Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Could Be Worse I Guess
Midwest Conservative Journal is like an oasis of sanity in mainline meltdown. Visit it at least once a day just to show yourself that you are not crazy, it's just the world itself.
Here it is, sarcasm at its best:
ONE HIT WONDER
Frank Griswold has exactly one idea these days and he beats it to death here:
Our recent meeting of the House of Bishops produced a remarkable convergence summed up in a Covenant Statement which has been seen by many as the fruit of the Spirit’s activity among us. What emerged is far more than words on a page but a fundamental disposition rooted and grounded in a force that transcended us all and brought us together in ways few could have imagined when we convened.
Wow. And I thought it was just another ECUSA evasion. Show's why Frank's Presiding Bishop, I guess.
At a meeting in mid-April of the Executive Council we sought to discern how we might best respond to the primates’ request regarding our participation in the life of the Anglican Consultative Council.
Since we didn't want to do what they asked us to do.
As I left the conference center where the meeting was held, one of their staff told me she had felt the presence of the Spirit as council members worked and prayed together. I said that I agreed.
She didn't say what spirit, though, and Frank didn't press the point.
It is the function and ministry of the Holy Spirit to reconcile difference, not primarily on the level of opinion, but on the level of what scripture calls “the heart,” namely the deep core and center of the human person. This is the secret place where resides the love of God “poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit.”
Actually, Frank, the Holy Spirit does a great deal more than just "reconcile difference." For instance:
Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged(John 16:7-11).
You remember sin, righteousness and judgement, don't you, Frank? You used to laugh about them back in seminary.
How much better we in the church fare when we seek to discern the presence of the Spirit in one another at the level of the heart rather than playing out our differences at a level of argumentation. There are those within the body of Christ with whom I may profoundly disagree, yet at the same time I embrace them as brother or sister because we are able to meet at the level of the heart.
So stop criticizing Frank and start sending checks again.
Through the agency of the Holy Spirit God’s creative activity continues in the world, and Christ continues to unfold his truth.
Here we go.
Christ’s truth is not simply about religious truth but all truth, however mediated and in whatever way it is encountered. The Holy Spirit, whom Jesus in the Gospel of John calls the Spirit of truth, is always at work enlarging and deepening our vision and widening our embrace to encompass the many ways in which truth continues to unfold and challenge us.
Oy.
Each of us structures our lives around what we perceive to be true. Such truth is severely limited by the forces that have shaped us and our context. One of the greatest gifts of being baptized into the risen body of Christ is that our several truths are brought together and refashioned by the Holy Spirit who works within us over time the deep truth of Christ. That deep truth is entered into largely as our perceptions of truth are challenged and stretched by the truth embodied in the other limbs and members of Christ’s body.
If you're new here, when Frank uses words like "our" and "us," he's referring to conservative Christians who think the Bible means what it says. Lord knows Frank's got no need to change anything at all.
Because the Holy Spirit is sovereign and free it transcends all the limitations and can work in different ways within different cultures and different expressions of religion. Here I find it instructive that in the story of Pentecost in the Acts of the Apostles the Spirit enables those present to hear the good news each in their own language, each within the givenness of their own context and cultural reality. This ability of the Spirit to speak in different languages is a sign that difference and otherness are to be valued and affirmed.
"Difference and otherness" means homosexuals and nobody else.
The fact that truth is continuously unfolding is borne witness to by our increasing knowledge of the universe in which we live, and the mysteries of the human mind and body. Each year we learn new things, and unlearn some things that were once undisputed. Cigarette advertisements come to mind, and I vividly remember the image of the physician in the white coat extolling the benefits for our throats of cigarettes.
And phrases like "the fact that truth is continuously unfolding" and "our increasing knowledge of the universe in which we live, and the mysteries of the human mind and body" mean that homosexual activity isn't a sin anymore and we were right to give Robbie his pointy hat so shut up and start sending us checks again. With back interest.
Centuries pass and we learn that the earth is not flat, that our planet is not the center of the solar system and that matter can be converted into energy. And wouldn’t the alchemists be amazed at our ability to do what they always wanted to do, namely change one element into another. Those ancients didn’t have the cyclotron.
And wouldn't the early church fathers be amazed at ECUSA's eagerness to edit the Creator of the universe in order to please the secular culture. Those ancients didn't have higher criticism.
This learning, and unlearning, I believe, is all part of what Jesus meant when he said “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.” Is it not possible that some of the disagreements within the life of the church are part of the Spirit’s unrelenting activity in leading us to new and deeper understandings of things we have previously regarded as fully known?
But He will not contradict Himself, Frank. He will not declare that the words in the Bible don't mean what they clearly say. And "some of the disagreements within the life of the church are part of the Spirit’s unrelenting activity in" separating the wheat from the tares.
Though we may hear much these days about division in the life of the church, I am struck by the many instances in which the presence of forces that seek to divide have in fact moved us in the opposite direction and obliged us to seek a deeper place of mutual encounter. At this deeper place, the level of the heart, we together can experience being broken open in new ways by the power of the Spirit and the ever active reconciling love of Christ.
Actually, Frank, "we" can't experience anything at all with you anymore since many of "us" converted to Christianity and don't much care for that "spirit" of yours.
"Trying to understand your thinking ..."
Shrimp here:
We say it again. ECUSA test case for ELCA. ECUSA is schism. Will ELCA leadership act to avoid schism? No! Church Council on track and adding coal to fire. Why? They think they are bold and prophetic.
No prophet ever went against Scripture.
Shrimp here PB Hanson asked Council if they had really considered how this would affect ELCA relation with LWF. Shrimp think he should have given that message to them ans Task Force long ago. Too late.
Now only question is will lay people save ELCA in August. People need to get church back, no?
Dr. Leander Harding good human, smart ECUSA human. He asks good questions of their leadership:
An Open Letter To Bishops Who Support The Decisions Of General Convention 2003
I am trying to understand what you are professing and teaching both explicitly and implicitly by your votes at the General Convention, by your public statements and by your participation in the consecration in New Hampshire.
1. It appears to me that you are teaching more than a strategy of pastoral care of homosexual persons by making exceptions to the church’s received norms. It appears to me that you are teaching that homosexuality is part of God’s original plan and order for the creation on the order of God’s creation of humanity as male and female and that this “gift of God” should be celebrated in the sacraments of the church.
This appears to me to entail a conviction that a number of empirical questions concerning homosexuality have been settled including the question of the developmental origins of homosexuality. You seem to be teaching that it is a settled matter that homosexuality is biologically innate and therefore irremediable. If this is so can you tell me the scientific authorities that you find persuasive? I cannot find a single credible scientific authority who believes that such a complex human behavior as homosexuality can be explained by a model of simple biological determinism.
2. What do you believe about bisexuality? Is it also an order of creation? If so what amendments in traditional faith and practice will be necessary to accommodate this understanding?
3. I hear you saying in defense of the position you have taken that contemporary society has an understanding of homosexual orientation that the original biblical authors did not have. Are there sources for this “new understanding” in addition to the self-reporting of homosexual experience? It appears to me that you are setting up experience in this sense as a sort of theological trump card which trumps the Bible, the moral tradition of the church and even appeal to the natural and social sciences. This looks to me like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, a claim by an elite to a privileged form of knowledge not available to the uninitiated. Do I misunderstand your reliance on experience?
Many kinds of experience with regard to homosexuality are reported including the experience of those, including priests of this church, who have experienced the healing of homosexuality. On what basis do we decide how much authority to give to self reported experience? Such “testimony” has never been thought a basis for overturning the moral tradition of the church before in Anglicanism. Why do you think it should be given such an authoritative role now? Why do you privilege Gay “experience” over ex-Gay “experience”?
4. You dismiss the prohibition against homosexual acts in Leviticus as part of code of ritual purity which is not binding on Christians. In Leviticus there are also prohibitions against adultery and incest. Are these to be dismissed as well? If not why?
5. With regard to the text in Romans 1, you teach that Paul is not condemning homosexual acts by homosexually oriented persons but homosexual acts by heterosexually oriented persons. In addition to begging the empirical question of the nature of same sex attraction, this exegesis is contested by a significant number of New Testament scholars, including scholars who support the changes in the church’s teaching you propose, as historically inaccurate. If you became convinced that your exegesis was wrong would you change your position or would your position be that these innovations must go forward even if it is clear that Paul had a sophisticated understanding of homosexuality and still condemned homoerotic sex acts? I feel that engaging in debate on particular texts is pointless because the rhetorical form of your argument is that you are asking me to be bound by an innovative and exegetically weak interpretation of a text which you would then abandon as not authoritative should the evidence go against your interpretation. Interpretation of Leviticus or Romans is not the heart of your argument in any event. Or have I got this wrong?
6. Yous say “the Holy Spirit is teaching the church a new thing.” Again this sounds like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, like the claim of Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy that the church has misunderstood its scriptures until now and that a new key has been given (in this case contemporary Gay theory) which unlocks the hitherto hidden meaning of scriptures which is unavailable to the ordinary reader. There is a history of claims to new prophecy and new inspiration and it is not the history of the church catholic but of enthusiastic sects. How do the principles of interpretation you propose avoid becoming the latest claim to a privileged illuminism?
7. Some of you say that a sense of conscience and justice has motivated you to proceed with the blessing of a same sex relationships and the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals to the diaconate and priesthood in advance of canonical authorization to do so. Some of you appear to say that the request for reasons of conscience by parishes and clergy for alternative Episcopal oversight cannot be granted because such alternative oversight would violate the canons. Is this not a double standard and a claim that bishops need not be bound by the canons while parishes and parish clergy must abide by every jot and tittle?
8. You seem to hold up two models of decision making for the church. One model is a model of building consensus through dialogue and discussion. The other model is a model of “prophetic action” taken in the face of a lack of consensus. It appears that the model of consensus building is brought out in the wake of prophetic action when what is being discussed is made moot by action already taken and policy already established. Which of these models best describes your approach to these disputed questions within the life of our church now?
Pax et Bonum,
The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.
http://leanderharding.classicalanglican.net/
We say it again. ECUSA test case for ELCA. ECUSA is schism. Will ELCA leadership act to avoid schism? No! Church Council on track and adding coal to fire. Why? They think they are bold and prophetic.
No prophet ever went against Scripture.
Shrimp here PB Hanson asked Council if they had really considered how this would affect ELCA relation with LWF. Shrimp think he should have given that message to them ans Task Force long ago. Too late.
Now only question is will lay people save ELCA in August. People need to get church back, no?
Dr. Leander Harding good human, smart ECUSA human. He asks good questions of their leadership:
An Open Letter To Bishops Who Support The Decisions Of General Convention 2003
I am trying to understand what you are professing and teaching both explicitly and implicitly by your votes at the General Convention, by your public statements and by your participation in the consecration in New Hampshire.
1. It appears to me that you are teaching more than a strategy of pastoral care of homosexual persons by making exceptions to the church’s received norms. It appears to me that you are teaching that homosexuality is part of God’s original plan and order for the creation on the order of God’s creation of humanity as male and female and that this “gift of God” should be celebrated in the sacraments of the church.
This appears to me to entail a conviction that a number of empirical questions concerning homosexuality have been settled including the question of the developmental origins of homosexuality. You seem to be teaching that it is a settled matter that homosexuality is biologically innate and therefore irremediable. If this is so can you tell me the scientific authorities that you find persuasive? I cannot find a single credible scientific authority who believes that such a complex human behavior as homosexuality can be explained by a model of simple biological determinism.
2. What do you believe about bisexuality? Is it also an order of creation? If so what amendments in traditional faith and practice will be necessary to accommodate this understanding?
3. I hear you saying in defense of the position you have taken that contemporary society has an understanding of homosexual orientation that the original biblical authors did not have. Are there sources for this “new understanding” in addition to the self-reporting of homosexual experience? It appears to me that you are setting up experience in this sense as a sort of theological trump card which trumps the Bible, the moral tradition of the church and even appeal to the natural and social sciences. This looks to me like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, a claim by an elite to a privileged form of knowledge not available to the uninitiated. Do I misunderstand your reliance on experience?
Many kinds of experience with regard to homosexuality are reported including the experience of those, including priests of this church, who have experienced the healing of homosexuality. On what basis do we decide how much authority to give to self reported experience? Such “testimony” has never been thought a basis for overturning the moral tradition of the church before in Anglicanism. Why do you think it should be given such an authoritative role now? Why do you privilege Gay “experience” over ex-Gay “experience”?
4. You dismiss the prohibition against homosexual acts in Leviticus as part of code of ritual purity which is not binding on Christians. In Leviticus there are also prohibitions against adultery and incest. Are these to be dismissed as well? If not why?
