Saturday, August 4, 2012

Homosexuality and the Bible

A Letter

Preface: A former student in the US wrote to me asking about homosexuality and the New Testament texts. From my point of view, this student’s question is not related to the question of Gay Marriage, which is obviously still massive headline news in the US and the UK. (On this second question of Gay Marriage, for the record, my point of view is that all citizens of a secular state should stand on equal footing before the laws of that state. Democratically inclined states generally function through individual initiatives whereby we attempt to persuade one another of an idea, then the winning ideas become legislated into the social framework of the state. At this point in America’s history Gay Marriage is becoming a ‘winning idea’.) Now, back to my student’s original question about homosexuality and the New Testament texts.

Caveat: My student’s question is, obviously, not an innocent question in the context of America’s (supposedly) secular democracy, because it assumes that the Bible, a specific set of ancient religious documents of interest to Christianity and Judaism, has something relevant to contribute to the conversation of homosexuality in modern America. As a Jeffersonian American, which is to say (1) that I am willing to play by the ground rules of the secular American State, which include a separation of Church and State (see Gary Wills, Head and Heart. A History of Christianity in America, Penguin Books, ISBN 9781594201462), and (2) that I actually see the value in a truly secular American state where questions are resolved by means of informed rationality, I look forward to the day when America’s social questions are disputed and resolved on the footing of rational and informed argument, and where we put aside any idea of a need to obey dictates derived from religious documents relevant to the varied religious traditions that happen to live in our culture. In a secular republic that Jefferson could have imagined, such religious documents would be parked at the door of public discourse, and not be admitted into the hallowed halls of secular debate.
    So, my response to this student’s question comes with the same caveat I would advise for any type of fundamentalist argument, such as that expressed by Geert Wilder’s Fitna, which instructs us to go ad fontes – back to the source texts in order to understand the full truth of a religion. My caveat is, of course, that every religious source narrative contains frightening and disturbing elements that no (modern) sane person or democratic state could, would, or should recommend as a normative course of ethical conduct in the Modern World. Specifically on the question of homosexuality and the biblical texts, is any Modern (democratic and secular) State really going to advocate and then officially legislate into law the stoning to death of homosexuals, because it is divinely prescribed by Leviticus 20:13?
    Finally, my letter to this student is theologically neutral. I am not interested either in defending the Bible or in attacking it. Rather, as with all texts of high antiquity, we must allow the text to speak with its own voice, and, as much as possible, we must try to hear what the text says of its own accord. After that first task is accomplished, only then does our job become to sort out what we think about the whole thing and how we will allow our private convictions to inform our public opinions. Therefore, a part of our job in Modern America, in as much as we live, on paper at least, in a secular democracy, is (1) to try to keep the public discourse focused on rational argument and persuasion – presenting informed reason for our opinions, and (2) to sideline blind obedience to religious traditions, which can be given no voice and no preference in the secular arena. For this is tantamount to a junta, where theocratically-minded citizens try to wrest political and social power away from the secular-minded, fundamentally and philosophically American, libre-penseurs.

So, on to my student’s question about homosexuality and the New Testament texts …

Aiken’s Response.

Good morning,

What thoughtful questions you ask! Now let's see if I can do justice to the idea.

You ask what the NT texts say, specifically, about same-sex conduct, and what this says about Paul and/or Jesus.
    'Malakoi' (I Cor 6.9), means men who act softly or effeminately, and  ‘arsenokoitai’ (I Cor 6.9, I Tim. 1:10), means essentially ‘to join together in the marriage-bed’. No reader of Greek at the time would have misunderstood the intent of these words: 1) the speaker is speaking of men, not women, because the words are grammatically masculine; and 2) the acts these men-with-men are doing are womanly or sexual in nature, which means that men are acting toward men in ways that, normally, a woman would act.
    So, idea 1: The words are clear in their INTENDED meaning in Greek. So whenever you hear or read a different reading or interpretation of these words, it bespeaks a motivated interest or “agenda.” It is also interesting to note that same-sexual conduct among women is not addressed in this language.
    Second idea: Both passages from the NT are attributed to Paul. So, at the very least, an argument can be made that this was Paul’s thought, although not necessarily that of Jesus.
    Third idea: The early church fathers also understood these NT words and ideas in their NORMAL, Greek sense, i.e., as womanly sexual acts that men do with men, and condemned such acts. I can give you specific references if you would like.
    Fourth idea: Beyond the words, there is also the Jewish culture as a whole to consider, which provides the background both to the Hebrew Bible and to the New Testament. The HB is clear in its condemnation of men-to-men sexuality; this comes from the Jewish God and is codified in the Law through Moses. This means that the condemnation of this act by the Jews is from greatest antiquity. There is no historical reason to believe that the Jewish Jesus was of any different opinion. And, of course, Paul obviously fits in well with the ancient Jewish party line.
    Conclusions....? Both by virtue of language and cultural context, it is clear that both the Jewish thought tradition, and by extension the Christian thought tradition, actively condemn men-with-men sexuality. The Jews condemned this by stoning, the Christians by refusing them entry into the kingdom of heaven.

Hope this is helpful.

da

No comments:

Post a Comment