribes what to write but allowed them to use their own words, which God then approved). Surely God could have found a better ghostwriter than John of Patmos, whose command of Greek grammar was tenuous at best.

There are passages, especially in the prophetic writings, that claim to be direct words from God. Overall, though, the Bible makes no such claim for itself. It seems to me that most theories of direct inspiration overlook the fact that large portions of the Scriptures are words directed from humans to God (the book of Psalms, for instance) and not the other way around.

So on what can we base the authority of Scripture? How can we claim it as the ”word of God” and the sole “source and norm” of the Church’s doctrine? I would suggest that the Bible’s authority is three-fold.

First, it is the Church’s book. The Bible is that collection of writings that the Church found useful, beneficial, inspired and inspiring.

Second, the Bible has stood the test of time. The books that the Church recognizes as authoritative have been proven through centuries and millennia of use.

Third, the Bible is self-authenticating. In reading, contemplating and conversing with the Scriptures, people encounter God.







The image of Rembrandt's painting of St. Matthew and the Angel was copied from this website. I have no affiliation with Fine Art Prints on Demand and cannot vouch for their services.

Poor Old Judas...

…OR, WHY I AM NOT AN INERRANTIST

I think I was a sophomore in high school when I realized that the New Testament contains two divergent accounts of the death of Judas, the disciple who betrayed Jesus.

In Matthew 27:3-10 we read that Judas, filled with remorse, tried to return the money he had been paid to betray Jesus. The priests who had paid him were unsympathetic. So, Judas threw the money down in the temple. Then he went and hanged himself. The priests, unwilling put the blood money into the temple treasury, used it to buy a potter’s field, a place to bury foreigners. The field was then called Hakeldama, the “field of blood.”

The book of Acts, written by the author of the Gospel of Luke, tells a story that is similar, but different in a few key details. In Acts 1:15-20, we are told that Judas took his reward for betraying Jesus and spent it on a field. He then fell “headlong” and “burst open in the middle so that all of his bowels gushed out.” For this reason the field was called Hakeldama.

To summarize, Matthew and Luke differ on the details of who bought the field, how the field got its name, and how Judas died. When I discovered this, it made me wonder. Just how did Judas die?

At the time, I occasionally tuned into a radio station associated with a large Bible college. They had a “Bible Answers” type of program. So I called in and posed my question. The host explained that the two accounts can be harmonized. Judas, he said, hanged himself. After he had hung for a while, he swelled up like a dead raccoon on a hot day. Either the rope or Judas’s neck broke. His corpse fell and burst.

I have since found that this, with small variations, is a pretty standard explanation employed by inerrantists. By “inerrantist” I mean someone who holds that the Bible contains no errors or contradictions. The problem is, it did not add up for me then, and it still doesn’t now.

It violates the plain sense of Scripture.

If one reads Luke apart from Matthew, the clear meaning is that Judas died by falling and bursting. If one reads Matthew apart from Luke, the clear meaning is that Judas died by hanging himself. Reading these two passages according to their plain sense leads to the conclusion that Luke and Matthew contradict one another.

Since I am not an inerrantist, I do not need to harmonize Matthew and Luke. The clearest explanation of their divergent accounts, to me, is simply that they disagree. Matthew and Luke probably had different sources for their accounts. They also had different theologies and wrote for different communities. They do not need to agree.

This forces the question, if the Bible contains errors and contradictions, if its writers hold diverse theologies, can it still be considered authoritative? Can the Bible still be the sole source and norm of the Church’s teaching?






I don't know the original source for the pictures attached to this post. I found them via Google image search and liberated them from this blog.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 5

SOLA SCRIPTURA

“Sola Gratia. Sola Fide. Sola Scriptura” (Latin for “Grace Alone. Faith Alone. Scripture Alone”) was the great motto of the Lutheran Reformation in the sixteenth century. The first two of these “three solas” are taken from Ephesians 2:8–9

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God— not the result of works, so that no one may boast.” (New Revised Standard Version)

Martin Luther set the course for Lutheran Christianity with his absolute commitment to the principle that we are made right with God only by grace through faith. Nothing else can save us. Nothing else is necessary.