5. With regard to the text in Romans 1, you teach that Paul is not condemning homosexual acts by homosexually oriented persons but homosexual acts by heterosexually oriented persons. In addition to begging the empirical question of the nature of same sex attraction, this exegesis is contested by a significant number of New Testament scholars, including scholars who support the changes in the church’s teaching you propose, as historically inaccurate. If you became convinced that your exegesis was wrong would you change your position or would your position be that these innovations must go forward even if it is clear that Paul had a sophisticated understanding of homosexuality and still condemned homoerotic sex acts? I feel that engaging in debate on particular texts is pointless because the rhetorical form of your argument is that you are asking me to be bound by an innovative and exegetically weak interpretation of a text which you would then abandon as not authoritative should the evidence go against your interpretation. Interpretation of Leviticus or Romans is not the heart of your argument in any event. Or have I got this wrong?
6. Yous say “the Holy Spirit is teaching the church a new thing.” Again this sounds like a contemporary form of Gnosticism, like the claim of Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy that the church has misunderstood its scriptures until now and that a new key has been given (in this case contemporary Gay theory) which unlocks the hitherto hidden meaning of scriptures which is unavailable to the ordinary reader. There is a history of claims to new prophecy and new inspiration and it is not the history of the church catholic but of enthusiastic sects. How do the principles of interpretation you propose avoid becoming the latest claim to a privileged illuminism?
7. Some of you say that a sense of conscience and justice has motivated you to proceed with the blessing of a same sex relationships and the ordination of noncelibate homosexuals to the diaconate and priesthood in advance of canonical authorization to do so. Some of you appear to say that the request for reasons of conscience by parishes and clergy for alternative Episcopal oversight cannot be granted because such alternative oversight would violate the canons. Is this not a double standard and a claim that bishops need not be bound by the canons while parishes and parish clergy must abide by every jot and tittle?
8. You seem to hold up two models of decision making for the church. One model is a model of building consensus through dialogue and discussion. The other model is a model of “prophetic action” taken in the face of a lack of consensus. It appears that the model of consensus building is brought out in the wake of prophetic action when what is being discussed is made moot by action already taken and policy already established. Which of these models best describes your approach to these disputed questions within the life of our church now?
Pax et Bonum,
The Rev. Leander S. Harding, Ph.D.
http://leanderharding.classicalanglican.net/
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
What exactly is at stake?
This blog exists because an ELCA pastor who kept quiet on the issue of homosexuality until 2004 cannot now shut-up about the looming danger ahead. Since this individual was a liberal and a social activist of sorts doing urban ministry, quiet on this one subject seemed to be necessary. Who wants to lose friends over such a polarizing issue?
The arguments put forth by the gay Christian agenda never convinced this pastor, and being at a liberal seminary and serving on the East Coast, there was plenty exposure.
This pastor loves the Bible, reads it daily, and knew that the argument gives a very skewed view of Scripture, the apostles, etc.
Therefore, we want you to know what is at stake in this issue that is going to be voted on in August:
1) Our church members will arguably have a permanent mistrust of Scripture.
2) The dominant Lutheran theology will be the ultra-liberal school.
3) Our congregations will be open to lawsuits.
4) Pastors on the losing side of this issue will either leave the denomination, or defect in place and never ever fully support the ELCA.
5) The ELCA will have a schism--it has already begun. Only a clear signal form the voting members of the assembly will put the brakes on.
This is unity? This is mission?
We do not wish to offend anyone. This pastor was a liberal activist and sees this blog as a legitimate form of activism. Understand that some of the arguments in this blog are meant humorously and a few political leaders are treated as such.
The arguments put forth by the gay Christian agenda never convinced this pastor, and being at a liberal seminary and serving on the East Coast, there was plenty exposure.
This pastor loves the Bible, reads it daily, and knew that the argument gives a very skewed view of Scripture, the apostles, etc.
Therefore, we want you to know what is at stake in this issue that is going to be voted on in August:
1) Our church members will arguably have a permanent mistrust of Scripture.
2) The dominant Lutheran theology will be the ultra-liberal school.
3) Our congregations will be open to lawsuits.
4) Pastors on the losing side of this issue will either leave the denomination, or defect in place and never ever fully support the ELCA.
5) The ELCA will have a schism--it has already begun. Only a clear signal form the voting members of the assembly will put the brakes on.
This is unity? This is mission?
We do not wish to offend anyone. This pastor was a liberal activist and sees this blog as a legitimate form of activism. Understand that some of the arguments in this blog are meant humorously and a few political leaders are treated as such.
Educate yourself. Organize. Educate others.
In the essay, “Homosexual Myths,” Sue Bohlin with material taken from Joe Dallas' book, A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement helps regular folk educate themselves so they can “share it calmly and compassionately, remembering that homosexuality isn't just a political and moral issue; it is also about people who are badly hurting.
The common mistruths or questions circulating in the church are:
10% of the Population Is Homosexual.
People Are Born Gay.
What's Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?
Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.
The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.
Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.
The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.
Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.
We are fighting for the future of the church. Those of us in the ELCA must fight for its future, if you are elsewhere in the mainline, fight there.
We are fighting for the minds and souls of a generation. Educate yourself. Organize or join with those who have already taken a stand. Our religious leaders are spiritually blind.
They think they are liberating people but in fact they are putting chains so heavy that they will be enslaved for life.
Read the essay:
10% of the Population Is Homosexual.
In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual.{2} He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average "Joe College" student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists.{3} The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class.{4}
Kinsey's figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.{5} But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it's valid. It's not.
People Are Born Gay.
Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data's not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene "linkage" studies.{6} Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn't have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results.{7} Dr. Simon LeVay's famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn't sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn't know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.{8} Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X-chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first.{9} Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn't make it a normal condition.
Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.
And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we're born with something doesn't mean it's normal. It's not true that "God makes some people gay." All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.
What's Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?
There are two aspects to marriage: the legal and the spiritual.
Marriage is more than a social convention, like being "best friends" with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection for women and children. Women need to have the freedom to devote their time and energies to be the primary nurturers and caretakers of children without being forced to be breadwinners as well. God's plan is that children grow up in families who provide for them, protect them, and wrap them in security.
Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really "best friend" status, and that does not require legal protection.
Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine "family" any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children's lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.
The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won't make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.{10} Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very "other" beings--the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn't work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.
Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.
Whether from a pulpit or at a gay rights event, gay activists like to point out that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality; instead, He was more interested in love. Their point is that if Jesus didn't specifically forbid a behavior, then who are we to judge those who engage in it?
This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John's gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!{11} The gospels don't record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.
We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God's created intent for human sexuality: "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:4-6). God's plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.
The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.
Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." Gay theologians argue that the term "abomination" is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.
Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh's people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians today doesn't mean none of it does.
The argument that the word "abomination" is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn't hold water.
If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.{12}
Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.
Josh McDowell says that the most often-quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16, but now that tolerance has become the ultimate virtue, the verse we hear quoted the most is "Judge not, lest ye be judged." (Matt. 7:1) The person who calls homosexual activity wrong is called a bigot and a homophobe, and even those who don't believe in the Bible can be heard to quote the "Judge not" verse.
When Jesus said "Do not judge, or you too will be judged," the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another's sin. There's no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin.
Agreeing with God about something isn't necessarily judging.
Imagine I'm speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, "You broke the speed limit back there, ma'am." Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: "Hey, you're judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!'" The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He's not judging my character, he's comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It's not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That's judging.
The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.
Romans 1:26-27 says, "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Some gay theologians try to get around the clear prohibition against both gay and lesbian homosexuality by explaining that the real sin Paul is talking about here is straight people who indulge in homosexual acts, because it's not natural to them. Homosexuality, they maintain, is not a sin for true homosexuals.
But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between "true" homosexuals and "false" ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn't the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.
Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men "inflamed with lust" for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.{13} You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.
Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.
I received an e-mail from someone who assured me that the blood of gay teenagers was on my hands because saying that homosexuality is wrong makes people kill themselves. The belief that gay teenagers are at high risk for suicide is largely inspired by a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth and suicide. This report stated three things; first, that gay and lesbian youths account for one third of all teenage suicides; second, that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and third, gay teens who commit suicide do so because of "internalized homophobia" and violence directed at them.{14} This report has been cited over and over in both gay and mainstream publications.
San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.{15} The report's numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that's over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop- in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, "I struggled for a long time over Gibson's mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math."{16}
The report's conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.{17}
Gibson didn't use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson's report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: "The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc."{18}
That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it's not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it's wrong and harmful behavior.
Notes
1. Dallas, Joe. A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1996.
2. Dr. Judith Reisman, "Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution," The Journal of Human Sexuality (Carrollton, Tex.: Lewis and Stanley, 1996), 21.
3. Ibid., 26.
4. Ibid., 21.
5. Richard G. Howe, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths (found on the American Family Association website at http://www.afa.net) gives this citation: "Knight lists the following sources in support of the 1%-3% figures: J. Gordon Muir, "Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy," Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1993; Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Family Planning Perspectives (May/June 1991): 102; John O.G. Billy, Koray Tanfer, William R. Grady, and Daniel H. Klepinger, "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, vol. 25, no. 2 (March/April 1993)."
6. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, "The Gay Gene?", The Journal of Human Sexuality, 4.
7. Dallas, 114.
8. Ibid., 112-114.
9. Ibid., 116.
10. Ephesians 5:25-32
11. John 20:30
12. Dallas, 193.
13. Peter LaBarbera, "The Gay Youth Suicide Myth," The Journal of Human Sexuality, 65.
14. Ibid., 66.
© 1996 Probe Ministries International
About the Author
Sue Bohlin is an associate speaker with Probe Ministries. She attended the University of Illinois, and has been a Bible teacher and conference speaker for over 25 years. She serves as a Mentoring Mom for MOPS (Mothers of Pre-Schoolers), and on the board of Living Hope Ministries, a Christ-centered outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality. She is also a professional calligrapher and the webservant for Probe Ministries; but most importantly, she is the wife of Dr. Ray Bohlin and the mother of their sons, one in college and the other in the Air Force.
Please See Also:
• Can Homosexuals Change? [Sue Bohlin]
• Homosexuality: Questions and Answers [Sue Bohlin]
• Homosexual Theology [Kerby Anderson]
• Same Sex Marriage: A Façade of Normalcy [Sue Bohlin]
• When Someone In Your Congregation Says "I'm Gay" (Pastors' Brochure) [Sue Bohlin]
See also "Probe Answers Our E-Mail: Homosexuality"
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
HTTP://WWW.PROBE.ORG/DOCS/HOMOMYTH.HTML
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright Information
The common mistruths or questions circulating in the church are:
10% of the Population Is Homosexual.
People Are Born Gay.
What's Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?
Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.
The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.
Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.
The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.
Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.
We are fighting for the future of the church. Those of us in the ELCA must fight for its future, if you are elsewhere in the mainline, fight there.
We are fighting for the minds and souls of a generation. Educate yourself. Organize or join with those who have already taken a stand. Our religious leaders are spiritually blind.
They think they are liberating people but in fact they are putting chains so heavy that they will be enslaved for life.
Read the essay:
10% of the Population Is Homosexual.
In 1948, Dr. Alfred Kinsey released a study called Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, claiming that between 10 and 47% of the male population was homosexual.{2} He got his figures from a pool of 5,300 male subject that he represented as your average "Joe College" student. Many of the men who gave him the data, though, actually consisted of sex offenders, prisoners, pimps, hold-up men, thieves, male prostitutes and other criminals, and hundreds of gay activists.{3} The 10% figure was widely circulated by Harry Hay, the father of the homosexual "civil rights" movement, urging that homosexuality be seen no longer as an act of sodomy but as a 10% minority class.{4}
Kinsey's figures were exposed as completely false immediately afterwards, and by many other scientists since. The actual figure is closer to 2-3%.{5} But the 10% number has been so often reported in the press that most people think it's valid. It's not.
People Are Born Gay.
Ann Landers said it, and millions of people believe it. The problem is, the data's not there to support it. There are three ways to test for inborn traits: twin studies, brain dissections, and gene "linkage" studies.{6} Twin studies show that something other than genetics must account for homosexuality, because nearly half of the identical twin studied didn't have the same sexual preference. If homosexuality were inherited, identical twins should either be both straight or both gay. Besides, none of the twin studies have been replicated, and other twin studies have produced completely different results.{7} Dr. Simon LeVay's famous study on the brains of dead subjects yielded questionable results regarding its accuracy. He wasn't sure of the sexual orientation of the people in the study, and Dr. LeVay even admits he doesn't know if the changes in the brain structures were the cause *of* homosexuality, or caused *by* homosexuality.{8} Finally, an early study attempting to show a link between homosexuality and the X-chromosome has yet to be replicated, and a second study actually contradicted the findings of the first.{9} Even if homosexuality were someday proven to be genetically related, *inborn* does not necessarily mean *normal*. Some children are born with cystic fibrosis, but that doesn't make it a normal condition.
Inborn tendencies toward certain behaviors (such as homosexuality) do not make those behaviors moral. Tendencies toward alcoholism, obesity, and violence are now thought to be genetically influenced, but they are not good behaviors. People born with tendencies toward these behaviors have to fight hard against their natural temptations to drunkenness, gluttony, and physical rage.
