Sex, Gender and the Sacred

The road to the sacred runs through the carnal. Not only the Bible but Life itself reveals that sexuality is more spiritual than biological. The erotic is God's poetry of love calling us out of ourselves to awareness of beauty and to an expansive creativity and giving of ourselves. We go to God through one another, via loving, not apart from one another. --Paschal.

Monday, October 03, 2005

Homosexuality and the Bible: some thoughts

What matters is not who said it, but what is said. -- St. Thomas Aquinas.

One of the issues causing breakdown of communication, division and bad feelings in many church denominations is the diverse views of homosexuality. Two Baptist churches were expelled from their conference yesterday in Atlanta for their views, with the conference refusing dialogue they requested. This disagreement involves different views over church acceptance, marriage and ordination of gays and lesbians. Scripture is quoted by some as the final authority. Many believe that the Bible has unequivocally condemned homosexuality, and some are closed to any discussion of other views.

When we consider that literal biblical texts have been quoted in the past to uphold slavery (for almost 1900 years by a predominantly white Christianity), to battle against the way illnesses were treated, to justify treatment of Jews, to condemn any form of taking interest on money lent, and holding women in the class of second class citizenship, we should be cautious about certain judgments based on the Bible. Defenders of each of these ideas claimed to be acting according to the clear teaching of scripture. The authoritative use of any Bible text quoted literally is questionable in these matters. For those who understand how frequently the Bible has been misinterpreted to the substantial harm and even cruelty to many, the Bible cannot have the absolute authority that many want to give it today. The Inquisition in which persons accused of heresy were tortured and burned at the stake lasted from the time of Innocent III, in 1192, until the middle of the 19th century in Spain, some 650 years.

Professor Walter Wink (Auburn Theological Seminary in New York City), has documented the inconsistent biblical attitudes toward all human sexual practices. The Bible condemned some practices which we also condemn: incest, rape, adultery, and intercourse with animals. But the Bible also condemned other practices which we today either generally allow or at least do not universally condemn: intercourse during menstruation, celibacy, marriage to non-Jews, naming sexual organs, nudity under certain conditions, masturbation, and birth control. Some Christians condemn one or more of these, but in the past, the Bible was assumed to be quite clear and debate was not allowed.

The Bible also regarded semen and menstrual blood as unclean, which most people living today do not. Finally, the Bible permitted these behaviors which we today condemn: prostitution, polygamy, levirate marriage, sex with slaves, concubinage, treatment of women as property, and very early marriage (for a girl aged 11 to 13).

Consider, therefore, of the twenty Biblical sexual mores listed here, we now agree with the Bible only on four of them and we disagree with it on sixteen. So when religious persons claim support of scripture for their condemnation of homosexuality, it becomes clear that maybe something else is operating here, perhaps a need for definitive judgments on sexual behavior, perhaps homophobia. The Bible is ambiguous about specific sexual practices. Real knowledge of scripture in these matters does not result in certainty. Even that instance often quoted to demonstrate the clear denunciation of the sin of homosexuality (Romans 1) confronts us with the strange idea that if we do not worship God properly, He will punish us with homosexuality and all sorts of evil. Paul also insisted that women keep quiet in church, speak only to their husbands at night, and keep their heads covered.

Language is always an inadequate tool for grasping mystery. When we are speaking of the Divinity or the Divine Will, we can never be sure that the word or concept we have chosen or which the sacred writer has chosen is equivalent to the mysterious entity it is supposed to represent. Our cognitive maps and terms are never equivalent to the territory–they only represent the territory, always inadequately. Given our prevalent use in history of the Bible to condemn others, we should retain some humility and some skepticism that we have understood God’s will, especially when we are interpreting it for others. If truth be known, we often have a difficult time deciphering it for ourselves in the many challenges we face in the world in which we live. In another place I have suggested that “sin is believing that God is on our side” in an issue. Certainty can certainly be in the service of pride and arrogance. “Concepts create idols, only wonder understands anything.” Gregory of Nyssa, 5th century Church Father.

Excessive claims for Holy Scripture, e.g. the assertion that the Bible is certainly the in-errant word (it cannot err) of God, always to be obeyed, are indefensible today, regardless of who utters them. Our own interpretation of the bible is colored by our history, our times and our culture. Recall that Christians found justification for discrimination of every sort against the Jews for most of history. They were “Christ-killers” and the gospels told the Christians and hierarchy this was so. Hitler could brag that he was finishing what the church started.

Unfortunately, the official interpreters of the Bible, including most religious leaders, have never faced those errors in their teaching and never admitted their mistakes. As long as that continues to happen, religious leaders will inappropriately use the power of their positions for control and conformity, not in a role of a servant leadership aimed at empowering the People of God to undertake their own inquiry. We suggest that the Bible alone cannot be used for interpreting the will of God today. People can find what they want to in the Bible. We know that even the devil can quote it for his use. Neither the Bible nor tradition nor reason is itself adequate in interpreting what this mystery we call God intends. Furthermore, most Christians have never learnt a spirit of inquiry, being taught how to discover for themselves the will of God in certain matters. In another place I suggest we have thirteen sources of revelation today, and in another why and how the spirit of inquiry is necessary today.

Just as there was no way for the biblical writers to understand that the earth was not the center of the cosmos, or “heaven” was not up, not a place, so there is much more they did not understand concerning the human condition today. They could not understand science and industry, or a society based on human rights. Most certainly many writers did not understand that slavery was wrong. They certainly could not understand that some persons are born with an attraction to their own gender. Wink, respected biblical scholar, points out that the sexual behavior Paul condemns is pederasty, or the sexual behavior between youth and adults, and not that between consenting adults. The entire pamphlet is recommended.

Walter Wink. Homosexuality and the Bible, 1997. Published independently.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home