Secular or Christian?
A good letter to the editor in the KNS about the Episcopalian split:
The current schism in the Episcopal and mother Anglican churches is not tenable on the premise that homosexuality is condemned by the Scriptures.
Much of what is practiced in the Christian church is not scriptural but has arisen from a complex interplay of church decree, convention and divine inspiration of historical church leaders.
In the fourth century, the Catholic Church was fragmented. Different bishops emphasized different doctrines. The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke used terms to refer to Jesus that were secular terms also used to refer to men of different stature.
Only the book of John, the past apostolic gospel written, used the term “Lord,” which in the original Greek was reserved only for divinity. The gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene described God as being within each of us. The Secret Book of John emphasized the divine interpretation of scripture by men.
In June of 325, Constantine held a summit of bishops at Nicaea to resolve these issues. There was strong impetus to adopt the divinity of Jesus, not just because it was the belief of the emperor but because it would bring the individual churches under the blanket of state financing and eligibility for reparations from various groups that had earlier persecuted Christians.
The New Testament, as we know it, was constructed with the book of John being the seminal Gospel.
The argument could be made that the fundamental tenant of Christianity is, in fact, nonscriptural.
If the church wants to exclude openly gay clergy, that is its prerogative, but then it should not think of itself as a purveyor of truth and defenders of the Holy Scriptures. It should think of itself as a club with bylaws.
WILLIAM H. CULBERT JR.
Emphasis added. I loved it.
October 26th, 2003 at 9:52 pm
[dissertation]
I agree with the sentiment, although maybe not the justification. The Bible doesn’t say much directly about homosexuality, but where it does address it, it virtually always comes out against it. Lev 18:22 says:
Lev 20:13 is similar, saying:
It’s worth noting that these admonitions against homosexuality come in the book of Leviticus, among many other Old Testament laws (such as admonitions against sex during menstruation, and admonitions against eating shellfish and pork) that are currently ignored (Old Covenant versus New Covenant, Christianity 101).
Staying in the OT, there’s a more disputed reference in Gen 19:4-8, wherein Lot offers up his virgin daughters to a mob of men — some argue to prevent them from having homosexual sex — and he’s praised for this. (It’s one of the less pleasant stories in the Bible — “No, don’t do that! Rape my daughters instead!”)
Moving to the New Testament, Romans 1:26-27 is unclear, because it seems to condemn men lusting after men and women lusting after women, but it explicitly says it is God who gave them these desires.
But the most clear reference comes in the New Testament in 1 Cor 6:9-11:
Of course this passage is written by Paul, and seems to contradict the teachings of Jesus in Luke 23:39-43, that criminals can achieve heaven.
The one scripture I have seen used to defend homosexuality is 2 Samuel 1:26:
But that seems a bit of a stretch to me.
I should disclaim that in some cases, particularly the I Corinthians reference, there is some dispute as to whether the word “homosexuals” is indeed the appropriate translation. And there are still debates as to the context of some of the Old Testament references (in some cases, it is argued, it’s really temple prostitution that is being condemned).
All that said, from my studies, it seems that those who are arguing that the Bible condemns homosexuality can make a pretty strong case for this. With several references scattered throughout, it’s very difficult to make a Biblical argument in favor of homosexuality.
Then again, the Bible is not my first choice for use in determining morality, and can easily be used to defend immoral causes. A fine example is that the Bible is much more easily used to defend slavery than to condemn it.
In summation, personally, I think homosexuality falls in the category of “what consenting adults do,” and so I have no problem with it. But Biblically speaking, the case against it is pretty strong.
[/dissertation]
October 26th, 2003 at 9:54 pm
By the way:
Couldn’t this criticism be levied against just about any organized church?
October 27th, 2003 at 8:53 am
Couldn’t this criticism be levied against just about any organized church?
Yes but few other clubs threaten you with Hell.
I think one of the points of the letter is that the bible was, ya know, written and manipulated by men.
October 27th, 2003 at 10:48 am
I think one of the points of the letter is that the bible was, ya know, written and manipulated by men.
You’d be surprised how few people are willing to admit that, especially considertin how obvious it is in places. Well, maybe you wouldn’t be surprised; you also live in the buckle of the Bible Belt…