And since we are born as sinners into a fallen world, we have to deal with the consequences of the Fall. Just because we're born with something doesn't mean it's normal. It's not true that "God makes some people gay." All of us have effects of the Fall we need to deal with.
What's Wrong with Two Loving, Committed Men or Women Being Legally Married?
There are two aspects to marriage: the legal and the spiritual.
Marriage is more than a social convention, like being "best friends" with somebody, because heterosexual marriage usually results in the production of children. Marriage is a legal institution in order to offer protection for women and children. Women need to have the freedom to devote their time and energies to be the primary nurturers and caretakers of children without being forced to be breadwinners as well. God's plan is that children grow up in families who provide for them, protect them, and wrap them in security.
Because gay or lesbian couples are by nature unable to reproduce, they do not need the legal protection of marriage to provide a safe place for the production and raising of children. Apart from the sexual aspect of a gay relationship, what they have is really "best friend" status, and that does not require legal protection.
Of course, a growing number of gay couples are seeking to have a child together, either by adoption, artificial insemination, or surrogate mothering. Despite the fact that they have to resort to an outside procedure in order to become parents, the presence of adults plus children in an ad hoc household should not automatically secure official recognition of their relationship as a family. There is a movement in our culture which seeks to redefine "family" any way we want, but with a profound lack of discernment about the long-term effects on the people involved. Gay parents are making a dangerous statement to their children: lesbian mothers are saying that fathers are not important, and homosexual fathers are saying that mothers are not important. More and more social observers see the importance of both fathers and mothers in children's lives; one of their roles is to teach boys what it means to be a boy and teach girls what it means to be a girl.
The other aspect of marriage is of a spiritual nature. Granted, this response to the gay marriage argument won't make any difference to people who are unconcerned about spiritual things, but there are a lot of gays who care very deeply about God and long for a relationship with Him. The marriage relationship, both its emotional and especially its sexual components, is designed to serve as an earthbound illustration of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church.{10} Just as there is a mystical oneness between a man and a woman, who are very different from each other, so there is a mystical unity between two very different, very "other" beings--the eternal Son of God and us mortal, creaturely humans. Marriage as God designed it is like the almost improbable union of butterfly and buffalo, or fire and water. But homosexual relationships are the coming together of two like individuals; the dynamic of unity and diversity in heterosexual marriage is completely missing, and therefore so is the spiritual dimension that is so intrinsic to the purpose of marriage. Both on an emotional and a physical level, the sameness of male and male, or female and female, demonstrates that homosexual relationships do not reflect the spiritual parable that marriage is meant to be. God wants marriage partners to complement, not to mirror, each other. The concept of gay marriage doesn't work, whether we look at it on a social level or a spiritual one.
Jesus Said Nothing about Homosexuality.
Whether from a pulpit or at a gay rights event, gay activists like to point out that Jesus never addressed the issue of homosexuality; instead, He was more interested in love. Their point is that if Jesus didn't specifically forbid a behavior, then who are we to judge those who engage in it?
This argument assumes that the Gospels are more important than the rest of the books in the New Testament, that only the recorded sayings of Jesus matter. But John's gospel itself assures us that it is not an exhaustive record of all that Jesus said and did, which means there was a lot left out!{11} The gospels don't record that Jesus condemned wife-beating or incest; does that make them OK? Furthermore, the remaining books of the New Testament are no less authoritative than the gospels. All scripture is inspired by God, not just the books with red letters in the text. Specific prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9,10 are every bit as God-ordained as what is recorded in the gospels.
We do know, however, that Jesus spoke in specific terms about God's created intent for human sexuality: "From the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and the two shall be one flesh. . . What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder" (Matt. 19:4-6). God's plan is holy heterosexuality, and Jesus spelled it out.
The Levitical laws against homosexual behavior are not valid today.
Leviticus 18:22 says, "Thou shalt not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination." Gay theologians argue that the term "abomination" is generally associated with idolatry and the Canaanite religious practice of cult prostitution, and thus God did not prohibit the kind of homosexuality we see today.
Other sexual sins such as adultery and incest are also prohibited in the same chapters where the prohibitions against homosexuality are found. All sexual sin is forbidden by both Old and New Testament, completely apart from the Levitical codes, because it is a moral issue. It is true that we are not bound by the rules and rituals in Leviticus that marked Yahweh's people by their separation from the world; however, the nature of sexual sin has not changed because immorality is an affront to the holiness and purity of God Himself. Just because most of Leviticus doesn't apply to Christians today doesn't mean none of it does.
The argument that the word "abomination" is connected with idolatry is well answered by examining Proverbs 6:16-19, which describes what else the Lord considers abominations: a proud look, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises evil imaginations, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaks lies, and a man who sows discord among brothers. Idolatry plays no part in these abominations. The argument doesn't hold water.
If the practices in Leviticus 18 and 20 are condemned because of their association with idolatry, then it logically follows that they would be permissible if they were committed apart from idolatry. That would mean incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice (all of which are listed in these chapters) are only condemned when associated with idolatry; otherwise, they are allowable. No responsible reader of these passages would agree with such a premise.{12}
Calling Homosexuality a Sin Is Judging, and Judging Is a Sin.
Josh McDowell says that the most often-quoted Bible verse used to be John 3:16, but now that tolerance has become the ultimate virtue, the verse we hear quoted the most is "Judge not, lest ye be judged." (Matt. 7:1) The person who calls homosexual activity wrong is called a bigot and a homophobe, and even those who don't believe in the Bible can be heard to quote the "Judge not" verse.
When Jesus said "Do not judge, or you too will be judged," the context makes it plain that He was talking about setting ourselves up as judge of another person, while blind to our own sinfulness as we point out another's sin. There's no doubt about it, there is a grievous amount of self-righteousness in the way the church treats those struggling with the temptations of homosexual longings. But there is a difference between agreeing with the standard of Scripture when it declares homosexuality wrong, and personally condemning an individual because of his sin.
Agreeing with God about something isn't necessarily judging.
Imagine I'm speeding down the highway, and I get pulled over by a police officer. He approaches my car and, after checking my license and registration, he says, "You broke the speed limit back there, ma'am." Can you imagine a citizen indignantly leveling a politically correct charge at the officer: "Hey, you're judging me! Judge not, lest ye be judged!'" The policeman is simply pointing out that I broke the law. He's not judging my character, he's comparing my behavior to the standard of the law. It's not judging when we restate what God has said about His moral law, either. What is sin is to look down our noses at someone who falls into a different sin than we do. That's judging.
The Romans 1 Passage on Homosexuality Does Not Describe True Homosexuals, but Heterosexuals Who Indulge in Homosexual Behavior That Is Not Natural to Them.
Romans 1:26-27 says, "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Some gay theologians try to get around the clear prohibition against both gay and lesbian homosexuality by explaining that the real sin Paul is talking about here is straight people who indulge in homosexual acts, because it's not natural to them. Homosexuality, they maintain, is not a sin for true homosexuals.
But there is nothing in this passage that suggests a distinction between "true" homosexuals and "false" ones. Paul describes the homosexual behavior itself as unnatural, regardless of who commits it. In fact, he chooses unusual words for men and women, Greek words that most emphasize the biology of being a male and a female. The behavior described in this passage is unnatural for males and females; sexual orientation isn't the issue at all. He is saying that homosexuality is biologically unnatural; not just unnatural to heterosexuals, but unnatural to anyone.
Furthermore, Romans 1 describes men "inflamed with lust" for one another. This would hardly seem to indicate men who were straight by nature but experimenting with gay sex.{13} You really have to do some mental gymnastics to make Romans 1 anything other than what a plain reading leads us to understand all homosexual activity is sin.
Preaching Against Homosexuality Causes Gay Teenagers to Commit Suicide.
I received an e-mail from someone who assured me that the blood of gay teenagers was on my hands because saying that homosexuality is wrong makes people kill themselves. The belief that gay teenagers are at high risk for suicide is largely inspired by a 1989 report by a special federal task force on youth and suicide. This report stated three things; first, that gay and lesbian youths account for one third of all teenage suicides; second, that suicide is the leading cause of death among gay teenagers, and third, gay teens who commit suicide do so because of "internalized homophobia" and violence directed at them.{14} This report has been cited over and over in both gay and mainstream publications.
San Francisco gay activist Paul Gibson wrote this report based on research so shoddy that when it was submitted to Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Sullivan officially distanced himself and his department from it.{15} The report's numbers, both its data and its conclusions, are extremely questionable. Part of the report cites an author claiming that as many as 3,000 gay youths kill themselves each year. But that's over a thousand more than the total number of teen suicides in the first place! Gibson exaggerated his numbers when he said that one third of all teen suicides are committed by gay youth. He got this figure by looking at gay surveys taken at drop- in centers for troubled teens, many of which were gay-oriented, which revealed that gay teens had two to four times the suicidal tendencies of straight kids. Gibson multiplied this higher figure by the disputed Kinsey figure of a 10% homosexual population to produce his figure that 30% of all youth suicides are gay. David Shaffer, a Columbia University psychiatrist who specializes in teen suicides, pored over this study and said, "I struggled for a long time over Gibson's mathematics, but in the end, it seemed more hocus-pocus than math."{16}
The report's conclusions are contradicted by other, more credible reports. Researchers at the University of California-San Diego interviewed the survivors of 283 suicides for a 1986 study. 133 of those who died were under 30, and only 7 percent were gay and they were all over 21. In another study at Columbia University of 107 teenage boy suicides, only three were known to be gay, and two of those died in a suicide pact. When the Gallup organization interviewed almost 700 teenagers who knew a teen who had committed suicide, not one mentioned sexuality as part of the problem. Those who had come close to killing themselves mainly cited boy-girl problems or low self-esteem.{17}
Gibson didn't use a heterosexual control group in his study. Conclusions and statistics are bound to be skewed without a control group. When psychiatrist David Shaffer examined the case histories of the gay teens who committed suicides in Gibson's report, he found the same issues that straight kids wrestle with before suicide: "The stories were the same: a court appearance scheduled for the day of the death; prolonged depression; drug and alcohol problems; etc."{18}
That any teenager experiences so much pain that he takes his life is a tragedy, regardless of the reason. But it's not fair to lay the responsibility for gay suicides, the few that there are, on those who agree with God that it's wrong and harmful behavior.
Notes
1. Dallas, Joe. A Strong Delusion: Confronting the "Gay Christian" Movement. Eugene, Ore.: Harvest House, 1996.
2. Dr. Judith Reisman, "Kinsey and the Homosexual Revolution," The Journal of Human Sexuality (Carrollton, Tex.: Lewis and Stanley, 1996), 21.
3. Ibid., 26.
4. Ibid., 21.
5. Richard G. Howe, Homosexuality in America: Exposing the Myths (found on the American Family Association website at http://www.afa.net) gives this citation: "Knight lists the following sources in support of the 1%-3% figures: J. Gordon Muir, "Homosexuals and the 10% Fallacy," Wall Street Journal, March 31, 1993; Tom W. Smith, "Adult Sexual Behavior in 1989: Number of Partners, Frequency of Intercourse and Risk of AIDS," Family Planning Perspectives (May/June 1991): 102; John O.G. Billy, Koray Tanfer, William R. Grady, and Daniel H. Klepinger, "The Sexual Behavior of Men in the United States," Family Planning Perspectives, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, vol. 25, no. 2 (March/April 1993)."
6. Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, "The Gay Gene?", The Journal of Human Sexuality, 4.
7. Dallas, 114.
8. Ibid., 112-114.
9. Ibid., 116.
10. Ephesians 5:25-32
11. John 20:30
12. Dallas, 193.
13. Peter LaBarbera, "The Gay Youth Suicide Myth," The Journal of Human Sexuality, 65.
14. Ibid., 66.
© 1996 Probe Ministries International
About the Author
Sue Bohlin is an associate speaker with Probe Ministries. She attended the University of Illinois, and has been a Bible teacher and conference speaker for over 25 years. She serves as a Mentoring Mom for MOPS (Mothers of Pre-Schoolers), and on the board of Living Hope Ministries, a Christ-centered outreach to those dealing with unwanted homosexuality. She is also a professional calligrapher and the webservant for Probe Ministries; but most importantly, she is the wife of Dr. Ray Bohlin and the mother of their sons, one in college and the other in the Air Force.
Please See Also:
• Can Homosexuals Change? [Sue Bohlin]
• Homosexuality: Questions and Answers [Sue Bohlin]
• Homosexual Theology [Kerby Anderson]
• Same Sex Marriage: A Façade of Normalcy [Sue Bohlin]
• When Someone In Your Congregation Says "I'm Gay" (Pastors' Brochure) [Sue Bohlin]
See also "Probe Answers Our E-Mail: Homosexuality"
What is Probe?
Probe Ministries is a non-profit ministry whose mission is to assist the church in renewing the minds of believers with a Christian worldview and to equip the church to engage the world for Christ. Probe fulfills this mission through our Mind Games conferences for youth and adults, our 3 1/2 minute daily radio program, and our extensive Web site at www.probe.org.