The third sola—Sola Scriptura—signified that the Bible contains all that is necessary for the knowledge of salvation. Luther made the Bible the sole “source and norm” of Christian doctrine. That is, the Church’s teaching must be derived from the Bible. And every teaching of the Church must be compared to the Bible to determine its truth.

The principle of Sola Scriptura served a very practical purpose in the Reformation. It gave Luther a way out from under the authority of the Pope. It remains a valuable tool for Christians concerned about the things that are taught in the name of Christ.

From all of this it should be pretty clear that Lutherans hold the Bible in high regard. We read the Bible as the written word of God, both Law and Gospel, revealing Jesus to us. We understand the Bible according to its plain sense and allow the clear teachings of Scripture to illumine the difficult passages. We look to the Bible as the source of our teaching, and we compare our teachings against the Bible.

Because we hold the Bible in such high regard, I would suggest that we should we should use every tool available to understand the Scriptures.

We should also be very careful not to misuse the Bible.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 4

THE SCRIPTURE PRINCIPLE

So, here we are, reading the Bible like Lutherans. We expect to hear God’s word. We are prepared to encounter Jesus. We are keeping the distinction of Law and Gospel firmly in mind. We are reading the text for its plain meaning, and suddenly we hit a speed bump.

The meaning of the text sometimes is just not that plain.

It is for cases like this that Martin Luther formulated the Scripture Principle. In brief, the Scripture Principle means that when a passage of Scripture is difficult to understand, contradictory or confusing, we interpret it in the light of those parts of Scripture that are clear. Sometimes the Scripture Principle is stated thus: “Scripture interprets Scripture.”

Now many Christians proclaim the Scripture Principle but have gone beyond what Luther meant. For some Christians the idea that Scripture interprets Scripture is used to build elaborate schemes of interpretation that gloss over the differences between books of the Bible. Some have used the Scripture Principle to construct minutely detailed timetables for the end of the ages which are far from the original meaning of the texts.

What Luther had in mind was more along the lines of attending to the grand themes of Scripture. For Luther, the Scripture Principle meant that when we encounter a troubling verse like Psalm 137:9 “Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!” we should read it over and against Jesus' words in Matthew 5:44 “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

Martin Luther was well aware of the inconsistencies in the Bible. Biblical authors do not always agree with one another. He also knew that there are some harsh passages in Scripture. Using the Scripture Principle, Lutherans are able to understand these difficult passages in the broader scope of God’s word.




Next time: Sola Scriptura.

How to Read the Bible Like a Lutheran. Part 3

THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE

In Martin Luther’s day Scholastic theologians had devised some pretty fanciful, allegorical ways to interpret the Scripture. They sought to tease hidden meanings out of the text. Luther insisted that, for the Bible to be understood correctly, it should be read according to its plain meaning. The Bible says what it means and means what it says.

I think that when Luther spoke of the “plain sense” of Scripture, he meant that the Bible should be understood as any reasonably intelligent sixteenth century German peasant would understand it. That is just a little problematic. I would argue instead that the plain meaning of a biblical text is the meaning that its original audience would have understood. The Bible, after all, cannot mean what it never meant. For this reason it is important for those who wish to understand the Bible to use every tool at their disposal to understand the times and cultures in which the Scriptures were written.

I would also point out that the Bible contains many different kinds of literature. There are letters, songs, apocalypses, parables, prophetic oracles, and even short novels. The reader should keep the type of literature they are reading in mind as this affects the plain meaning of the text. The plain meaning of a poem is poetic. The plain meaning of a parable is parabolic. The plain meaning of an apocalypse is apocalyptic.

You get the idea.





To sum up: Lutherans read the Bible as the word of God. We meet Jesus in the Scriptures. The Bible is both Law and Gospel, and the two should not be confused. Lutherans believe that the Bible is best interpreted by its plain sense, the sense that its original readers would have understood.

Next time: Scripture interprets Scripture.