Further information about Probe's materials and ministry may be obtained by contacting us at:
Probe Ministries
1900 Firman Drive, Suite 100
Richardson, TX 75081
(972) 480-0240 FAX (972) 644-9664
HTTP://WWW.PROBE.ORG/DOCS/HOMOMYTH.HTML
info@probe.org
www.probe.org
Copyright Information
Jude 1:1-25 "Jude, a bond-servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, To those who are the called, beloved in God the Father, and kept for Jesus Christ: May mercy and peace and love be multiplied to you. Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority, and revile angelic majesties. But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever. It was also about these men that Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones, to execute judgment upon all, and to convict all the ungodly of all their ungodly deeds which they have done in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him." These are grumblers, finding fault, following after their own lusts; they speak arrogantly, flattering people for the sake of gaining an advantage. But you, beloved, ought to remember the words that were spoken beforehand by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they were saying to you, "In the last time there will be mockers, following after their own ungodly lusts." These are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life. And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh. Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Read Gagnon
"And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire." Jude 1:6-7
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:49-50
The Confusionists often say that there are only seven texts that condemn homosexual behaviour and those seven do not condemn loving committed relationships.
The sad fact is this line is said by even our seminary professors. Of course, none of them to our knowledge has ever attempted to refute the scholarship of Robert Gagnon.
Why is it that scholars responsible for leading a denomination through a wrenching and potentially church-dividing issue ignored the work of the acknowledged leading scholar? Does that not raise a few questions?
What are the commitments of the leadeship of the ELCA?
Read Gagnon:
"Other texts in ancient Israel speak to the opposition toward male-male intercourse per se, and not only the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Every biblical narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and poetry having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite and the David-Jonathan narratives are no exception (see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146-54).
Throughout the Hebrew Bible we find implicit and explicit regulations of other-sex sexuality, discerning good from bad forms. We find no such parceling out of good and bad forms of homosexual practice precisely because all homosexual practice is presumed to be wrong. There is no need to separate the good from the bad because all homosexual acts are bad alike.
The History of the Interpretation of the Sodom Story
The history of the interpretation of the Sodom story also underscores the homoerotic dimensions of the narrative. Here we shall focus on Ezekiel 16:49-50 and Jude 7. Despite the fact that I give over ten pages of discussion to these two texts (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 79-90), the authors of Journey Two and Background Essay appear to be unaware of any arguments that support an anti-"homosex" interpretation.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
Both Journey Two and Background Essay intimate that Ezekiel restricted "the sin" of Sodom in Ezek 16:49-50 to social injustice: Sodom "did not take hold of the hand of (i.e. help) the poor and the needy. And they grew haughty and committed an abomination before me." Yet the evidence points to the fact that Ezekiel regarded the male-male dimension of the threatened sexual activity at Sodom as a pivotal element in God's indictment of the city.
· Ezekiel's link with the Holiness Code. All major scholars of Ezekiel agree that Ezekiel knew, and shared strong agreement with, the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-24) or a precursor document. Only in Ezekiel, for example, do we find the kind of severe indictment of sex with a menstruant that appears in Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18. What is the likelihood that Ezekiel would have dismissed the absolute indictment of male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? It is not likely at all, particularly given the fact that Leviticus 20 groups the prohibition of male-male intercourse with other first-order offenses (adultery, bestiality, and sex with a mother- and daughter-in-law) that merit the community's capital sentence (20:10-16) but the groups the prohibition of sex with a menstruant with only second-order offenses that receive God's judgment in lieu of community sanctions (20:17-21).
· Evidence from Ezek 18:10-13 that "commits an abomination" is not a restatement of "not helping the poor." The authors of Journey Two and Background Essay read "committed an abomination" as a restatement of the previous line "did not take hold of the hand (i.e. did not help) the poor and the needy." However, such an interpretation is precluded by the vice list in Ezekiel 18:10-13 where the phrase "oppresses the poor and needy" is distinguished from the phrase "commits an abomination" (18:12) four vices later. The latter phrase, in turn, is followed by an additional specific vice, indicating that it is merely one specific vice among many. The whole discussion ends with the summary statement, "He committed all these abominations; he shall certainly be put to death. His blood shall be on himself" (18:13). In other words, there is a specific offense within the vice list, which Ezekiel mentions only by the metonymy "abomination" (to'evah), singular; and there is a summary at the end of the list referring to all the previous vices as "abominations" (to'evoth). This singular-plural interchange of "abomination" in a vice list and its summary is precisely what one finds in Lev 18: a singular use of "abomination" (to'evah) with reference to male-male intercourse in 18:22, in the midst of a vice list, followed by a plural use of "abominations" (to'evoth) in a summary statement referring to all the previous offenses (18:26-27, 29-30).
· Five arguments that "committed an abomination" in Ezek 16:50 refers to male-male intercourse. Since Ezekiel 18:10-13 appears to preclude an identification of "committed an abomination" with not aiding the poor and needy, what offense might Ezekiel have had in mind when he spoke in 16:50 of the Sodomites committing an abomination? The answer is fairly obvious: He had man-male intercourse in view, given (a) his use of, and theological continuity with, the Holiness Code or a precursor text; (b) the parallel interchange of to'evah and to'evoth in Lev 18 and Ezek 18:10-13; (c) the fact that the Sodom narrative in Gen 19:4-11 clearly involves a case of threatened men-male intercourse; and (d) the fact that "commits an abomination" in Ezekiel 16:50 and Leviticus 20:13 are nearly an exact match (?asu to'evah). To these considerations we can add one more: (e) The two other occurrences of the singular use of "abomination" in Ezekiel, 22:11 and 33:26, also have to do with sexual offenses, thus confirming that "abomination" in Ezekiel 16:50 and 18:12 refers to a sexual sin. Ezekiel 22:11 alludes to the specific vice of adultery, while 33:26 probably alludes to male-male intercourse, sex with a menstruant, or incest (note: the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi interpreted "abomination" in Ezek 33:26 as a reference to sodomy).
· Why an oblique reference or metonym? The metonymic reference to male-male intercourse in Ezekiel 16:50 and 18:12?referring to an immoral act by the oblique designation "abomination"?can be likened to the Yahwist's story of Ham's act against his father Noah, in which the euphemism "see the nakedness of" is used rather than more explicit terminology. The act was regarded as so offensive, and/or so well known as an abomination par excellence, that explicit reference to it might be avoided.
Given these arguments, all of which the authors of Journey Two and Background Essay had access to in my work, with greater documentation, but apparently chose to ignore the case for arguing that Ezekiel in 16:50 interpreted the story of Sodom, in part, in the light of the absolute Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse appears very strong. One might also compare the conclusion of Moshe Greenberg who is his Anchor Bible commentary on Ezekiel intimates that the abomination in 16:50 was homosexual anal intercourse (Ezekiel 1-20 [Doubleday, 1983], 289).
Now if Ezekiel interpreted the Sodom narrative in the light of the Levitical prohibitions, and if too the Levitical prohibitions indict male-male intercourse per se, then it is self-evident that Ezekiel found the sin of Sodom, among other things, to be not just an attempted act of coercive sex but an attempted act of male-male intercourse per se.
Accordingly the two earliest commentators on the Sodom story that provide sufficient context, the Deuteronomistic Historian and Ezekiel, both concur that the homosexual aspect of the event in Genesis 19:4-11 was an important factor in illustrating the depravity of the men of the city and in justifying God's cataclysmic destruction.
Jude 7
Jude 7 also does not favor the reading of the Sodom story given by Journey Two and Background Essay, though one would never know it from reading the latter. Background Essay argues (p. 4), and Journey Two intimates (p. 14), that when Jude 7 says of the men of Sodom that they "committed sexual immorality and went after other flesh," it refers only "to the lust of the men of Sodom after the angelic visitors to the house of Lot, which is branded as a case of sexual immorality" (Background Essay, 4). This interpretation is clearly wrong, for at least five reasons.
· How can you lust after what you don't recognize? A major problem for the they-were-lusting-after-angels theory is this: Neither Genesis 19 nor subsequent early Jewish and Christian interpretations of the story presume that the men of Sodom knew that the male visitors were angels. Indeed, both strands of evidence suggest or assert that the angels disguised themselves as humans and that the men of Sodom were unaware of their identity. Clearly, then, they were not "lusting after angels." Incidentally, it is precisely at this point that the parallel with the actions of the rebellious angels of Genesis 6:1-4 (known as the "Watchers" in later early Jewish tradition), cited in Jude 6 and picked up by the remark "in a manner similar to these" in Jude 7, breaks down. Both Genesis 6:1-4 and the subsequent history of interpretation presuppose intent on the part of rebellious angels to subvert the divide between divine and human. Genesis 19, however, presumes the ignorance of the Sodomites. The latter had no intent to subvert the divine-human divide.
Rather, the men of Sodom "committed sexual immorality and (in the process of doing so) went after ?other flesh.'" Rather than honoring their guests, the men of Sodom dishonored them, both by attempting coercive sex and by treating their guests' embodied masculinity as though it were embodied femininity. Here one may compare Josephus's first-century (A.D.) account in Jewish Antiquities 1.200-201, which combines the themes of inhospitality and dishonoring passions for same-sex intercourse. As it happened, the Sodomites' outrageous act of sexual immorality was made more grievous by the fact that the visitors turned out to be angels.
· "By committing sexual immorality they went after other flesh," not "they committed sexual immorality by going after other flesh." The authors of Journey Two and Background Essay apparently interpret the phrase "committed sexual immorality and went after other flesh" as a hendiadys, so that it means "(the Sodomites) committed sexual immorality by going after other (i.e. angelic) flesh." (Hendiadys literally means "one by two." It occurs when two words or phrases are connected by "and" or some other conjunction in order to express a single idea, in which one of the words is in a dependent relation to the other.) However, it is just as possible that the first word in a hendiadys expresses the subordinate idea (see examples in Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, section 442 [16], p. 228a). In that event the phrase could mean something like "by (or: in the act of) committing sexual immorality (the Sodomites) went after other flesh." It is also possible that the coordination of the two phrases in Jude 7 is not a hendiadys but instead refers to two distinct acts. Either way it supports the reading that I have given here, a reading that coheres with other first-century Jewish interpretations (in addition to Josephus, see also Philo, On Abraham 135-36).
· Evidence from Jude's application does not suggest that they lusted after angels. After recounting the stories of the Watchers (v. 6) and of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7), the author makes an application to false believers in his own day: "Yet, similarly, these dreamers also defile (the/their?) flesh, reject authority, and slander glorious beings" (v. 8). As with the adverbial phrase "in a manner similar to these" (ton homoion tropon toutois) in v. 7, the adverb "similarly" (homoios) suggests a certain degree of correspondence but nothing like precise identity. In the view of Jude, the false believers' lust for immoral sexual behavior had put them on a collision course with the angelic guardians of this world order, which subsequently led them to revile angels, not to lust after them. In a similar way, the immoral sexual desire of the Sodomites, in this case for male-male intercourse, led them to pursue sex with angels unknowingly.
· 2 Peter confirms the reading given here of Jude 7. This interpretation of Jude 7 that I espouse fits best with 2 Peter's own read of Jude 7-8, referring as it does to the "sexual licentiousness (aselgeia) of conduct of the lawless" at Sodom (2:7) and to those who follow in their footsteps as "going after (i.e., following, indulging) (the/their) flesh in (or: with its) defiling desire (or: lust)" (2:10). The "defiling desire" of the Sodomites can only refer to their desire to "know" or have sex with Lot's male visitors, whom they did not recognize as angels.
· A parallel in the Testament of Naphtali confirms our reading. According to T. Naph. 3:3-4, the descendants of Naphtali shall not be like the Gentiles who changed "the order" of nature by devoting themselves to idols; instead, they shall recognize in the heavens, earth, and sea "the Lord who made all these things, in order that [they] may not become like Sodom, which exchanged the order of its nature." Strikingly similar motifs to Romans 1:19-27 make it likely that either Paul formulated Rom 1:19-27 with this tradition in mind or T. Naph. 3:3-4 is a Christian interpolation into the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs formulated in the light of Rom 1:19-27. I think the former is more likely, but either supposition increases the probability that the clause about Sodom exchanging "the order of its nature" refers to same-sex intercourse (Paul's interpretation in Rom 1:24-27; for intertextual echoes in Rom 1:24-27 to the Sodom story see now also: Phillip Esler, "The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1:18-32," Biblical Theology Bulletin 34 [2004]: 4-16). This is important because, like Jude 7, the actions of the men of Sodom are compared with the actions of the angels in Gen 6:4, who "similarly (homoios, cf. Jude 8) exchanged the order of their nature" by copulating with human females (3:5). Again, the "similarly" suggests similarity but not identity. How far does the similarity go? Both the Sodomites and the angels acted against "the order of their nature," engaging in, or attempting to engage in, structurally incompatible forms of sexual intercourse. Both acts involved, or threatened to involve, human-angel copulation. Yet the very concept of "exchange" implies volition, an intentional action?as with the exchange of nature's order for idols?and that is precisely the point where the analogy between the Sodomites and the angels breaks down. This volitional element comes across clearly in Rom 1:18-27, which correlates the concept of exchange with a conscious suppression of truth in creation/nature. Consequently, one should probably understand T. Naph. 3:3-5 in a way that confirms our interpretation of Jude 6-8: the Sodomites deliberately exchanged the order of their nature as males by attempting intercourse with other males. In the process they got more than they bargained for, unknowingly attempting sex with "other flesh," angels. The primary exchange is opposite-sex intercourse for same-sex intercourse but the undertone is unintended sex with angels. The latter component solidifies a connection with the rebellious angels?a connection already intimated by the fact that both, in different ways, consciously exchanged the natural for the unnatural. Compare also the observations of J. A. Loader on T. Naph. 3:4: "In this context the changing of its order by Sodom can only refer to the homosexual aspirations of the Sodomites mentioned in Genesis 19:5" (A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions [CBET 1; Kampen: Kok, 1990], 82).
For further analysis of Jude 7 see my response to Prof. William Countryman's review of my first book, pp. 9-13 (for pdf version: http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews/homoCountrymanResp.pdf; for html version: http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm). This discussion adds to my discussion in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 87-88 (which already should have given the authors of Background Essay and Journey Two enough information to question their interpretation of Jude 7).
Implications for Jesus' Interpretation of the Sodom Story
The evidence cited above for an anti-homosex interpretation of Jude 7 indicates the correctness of our interpretation of Jesus' reference to Sodom (Matthew 10:14-15; Luke 10:10-12). Jesus regarded Sodom as a paradigmatic story about abuse of visitors, not only because of the attempted rape but also because of an attempt at treating males sexually as though they were females. If someone were to contend that the latter was no part of Jesus' interpretation, the retort would be easy: the closest stories in time and milieu to Jesus presume an indictment of male-male intercourse per se, as did the Old Testament Scripture that Jesus honored. Consequently the assertions by Hultgren and Taylor (and the Journey Two author[s]) that Jesus' saying carried no implicit indictment of homosexual practice must be judged as not only unsubstantiated but also contradicted by the evidence that we do have.
Get the pdf: www.robgagnon.net
"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it." Ezekiel 16:49-50
The Confusionists often say that there are only seven texts that condemn homosexual behaviour and those seven do not condemn loving committed relationships.
The sad fact is this line is said by even our seminary professors. Of course, none of them to our knowledge has ever attempted to refute the scholarship of Robert Gagnon.
Why is it that scholars responsible for leading a denomination through a wrenching and potentially church-dividing issue ignored the work of the acknowledged leading scholar? Does that not raise a few questions?
What are the commitments of the leadeship of the ELCA?
Read Gagnon:
"Other texts in ancient Israel speak to the opposition toward male-male intercourse per se, and not only the prohibitions in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. Every biblical narrative, law, proverb, exhortation, metaphor, and poetry having anything to do with sexual relations presupposes a male-female prerequisite and the David-Jonathan narratives are no exception (see The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 146-54).
Throughout the Hebrew Bible we find implicit and explicit regulations of other-sex sexuality, discerning good from bad forms. We find no such parceling out of good and bad forms of homosexual practice precisely because all homosexual practice is presumed to be wrong. There is no need to separate the good from the bad because all homosexual acts are bad alike.
The History of the Interpretation of the Sodom Story
The history of the interpretation of the Sodom story also underscores the homoerotic dimensions of the narrative. Here we shall focus on Ezekiel 16:49-50 and Jude 7. Despite the fact that I give over ten pages of discussion to these two texts (The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 79-90), the authors of Journey Two and Background Essay appear to be unaware of any arguments that support an anti-"homosex" interpretation.
Ezekiel 16:49-50
Both Journey Two and Background Essay intimate that Ezekiel restricted "the sin" of Sodom in Ezek 16:49-50 to social injustice: Sodom "did not take hold of the hand of (i.e. help) the poor and the needy. And they grew haughty and committed an abomination before me." Yet the evidence points to the fact that Ezekiel regarded the male-male dimension of the threatened sexual activity at Sodom as a pivotal element in God's indictment of the city.
· Ezekiel's link with the Holiness Code. All major scholars of Ezekiel agree that Ezekiel knew, and shared strong agreement with, the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-24) or a precursor document. Only in Ezekiel, for example, do we find the kind of severe indictment of sex with a menstruant that appears in Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18. What is the likelihood that Ezekiel would have dismissed the absolute indictment of male-male intercourse in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? It is not likely at all, particularly given the fact that Leviticus 20 groups the prohibition of male-male intercourse with other first-order offenses (adultery, bestiality, and sex with a mother- and daughter-in-law) that merit the community's capital sentence (20:10-16) but the groups the prohibition of sex with a menstruant with only second-order offenses that receive God's judgment in lieu of community sanctions (20:17-21).
· Evidence from Ezek 18:10-13 that "commits an abomination" is not a restatement of "not helping the poor." The authors of Journey Two and Background Essay read "committed an abomination" as a restatement of the previous line "did not take hold of the hand (i.e. did not help) the poor and the needy." However, such an interpretation is precluded by the vice list in Ezekiel 18:10-13 where the phrase "oppresses the poor and needy" is distinguished from the phrase "commits an abomination" (18:12) four vices later. The latter phrase, in turn, is followed by an additional specific vice, indicating that it is merely one specific vice among many. The whole discussion ends with the summary statement, "He committed all these abominations; he shall certainly be put to death. His blood shall be on himself" (18:13). In other words, there is a specific offense within the vice list, which Ezekiel mentions only by the metonymy "abomination" (to'evah), singular; and there is a summary at the end of the list referring to all the previous vices as "abominations" (to'evoth). This singular-plural interchange of "abomination" in a vice list and its summary is precisely what one finds in Lev 18: a singular use of "abomination" (to'evah) with reference to male-male intercourse in 18:22, in the midst of a vice list, followed by a plural use of "abominations" (to'evoth) in a summary statement referring to all the previous offenses (18:26-27, 29-30).
· Five arguments that "committed an abomination" in Ezek 16:50 refers to male-male intercourse. Since Ezekiel 18:10-13 appears to preclude an identification of "committed an abomination" with not aiding the poor and needy, what offense might Ezekiel have had in mind when he spoke in 16:50 of the Sodomites committing an abomination? The answer is fairly obvious: He had man-male intercourse in view, given (a) his use of, and theological continuity with, the Holiness Code or a precursor text; (b) the parallel interchange of to'evah and to'evoth in Lev 18 and Ezek 18:10-13; (c) the fact that the Sodom narrative in Gen 19:4-11 clearly involves a case of threatened men-male intercourse; and (d) the fact that "commits an abomination" in Ezekiel 16:50 and Leviticus 20:13 are nearly an exact match (?asu to'evah). To these considerations we can add one more: (e) The two other occurrences of the singular use of "abomination" in Ezekiel, 22:11 and 33:26, also have to do with sexual offenses, thus confirming that "abomination" in Ezekiel 16:50 and 18:12 refers to a sexual sin. Ezekiel 22:11 alludes to the specific vice of adultery, while 33:26 probably alludes to male-male intercourse, sex with a menstruant, or incest (note: the medieval Jewish commentator Rashi interpreted "abomination" in Ezek 33:26 as a reference to sodomy).
· Why an oblique reference or metonym? The metonymic reference to male-male intercourse in Ezekiel 16:50 and 18:12?referring to an immoral act by the oblique designation "abomination"?can be likened to the Yahwist's story of Ham's act against his father Noah, in which the euphemism "see the nakedness of" is used rather than more explicit terminology. The act was regarded as so offensive, and/or so well known as an abomination par excellence, that explicit reference to it might be avoided.
Given these arguments, all of which the authors of Journey Two and Background Essay had access to in my work, with greater documentation, but apparently chose to ignore the case for arguing that Ezekiel in 16:50 interpreted the story of Sodom, in part, in the light of the absolute Levitical prohibitions of male-male intercourse appears very strong. One might also compare the conclusion of Moshe Greenberg who is his Anchor Bible commentary on Ezekiel intimates that the abomination in 16:50 was homosexual anal intercourse (Ezekiel 1-20 [Doubleday, 1983], 289).
Now if Ezekiel interpreted the Sodom narrative in the light of the Levitical prohibitions, and if too the Levitical prohibitions indict male-male intercourse per se, then it is self-evident that Ezekiel found the sin of Sodom, among other things, to be not just an attempted act of coercive sex but an attempted act of male-male intercourse per se.
Accordingly the two earliest commentators on the Sodom story that provide sufficient context, the Deuteronomistic Historian and Ezekiel, both concur that the homosexual aspect of the event in Genesis 19:4-11 was an important factor in illustrating the depravity of the men of the city and in justifying God's cataclysmic destruction.
Jude 7
Jude 7 also does not favor the reading of the Sodom story given by Journey Two and Background Essay, though one would never know it from reading the latter. Background Essay argues (p. 4), and Journey Two intimates (p. 14), that when Jude 7 says of the men of Sodom that they "committed sexual immorality and went after other flesh," it refers only "to the lust of the men of Sodom after the angelic visitors to the house of Lot, which is branded as a case of sexual immorality" (Background Essay, 4). This interpretation is clearly wrong, for at least five reasons.
· How can you lust after what you don't recognize? A major problem for the they-were-lusting-after-angels theory is this: Neither Genesis 19 nor subsequent early Jewish and Christian interpretations of the story presume that the men of Sodom knew that the male visitors were angels. Indeed, both strands of evidence suggest or assert that the angels disguised themselves as humans and that the men of Sodom were unaware of their identity. Clearly, then, they were not "lusting after angels." Incidentally, it is precisely at this point that the parallel with the actions of the rebellious angels of Genesis 6:1-4 (known as the "Watchers" in later early Jewish tradition), cited in Jude 6 and picked up by the remark "in a manner similar to these" in Jude 7, breaks down. Both Genesis 6:1-4 and the subsequent history of interpretation presuppose intent on the part of rebellious angels to subvert the divide between divine and human. Genesis 19, however, presumes the ignorance of the Sodomites. The latter had no intent to subvert the divine-human divide.
Rather, the men of Sodom "committed sexual immorality and (in the process of doing so) went after ?other flesh.'" Rather than honoring their guests, the men of Sodom dishonored them, both by attempting coercive sex and by treating their guests' embodied masculinity as though it were embodied femininity. Here one may compare Josephus's first-century (A.D.) account in Jewish Antiquities 1.200-201, which combines the themes of inhospitality and dishonoring passions for same-sex intercourse. As it happened, the Sodomites' outrageous act of sexual immorality was made more grievous by the fact that the visitors turned out to be angels.
· "By committing sexual immorality they went after other flesh," not "they committed sexual immorality by going after other flesh." The authors of Journey Two and Background Essay apparently interpret the phrase "committed sexual immorality and went after other flesh" as a hendiadys, so that it means "(the Sodomites) committed sexual immorality by going after other (i.e. angelic) flesh." (Hendiadys literally means "one by two." It occurs when two words or phrases are connected by "and" or some other conjunction in order to express a single idea, in which one of the words is in a dependent relation to the other.) However, it is just as possible that the first word in a hendiadys expresses the subordinate idea (see examples in Blass, Debrunner, Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament, section 442 [16], p. 228a). In that event the phrase could mean something like "by (or: in the act of) committing sexual immorality (the Sodomites) went after other flesh." It is also possible that the coordination of the two phrases in Jude 7 is not a hendiadys but instead refers to two distinct acts. Either way it supports the reading that I have given here, a reading that coheres with other first-century Jewish interpretations (in addition to Josephus, see also Philo, On Abraham 135-36).
· Evidence from Jude's application does not suggest that they lusted after angels. After recounting the stories of the Watchers (v. 6) and of Sodom and Gomorrah (v. 7), the author makes an application to false believers in his own day: "Yet, similarly, these dreamers also defile (the/their?) flesh, reject authority, and slander glorious beings" (v. 8). As with the adverbial phrase "in a manner similar to these" (ton homoion tropon toutois) in v. 7, the adverb "similarly" (homoios) suggests a certain degree of correspondence but nothing like precise identity. In the view of Jude, the false believers' lust for immoral sexual behavior had put them on a collision course with the angelic guardians of this world order, which subsequently led them to revile angels, not to lust after them. In a similar way, the immoral sexual desire of the Sodomites, in this case for male-male intercourse, led them to pursue sex with angels unknowingly.
· 2 Peter confirms the reading given here of Jude 7. This interpretation of Jude 7 that I espouse fits best with 2 Peter's own read of Jude 7-8, referring as it does to the "sexual licentiousness (aselgeia) of conduct of the lawless" at Sodom (2:7) and to those who follow in their footsteps as "going after (i.e., following, indulging) (the/their) flesh in (or: with its) defiling desire (or: lust)" (2:10). The "defiling desire" of the Sodomites can only refer to their desire to "know" or have sex with Lot's male visitors, whom they did not recognize as angels.
· A parallel in the Testament of Naphtali confirms our reading. According to T. Naph. 3:3-4, the descendants of Naphtali shall not be like the Gentiles who changed "the order" of nature by devoting themselves to idols; instead, they shall recognize in the heavens, earth, and sea "the Lord who made all these things, in order that [they] may not become like Sodom, which exchanged the order of its nature." Strikingly similar motifs to Romans 1:19-27 make it likely that either Paul formulated Rom 1:19-27 with this tradition in mind or T. Naph. 3:3-4 is a Christian interpolation into the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs formulated in the light of Rom 1:19-27. I think the former is more likely, but either supposition increases the probability that the clause about Sodom exchanging "the order of its nature" refers to same-sex intercourse (Paul's interpretation in Rom 1:24-27; for intertextual echoes in Rom 1:24-27 to the Sodom story see now also: Phillip Esler, "The Sodom Tradition in Romans 1:18-32," Biblical Theology Bulletin 34 [2004]: 4-16). This is important because, like Jude 7, the actions of the men of Sodom are compared with the actions of the angels in Gen 6:4, who "similarly (homoios, cf. Jude 8) exchanged the order of their nature" by copulating with human females (3:5). Again, the "similarly" suggests similarity but not identity. How far does the similarity go? Both the Sodomites and the angels acted against "the order of their nature," engaging in, or attempting to engage in, structurally incompatible forms of sexual intercourse. Both acts involved, or threatened to involve, human-angel copulation. Yet the very concept of "exchange" implies volition, an intentional action?as with the exchange of nature's order for idols?and that is precisely the point where the analogy between the Sodomites and the angels breaks down. This volitional element comes across clearly in Rom 1:18-27, which correlates the concept of exchange with a conscious suppression of truth in creation/nature. Consequently, one should probably understand T. Naph. 3:3-5 in a way that confirms our interpretation of Jude 6-8: the Sodomites deliberately exchanged the order of their nature as males by attempting intercourse with other males. In the process they got more than they bargained for, unknowingly attempting sex with "other flesh," angels. The primary exchange is opposite-sex intercourse for same-sex intercourse but the undertone is unintended sex with angels. The latter component solidifies a connection with the rebellious angels?a connection already intimated by the fact that both, in different ways, consciously exchanged the natural for the unnatural. Compare also the observations of J. A. Loader on T. Naph. 3:4: "In this context the changing of its order by Sodom can only refer to the homosexual aspirations of the Sodomites mentioned in Genesis 19:5" (A Tale of Two Cities: Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, Early Jewish and Early Christian Traditions [CBET 1; Kampen: Kok, 1990], 82).
For further analysis of Jude 7 see my response to Prof. William Countryman's review of my first book, pp. 9-13 (for pdf version: http://www.robgagnon.net/Reviews/homoCountrymanResp.pdf; for html version: http://www.robgagnon.net/RevCountryman.htm). This discussion adds to my discussion in The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 87-88 (which already should have given the authors of Background Essay and Journey Two enough information to question their interpretation of Jude 7).
Implications for Jesus' Interpretation of the Sodom Story
The evidence cited above for an anti-homosex interpretation of Jude 7 indicates the correctness of our interpretation of Jesus' reference to Sodom (Matthew 10:14-15; Luke 10:10-12). Jesus regarded Sodom as a paradigmatic story about abuse of visitors, not only because of the attempted rape but also because of an attempt at treating males sexually as though they were females. If someone were to contend that the latter was no part of Jesus' interpretation, the retort would be easy: the closest stories in time and milieu to Jesus presume an indictment of male-male intercourse per se, as did the Old Testament Scripture that Jesus honored. Consequently the assertions by Hultgren and Taylor (and the Journey Two author[s]) that Jesus' saying carried no implicit indictment of homosexual practice must be judged as not only unsubstantiated but also contradicted by the evidence that we do have.
Get the pdf: www.robgagnon.net
Sunday, May 08, 2005
free fall
Midwest Conservative Journal is required reading for those who do not know what is going on over in the ECUSA. That wouold be all of us, includling EUCSANS because that plane is in free fall!
Check out, "Nailing Jello to the Wall." which begins with the end of a recent PB Frank Griswold sermon to a bunch of bishops, then Chris Johnson's ruminations:
Christ says to his disciples, and to us, “I still have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” Christ, who is our truth, has much more to say to us but we cannot take it in all at once. “Truth as in Jesus,” to borrow a phrase from Ephesians, has to unfold over time. Our ability to follow the motions of the Spirit increases and matures as the Spirit of truth pours into our hearts the love of God – that is God’s profligate and undiscriminating and life changing love for us. To see all things with the eyes of compassion is to see as God sees and to know the truth as in Jesus, the truth that sets us free. This is a lifelong process of growth and discovery.
I wonder from time to time: just how much more does Christ have to say to us? When will the Spirit of truth have made everything known? Not in our lifetime to be sure. Meanwhile, I try to remain focused on truth not as thing but as person as Christ encounters me face to face in the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. I try to remain focused on the truth, who is Christ, present in the limbs and members of his risen body. These, my brothers and sisters in Christ – in all their grace and quirkiness – mediate both the consolation and challenge of Christ’s ever unfolding truth and love.
On one level, there is nothing to argue with here. We have not, indeed we cannot, plumb the depths of the truths of God. But leaving aside the question of exactly how Frank and the rest of ECUSA's liberals know that it is okay with God to make bishops out of unrepentant sinners(can't recall any pillars of cloud and/or fire and terrible voices from the tops of mountains turning up anywhere lately), it seems to me that this would be an extremely dangerous line to defend.
For 2,000 years, the Christian church, including ECUSA, taught that the Word of God declared that homosexual activity was sinful. Then, in August, 2003, ECUSA gave a pointy hat to a man who engages in homosexual activity on a regular basis and feels that he has nothing whatsoever to repent of. How does ECUSA explain the contradiction?
By "new knowledge," of course. The writers of the Scriptures thought homosexual activity was abnormal, we are regularly told. They did not know anything about "committed same-sex relationships" and the fact that all homosexuals want to move with their life partners to the suburbs and coach their adopted children's sports teams. Forgetting what this says about the competence of the Holy Spirit, Who is supposed to have inspired the Word of God, homosexual activity per se is no longer a sin; what once was truth is no longer truth thanks to "new" truth. And who knows what other truths will be superseded down the road?
So this is not a case of "Hath God said...?" ECUSA is not satanic; it is nihilist. It doesn't really believe in anything at all. Which, in a backhanded way, is a very clarifying moment for someone who has spent most of his life trying to get his mind around Anglican theology. Thanks, Frank."
Thanks Chris!
Chris is pointing out to the benefit of the ELCA that we have full fellowship with a group run by a bunch of Unitarian wanna-be's who probably would have left long ago except for the perks.
Think Shrimp is being hard on them? Think Shrimp has committed big sin of judgment?
Go over to Titus One Nine or Stand Firm and read recent denial of Christian faith made from the pupit of the National Cathedral. The preacher seems to have no need for Jesus. ELCA needs to ask do we have need for this awful stuff? How long before we are subject to these kinds of nihilistic sermons and jedi ramblings on a regular basis?
Truth is, Shrimp not picking on ECUSA or ELCA. Both have wonderful people, wonderful traditions, wonderful history of Reformation. Read Jude. People need to rise up and get rid of interlopers.
Seven million sheep at stake. Who is caring? Wake up.
Check out, "Nailing Jello to the Wall." which begins with the end of a recent PB Frank Griswold sermon to a bunch of bishops, then Chris Johnson's ruminations:
Christ says to his disciples, and to us, “I still have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth…he will take what is mine and declare it to you.” Christ, who is our truth, has much more to say to us but we cannot take it in all at once. “Truth as in Jesus,” to borrow a phrase from Ephesians, has to unfold over time. Our ability to follow the motions of the Spirit increases and matures as the Spirit of truth pours into our hearts the love of God – that is God’s profligate and undiscriminating and life changing love for us. To see all things with the eyes of compassion is to see as God sees and to know the truth as in Jesus, the truth that sets us free. This is a lifelong process of growth and discovery.
I wonder from time to time: just how much more does Christ have to say to us? When will the Spirit of truth have made everything known? Not in our lifetime to be sure. Meanwhile, I try to remain focused on truth not as thing but as person as Christ encounters me face to face in the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. I try to remain focused on the truth, who is Christ, present in the limbs and members of his risen body. These, my brothers and sisters in Christ – in all their grace and quirkiness – mediate both the consolation and challenge of Christ’s ever unfolding truth and love.
On one level, there is nothing to argue with here. We have not, indeed we cannot, plumb the depths of the truths of God. But leaving aside the question of exactly how Frank and the rest of ECUSA's liberals know that it is okay with God to make bishops out of unrepentant sinners(can't recall any pillars of cloud and/or fire and terrible voices from the tops of mountains turning up anywhere lately), it seems to me that this would be an extremely dangerous line to defend.
For 2,000 years, the Christian church, including ECUSA, taught that the Word of God declared that homosexual activity was sinful. Then, in August, 2003, ECUSA gave a pointy hat to a man who engages in homosexual activity on a regular basis and feels that he has nothing whatsoever to repent of. How does ECUSA explain the contradiction?
By "new knowledge," of course. The writers of the Scriptures thought homosexual activity was abnormal, we are regularly told. They did not know anything about "committed same-sex relationships" and the fact that all homosexuals want to move with their life partners to the suburbs and coach their adopted children's sports teams. Forgetting what this says about the competence of the Holy Spirit, Who is supposed to have inspired the Word of God, homosexual activity per se is no longer a sin; what once was truth is no longer truth thanks to "new" truth. And who knows what other truths will be superseded down the road?
So this is not a case of "Hath God said...?" ECUSA is not satanic; it is nihilist. It doesn't really believe in anything at all. Which, in a backhanded way, is a very clarifying moment for someone who has spent most of his life trying to get his mind around Anglican theology. Thanks, Frank."
Thanks Chris!
Chris is pointing out to the benefit of the ELCA that we have full fellowship with a group run by a bunch of Unitarian wanna-be's who probably would have left long ago except for the perks.
Think Shrimp is being hard on them? Think Shrimp has committed big sin of judgment?
Go over to Titus One Nine or Stand Firm and read recent denial of Christian faith made from the pupit of the National Cathedral. The preacher seems to have no need for Jesus. ELCA needs to ask do we have need for this awful stuff? How long before we are subject to these kinds of nihilistic sermons and jedi ramblings on a regular basis?
Truth is, Shrimp not picking on ECUSA or ELCA. Both have wonderful people, wonderful traditions, wonderful history of Reformation. Read Jude. People need to rise up and get rid of interlopers.
Seven million sheep at stake. Who is caring? Wake up.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
God, Shrimp and Homosexuality
Shrimp here:
We crustaceans want you to know that God loves all creatures, even shrimp. The following is from a Jewish teacher, and if you do not know their perspective you will find it very informative. It shows how funny humans are when leaders adopt the same arguments and tactics of secular groups who actually think that religious people are dangerous enemies not only of their personal freedom but for the future of the planet. ELCA needs religious leaders, not secularists with albs.
God, Shrimp, and Homosexuality
Samuel Silver
Shrimp and homosexuality – a strange sounding combination. The Bible forbids the eating of shrimp and other shellfish for Jews as part of the kosher dietary laws. It also forbids homosexual behavior for all humans, Jew and non-Jew alike. In an attempt to justify and normalize homosexual behavior while ridiculing religious opposition, secular fundamentalists claim Judaism and Christianity equate the two because the Bible describes both as “abominations.” They are wrong.
Secularists are fond of ridiculing religion and the Bible by pointing out what they think are internal inconsistencies, even attributing them to multiple authors. The problem is that they base their inconsistencies on invalid translations, misunderstandings, and ignorance of the Jewish Oral Law; all needed to properly interpret the Hebrew Bible. Most secularists are not even aware of, much less knowledgeable in, the rich and extremely sophisticated higher levels of religious scholarship necessary to analyze and understand the Bible. They use their higher degrees of secular education to falsely argue with “their” own elementary understanding of religion. Not a fair fight! Consequently, they think religious people are ignorant, superstitious, and downright dangerous.
Go to an Internet search engine, type in “abomination” and “shellfish,” and you will be amazed at the ignorant misinformation being passed off as “biblical” analysis. One of the most ridiculous, but clever, is www.godhatesshrimp.com. The same misuse of biblical language was even used seriously as a “progressive” put-down of religion on NBC television’s “West Wing.”
These attempts at “argument by ridicule” are completely baseless for at least four fundamental reasons:
Translation: The words in the original biblical Hebrew, although loosely translated by some as “abomination,” are completely different and linguistically unrelated: toeivah for homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22) and sheketz for shrimp/shellfish and kosher food (Leviticus 11:10). Since these words are completely different in derivation, there is no linguistic basis for direct comparison, much less religious equivalence.
Abomination to whom? With shrimp (Leviticus 11:10), the full phrase is “they shall be a detestable thing to you.” The description of homosexual behavior as an “abomination” excludes any reference “to you.” For shrimp, this might be interpreted as “detestable to the Jewish people,” but for homosexual activity, there is an implied “abomination to God,” not “to you” - a major difference.
Another interpretation of the lack of “to you” for homosexual activity points to the universality of this prohibition, compared to the laws of kosher food, which are applicable only to “you,” the Jewish people. Judaism considers homosexual behavior a universal prohibition for all mankind as one of The Seven Noahide Laws.
No, God does not “hate” shrimp, but He does instruct the Jewish people that they should not eat it as one part of their particular spiritual regimen to be a “holy people” and a “light unto the nations.”
Punishments: The “punishments” for homosexual activity include death and kares (spiritual excision), but death and kares are not punishments for violation of kosher dietary laws. Punishments assigned to negative commandments within the Torah were not necessarily intended for human enactment, but serve as a deterrent and a guide to the relative importance of the commandments. Obviously, homosexual behavior is a much more serious sin than eating shrimp. Sexual immorality, including homosexual behavior, is also one of Judaism’s three cardinal sins.
Public Sanction: After listing the various prohibited sexual unions, including homosexual acts between two men, God immediately adds an unusual warning not to follow in the immoral ways of some of their neighbors: Keep my charge “so that none of the abominable statutes that were practiced before you will be done…” (Leviticus 18:30).
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains this verse as follows: “Sexual excesses among the Canaanite population had not only ceased to be considered as abominations but had, in fact, become sanctioned by custom or religious cult. They had become ‘statutes,’ or ‘institutions.’ As stated in Isaiah 24:5: They have changed the law into the opposite; i.e., they have elevated immorality to become law.” If Rabbi Hirsch had not written this 130 years ago, one could easily assume he was writing in 2004 to warn us not to elevate immorality into law through the public sanction via “statute” of same-sex marriage.
There is no warning against “statutes” and public sanction for shrimp or other non-kosher food.
The comparison of shrimp and homosexuality is not even as valid as comparing apples and oranges. It is completely false and irrelevant. But that hasn’t stopped intellectually dishonest secular fundamentalists from spreading disinformation in an effort to ridicule religion and demonize religious people. Shame on them!
Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition (www.towardtradition.org), a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism. Reprinting allowed.
Read the entire article on the Toward Tradition website.
We crustaceans want you to know that God loves all creatures, even shrimp. The following is from a Jewish teacher, and if you do not know their perspective you will find it very informative. It shows how funny humans are when leaders adopt the same arguments and tactics of secular groups who actually think that religious people are dangerous enemies not only of their personal freedom but for the future of the planet. ELCA needs religious leaders, not secularists with albs.
God, Shrimp, and Homosexuality
Samuel Silver
Shrimp and homosexuality – a strange sounding combination. The Bible forbids the eating of shrimp and other shellfish for Jews as part of the kosher dietary laws. It also forbids homosexual behavior for all humans, Jew and non-Jew alike. In an attempt to justify and normalize homosexual behavior while ridiculing religious opposition, secular fundamentalists claim Judaism and Christianity equate the two because the Bible describes both as “abominations.” They are wrong.
Secularists are fond of ridiculing religion and the Bible by pointing out what they think are internal inconsistencies, even attributing them to multiple authors. The problem is that they base their inconsistencies on invalid translations, misunderstandings, and ignorance of the Jewish Oral Law; all needed to properly interpret the Hebrew Bible. Most secularists are not even aware of, much less knowledgeable in, the rich and extremely sophisticated higher levels of religious scholarship necessary to analyze and understand the Bible. They use their higher degrees of secular education to falsely argue with “their” own elementary understanding of religion. Not a fair fight! Consequently, they think religious people are ignorant, superstitious, and downright dangerous.
Go to an Internet search engine, type in “abomination” and “shellfish,” and you will be amazed at the ignorant misinformation being passed off as “biblical” analysis. One of the most ridiculous, but clever, is www.godhatesshrimp.com. The same misuse of biblical language was even used seriously as a “progressive” put-down of religion on NBC television’s “West Wing.”
These attempts at “argument by ridicule” are completely baseless for at least four fundamental reasons:
Translation: The words in the original biblical Hebrew, although loosely translated by some as “abomination,” are completely different and linguistically unrelated: toeivah for homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22) and sheketz for shrimp/shellfish and kosher food (Leviticus 11:10). Since these words are completely different in derivation, there is no linguistic basis for direct comparison, much less religious equivalence.
Abomination to whom? With shrimp (Leviticus 11:10), the full phrase is “they shall be a detestable thing to you.” The description of homosexual behavior as an “abomination” excludes any reference “to you.” For shrimp, this might be interpreted as “detestable to the Jewish people,” but for homosexual activity, there is an implied “abomination to God,” not “to you” - a major difference.
Another interpretation of the lack of “to you” for homosexual activity points to the universality of this prohibition, compared to the laws of kosher food, which are applicable only to “you,” the Jewish people. Judaism considers homosexual behavior a universal prohibition for all mankind as one of The Seven Noahide Laws.
No, God does not “hate” shrimp, but He does instruct the Jewish people that they should not eat it as one part of their particular spiritual regimen to be a “holy people” and a “light unto the nations.”
Punishments: The “punishments” for homosexual activity include death and kares (spiritual excision), but death and kares are not punishments for violation of kosher dietary laws. Punishments assigned to negative commandments within the Torah were not necessarily intended for human enactment, but serve as a deterrent and a guide to the relative importance of the commandments. Obviously, homosexual behavior is a much more serious sin than eating shrimp. Sexual immorality, including homosexual behavior, is also one of Judaism’s three cardinal sins.
Public Sanction: After listing the various prohibited sexual unions, including homosexual acts between two men, God immediately adds an unusual warning not to follow in the immoral ways of some of their neighbors: Keep my charge “so that none of the abominable statutes that were practiced before you will be done…” (Leviticus 18:30).
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch explains this verse as follows: “Sexual excesses among the Canaanite population had not only ceased to be considered as abominations but had, in fact, become sanctioned by custom or religious cult. They had become ‘statutes,’ or ‘institutions.’ As stated in Isaiah 24:5: They have changed the law into the opposite; i.e., they have elevated immorality to become law.” If Rabbi Hirsch had not written this 130 years ago, one could easily assume he was writing in 2004 to warn us not to elevate immorality into law through the public sanction via “statute” of same-sex marriage.
There is no warning against “statutes” and public sanction for shrimp or other non-kosher food.
The comparison of shrimp and homosexuality is not even as valid as comparing apples and oranges. It is completely false and irrelevant. But that hasn’t stopped intellectually dishonest secular fundamentalists from spreading disinformation in an effort to ridicule religion and demonize religious people. Shame on them!
Samuel Silver is Chairman of Toward Tradition (www.towardtradition.org), a national movement of Jewish and Christian cooperation, fighting anti-religious bigotry and secular fundamentalism. Reprinting allowed.
Read the entire article on the Toward Tradition website.
Friday, May 06, 2005
THE SHELLFISH ARGUMENT
Shrimp here:
One friend you human have is guy in church next door. Best friend biblically orthodox ELCA human has is biblically orthodox ECUSA human. Good one to know is at Titus One Nine
Found this there. Speaks for itself:
THE SHELLFISH ARGUMENT
DEAR ():
THANK YOU FOR THIS POST, IT BRINGS UP A CASE THAT IS APPEARING OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S DEBATE. I CALL IT THE SHELLFISH ARGUMENT: YOU HAVE NOTED THAT LEVITICUS IS AGAINST SAME SEX PRACTICE, BUT LEVITICUS SAYS WE SHOULD NOT EAT SHELLFISH. SO HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY LISTEN TO LEVITICUS?
SO FOR EXAMPLE BISHOP MAZE: "ANOTHER PART OF THE VERY SAME CODE, LEVITICUS 11:9-11, USES THE SAME STRONG LANGUAGE CALLING THE EATING OF SHELLFISH AN ABOMINATION. YET, MOST HAVE NOT GIVEN UP SEAFOOD DELICACIES, NOR DO WE WORRY MUCH ABOUT THIS ABOMINATION. SO, ANOTHER TOOL WE HAVE AVAILABLE IS TO ASK HOW MODERN THOUGHT MIGHT AFFECT HOW WE READ ANCIENT CODES. WE KNOW MORE
ABOUT SHELLFISH (AND LOTS OF OTHER FOOD THAT IS CONDEMNED IN THIS CODE) THAN OUR HEBREW ANCESTORS COULD HAVE KNOWN AND SO WE'RE BASICALLY COMFORTABLE IN ADDING THAT TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE."
THEN IN THE CASE OF ()'S POST: "THE VICAR ASKED THE MEN IN THE CONGREGATION IF THEY HAD EVER WONDERED WHAT TO DO WHEN THEIR DAUGHTERS HAD THEIR FIRST PERIOD. WOULD THEY GO TO THE BIBLE FOR ADVICE? HE THEN PARAPHRASED THE RULES FOUND IN LEVITICUS 15, V. 19-24. OR WOULD THEY PREFER THE READER'S DIGEST FAMILY MEDICAL GUIDE'S COUNSEL (WHICH HE QUOTED VERBATIM), ESSENTIALLY TO OFFER LOTS OF TLC."
SO MUCH FOR LEVITICUS, APPARENTLY. THE PROBLEM IS THIS DOESN'T EVEN PASS MUSTER FOR A FIRST YEAR COLLEGE LOGIC CLASS, MUCH LESS GET AT THE COMPLEXITIES AND CHALLENGES OF THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS.
BEHIND IT IS A POWERFUL ASSUMPTION, THAT OF CHRONOLOGICAL SNOBBERY, A FAVORITE PHRASE OF CS LEWIS AND OWEN BARFIELD. HERE IS ONE WEBSITE SUMMARY:
"CHRONOLOGICAL SNOBBERY IS THE PRESUMPTION, FUELED BY THE MODERN CONCEPTION OF PROGRESS, THAT ALL THINKING, ALL ART, AND ALL SCIENCE OF AN EARLIER TIME ARE INHERENTLY INFERIOR, INDEED CHILDLIKE OR EVEN IMBECILIC, COMPARED TO THAT OF THE PRESENT. UNDER THE RULE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SNOBBERY, THE WEST HAS CONVINCED ITSELF THAT "INTELLECTUALLY, HUMANITY LANGUISHED FOR COUNTLESS GENERATIONS IN THE MOST CHILDISH ERRORS ON ALL SORTS OF CRUCIAL SUBJECTS, UNTIL IT WAS REDEEMED BY SOME SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC DICTUM OF THE LAST CENTURY". IT HAS BECOME TO BELIEVE THAT "ANYTHING MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS OLD IS ANCIENT" AND "IN THE WORLD OF BOOKS, OR OPINIONS ABOUT BOOKS, THE AGE AT WHICH SENILITY SETS IN HAS NOW BEEN REDUCED TO ABOUT TEN."
ONE WOULD LIKE TO ASK HOW PERVASIVE THIS ATTITUDE IS IN THE WHOLE OF MAINLINE CHRISTIANITY IN THE WEST, NOT JUST THIS DEBATE, BUT THAT IS A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME.
AS FOR THE CASE ITSELF, IT FALLS APART QUICKLY ONCE YOU QUOTE THE SUMMARY OF THE LAW WHICH STILL IS USED IN MANY RITE I SERVICES IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND IT ENDS...
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"
WHICH IS OF COURSE A QUOTE FROM... LEVITICUS!
SO THE TROUBLE IS THAT THERE ARE CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS, AND SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS A DISCONTINUITY IN THE AREA OF SPECFIC FOOD PRACTICE, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IN THE AREA OF TEACHING SEXUAL MORALITY THERE ISN'T A CONTINUITY. LEVITICUS IS ALSO POWERFULLY AGAINST LYING. INDEED, MUCH OF IT IS AN EXTENDED AND IMPORTANT COMMENTARY ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. SO IS THE TEACHING ON SEXUALITY LIKE SHELLFISH OR IS IT LIKE LYING OR "LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"?
OF COURSE THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN LEVITICUS, IT IS ABOUT A BROAD RANGE OF SCRIPTURAL MATERIAL, THE HISTORY OF HOW IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE CHURCH AND INTERPRETED, AND WRESTLING THROUGH CONTEMPORARY COMPLEXITIES AND CLAIMS. BUT ONE AT LEAST HOPES THAT SPECIOUS CASES LIKE THIS WILL SEE LESS PRESENCE THAN THEY HAVE IN RECENT YEARS, AND ONE HOPES THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE SO EAGER TO CALL THE BIBLE INTO QUESTION REALIZE THAT THEIR MINISTRIES ARE BASED IN PART ON THE BIBLE CALLING THEM AND THEIR PARISHES INTO QUESTION.
NO WONDER KARL BARTH ONCE SAID: EXEGESIS, EXEGESIS, AND MORE EXEGESIS!
DR. KENDALL S. HARMON
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/
One friend you human have is guy in church next door. Best friend biblically orthodox ELCA human has is biblically orthodox ECUSA human. Good one to know is at Titus One Nine
Found this there. Speaks for itself:
THE SHELLFISH ARGUMENT
DEAR ():
THANK YOU FOR THIS POST, IT BRINGS UP A CASE THAT IS APPEARING OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH'S DEBATE. I CALL IT THE SHELLFISH ARGUMENT: YOU HAVE NOTED THAT LEVITICUS IS AGAINST SAME SEX PRACTICE, BUT LEVITICUS SAYS WE SHOULD NOT EAT SHELLFISH. SO HOW COULD WE POSSIBLY LISTEN TO LEVITICUS?
SO FOR EXAMPLE BISHOP MAZE: "ANOTHER PART OF THE VERY SAME CODE, LEVITICUS 11:9-11, USES THE SAME STRONG LANGUAGE CALLING THE EATING OF SHELLFISH AN ABOMINATION. YET, MOST HAVE NOT GIVEN UP SEAFOOD DELICACIES, NOR DO WE WORRY MUCH ABOUT THIS ABOMINATION. SO, ANOTHER TOOL WE HAVE AVAILABLE IS TO ASK HOW MODERN THOUGHT MIGHT AFFECT HOW WE READ ANCIENT CODES. WE KNOW MORE
ABOUT SHELLFISH (AND LOTS OF OTHER FOOD THAT IS CONDEMNED IN THIS CODE) THAN OUR HEBREW ANCESTORS COULD HAVE KNOWN AND SO WE'RE BASICALLY COMFORTABLE IN ADDING THAT TO OUR INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE."
THEN IN THE CASE OF ()'S POST: "THE VICAR ASKED THE MEN IN THE CONGREGATION IF THEY HAD EVER WONDERED WHAT TO DO WHEN THEIR DAUGHTERS HAD THEIR FIRST PERIOD. WOULD THEY GO TO THE BIBLE FOR ADVICE? HE THEN PARAPHRASED THE RULES FOUND IN LEVITICUS 15, V. 19-24. OR WOULD THEY PREFER THE READER'S DIGEST FAMILY MEDICAL GUIDE'S COUNSEL (WHICH HE QUOTED VERBATIM), ESSENTIALLY TO OFFER LOTS OF TLC."
SO MUCH FOR LEVITICUS, APPARENTLY. THE PROBLEM IS THIS DOESN'T EVEN PASS MUSTER FOR A FIRST YEAR COLLEGE LOGIC CLASS, MUCH LESS GET AT THE COMPLEXITIES AND CHALLENGES OF THE SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENTS.
BEHIND IT IS A POWERFUL ASSUMPTION, THAT OF CHRONOLOGICAL SNOBBERY, A FAVORITE PHRASE OF CS LEWIS AND OWEN BARFIELD. HERE IS ONE WEBSITE SUMMARY:
"CHRONOLOGICAL SNOBBERY IS THE PRESUMPTION, FUELED BY THE MODERN CONCEPTION OF PROGRESS, THAT ALL THINKING, ALL ART, AND ALL SCIENCE OF AN EARLIER TIME ARE INHERENTLY INFERIOR, INDEED CHILDLIKE OR EVEN IMBECILIC, COMPARED TO THAT OF THE PRESENT. UNDER THE RULE OF CHRONOLOGICAL SNOBBERY, THE WEST HAS CONVINCED ITSELF THAT "INTELLECTUALLY, HUMANITY LANGUISHED FOR COUNTLESS GENERATIONS IN THE MOST CHILDISH ERRORS ON ALL SORTS OF CRUCIAL SUBJECTS, UNTIL IT WAS REDEEMED BY SOME SIMPLE SCIENTIFIC DICTUM OF THE LAST CENTURY". IT HAS BECOME TO BELIEVE THAT "ANYTHING MORE THAN A HUNDRED YEARS OLD IS ANCIENT" AND "IN THE WORLD OF BOOKS, OR OPINIONS ABOUT BOOKS, THE AGE AT WHICH SENILITY SETS IN HAS NOW BEEN REDUCED TO ABOUT TEN."
ONE WOULD LIKE TO ASK HOW PERVASIVE THIS ATTITUDE IS IN THE WHOLE OF MAINLINE CHRISTIANITY IN THE WEST, NOT JUST THIS DEBATE, BUT THAT IS A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME.
AS FOR THE CASE ITSELF, IT FALLS APART QUICKLY ONCE YOU QUOTE THE SUMMARY OF THE LAW WHICH STILL IS USED IN MANY RITE I SERVICES IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AND IT ENDS...
"YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"
WHICH IS OF COURSE A QUOTE FROM... LEVITICUS!
SO THE TROUBLE IS THAT THERE ARE CONTINUITIES AND DISCONTINUITIES BETWEEN THE TWO TESTAMENTS, AND SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT THERE IS A DISCONTINUITY IN THE AREA OF SPECFIC FOOD PRACTICE, DOESN'T MEAN THAT IN THE AREA OF TEACHING SEXUAL MORALITY THERE ISN'T A CONTINUITY. LEVITICUS IS ALSO POWERFULLY AGAINST LYING. INDEED, MUCH OF IT IS AN EXTENDED AND IMPORTANT COMMENTARY ON THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. SO IS THE TEACHING ON SEXUALITY LIKE SHELLFISH OR IS IT LIKE LYING OR "LOVING YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF"?
OF COURSE THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN LEVITICUS, IT IS ABOUT A BROAD RANGE OF SCRIPTURAL MATERIAL, THE HISTORY OF HOW IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD BY THE CHURCH AND INTERPRETED, AND WRESTLING THROUGH CONTEMPORARY COMPLEXITIES AND CLAIMS. BUT ONE AT LEAST HOPES THAT SPECIOUS CASES LIKE THIS WILL SEE LESS PRESENCE THAN THEY HAVE IN RECENT YEARS, AND ONE HOPES THAT ALL THOSE WHO ARE SO EAGER TO CALL THE BIBLE INTO QUESTION REALIZE THAT THEIR MINISTRIES ARE BASED IN PART ON THE BIBLE CALLING THEM AND THEIR PARISHES INTO QUESTION.
NO WONDER KARL BARTH ONCE SAID: EXEGESIS, EXEGESIS, AND MORE EXEGESIS!
DR. KENDALL S. HARMON
http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Bible is NOT a Moral Handbook--Got it?
Shrimp here:
You humans funny. Bible says, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet. When the Hebrew people spoke of how they lived they used as the main figure of speech, halak, to walk. Now Bishop Margaret Payne in "Saints and Sinners" says Lutherans do not think the Bible is a moral handbook.
Next we will hear what?
There are several factors to talks about when we look at why Christian tradition has never followed some of the Jewish cultic laws, but we have always considered the moral law of the Hebrew Scriptures as OURS.
As William Witt notes:
“Biblical interpreters understood that other biblical material besides the Ten Commandments contains moral law—the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2, other Mosaic material, the Wisdom literature, the Psalms, the Prophets, and, of course, New Testament material, including the Sermon on the Mount and the moral expositions in the Epistles. When Haller states that because the biblical prohibitions against same-sex activity are not part of the Ten Commandments,they are “precisely the sort of law the church has the power to reject or enforce as it sees fit,” he has it exactly backward. Because these prohibitions are part of the moral material of the Old Testament that is summed up in the Ten Commandments, and endorsed again in the New Testament with no qualifications and no exceptions, they are precisely the sorts of law the Church has never felt itself free to reject or enforce as it sees fit.”
You humans funny. Bible says, "Your word is a lamp unto my feet. When the Hebrew people spoke of how they lived they used as the main figure of speech, halak, to walk. Now Bishop Margaret Payne in "Saints and Sinners" says Lutherans do not think the Bible is a moral handbook.
Next we will hear what?
There are several factors to talks about when we look at why Christian tradition has never followed some of the Jewish cultic laws, but we have always considered the moral law of the Hebrew Scriptures as OURS.
As William Witt notes:
“Biblical interpreters understood that other biblical material besides the Ten Commandments contains moral law—the creation narratives of Genesis 1 and 2, other Mosaic material, the Wisdom literature, the Psalms, the Prophets, and, of course, New Testament material, including the Sermon on the Mount and the moral expositions in the Epistles. When Haller states that because the biblical prohibitions against same-sex activity are not part of the Ten Commandments,they are “precisely the sort of law the church has the power to reject or enforce as it sees fit,” he has it exactly backward. Because these prohibitions are part of the moral material of the Old Testament that is summed up in the Ten Commandments, and endorsed again in the New Testament with no qualifications and no exceptions, they are precisely the sorts of law the Church has never felt itself free to reject or enforce as it sees fit.”
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
We Are All Beggars, This IS True
WE DO NOT HAVE A LUTHERAN IDENTITY CRISIS, OK?
MARGARET, BISHOP OF NEW ENGLAND, WANTS YOU TO KNOW THAT. WELL, ACTUALLY, SHE WANTED HER CONSTITUENTS IN NEW ENGLAND TO KNOW THAT, AND THEN SOMEONE AT HIGGINS ROAD SAW IT, THEY BEGAN EMAILING IT AROUND, AND THEN, VIOLA!, IT MADE IT TO THE ELCA WEB SITE.
FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME CLEARLY: MARGARET IS A GOOD PERSON AND SHE LOVES JESUS. HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO POINT OUT A FEW PROBLEMS WE SHOULD ALL HAVE WITH WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO SAY HERE. OTHERWISE, OUR DENOMINATION MIGHT DIE, AND WHILE I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE THAT GOD IS TRYING TO HELP THIS ALONG, WE ARE BY NO MEANS SURE OF THAT, SO LET'S DO THE PRUDENT THING AND CONTINUE TO GENTLY PROBE AROUND THE WOODPILE FOR SNAKES BEFORE WE PICK UP ANY LOGS FOR BURNING, OK?.
AT THE END OF HIS FIRST YEAR AS PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE ELCA MARK HANSON GAVE SPEECHES LIKE THIS: “ON THIS ONE THING, I TRUST WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT: WE CANNOT SEE WITH ANY CLARITY WHERE GOD IS LEADING US IF WE DO NOT KNOW FROM WHENCE WE HAVE COME AND TO WHOM WE BELONG. IN FACT, IN MY MORE SKEPTICAL MOMENTS, I SOMETIMES WONDER IF OUR DRIVING NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN STRATEGIC PLANNING AND CREATE MEMORABLE STATEMENTS OF MISSION, VISION, AND VALUES IS AN ATTEMPT TO FILL A VOID CREATED BY OUR LOSS OF IDENTITY, UNITY, AND PURPOSE.”
HIS MEDIA PEOPLE MUST HAVE TOLD HIM TO NOT SAY THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE LATER HE WOULD SAY THE OPPOSITE. "THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT THE ELCA IS IN SEARCH OF ITS IDENTITY: LOOKING BACK TO PREDECESSOR CHURCH BODIES, LOOKING AROUND AT ECUMENICAL AND GLOBAL PARTNERS, AND LOOKING AHEAD, WONDERING WHO WE ARE BECOMING."
WE DO NOT HAVE A LUTHERAN IDENTITY CRISIS, OK?
PERHAPS A LITTLE BACKGROUND IS IN ORDER. ELCA PRESIDING BISHOP MARK HANSON IS A GOOD MAN WHO LOVES JESUS BUT WHO IS LIVING THE SOCIAL ACTIVIST’S DREAM, “NOW I CAN BRING IN THE KINGDOM, YES SIR!” OF COURSE, LIKE ALL GOOD, MISGUIDED PEOPLE HE HAS NO CLUE AS TO HOW TO DO THIS BESIDES SMILE A LOT, TALK ABOUT LOVE AND BRING RESOLUTIONS TO THE OTHER GOOD KIDS AT WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR MEETINGS.
HE BEGAN TO GET A CLUE THOUGH THAT PERHAPS IT WASN’T GOING AS WELL AS HE FIRST THOUGHT, AND IN 2004 HE TRIED A LITTLE PREEMPTIVE SPIN AND MADE A VIDEO OF HIM TALKING TO A BUNCH OF ELDERLY LUTHERANS. THE PLAN WAS FOR HIM TO LOOK RESPONSIBLE AS THOUGH HE CARED IF THE CHURCH BURNED TO THE GROUND.
HERE’S A QUOTE FROM THE VIDEO: “I DON’T WANT TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE BISHOP WHO PRESIDED OVER THE DISINTEGRATION OF A DENOMINATION BECAUSE WE HAVE SOMEHOW LET THE QUESTIONS THAT DIVIDE US NOW DEFINE US.
GOT THAT? DIVISION IS A BAD THING. UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU ARE THE ONE WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DRIVING THE DIVISION. IF YOU ARE THE ONE DRIVING FAITHFUL, CONFESSIONAL, EVANGELICALS OUT OF THE CHURCH (THEY REALLY ARE SUCH A DRAG, BRINGING UP THAT OLD, DEPRESSING, FUNDAMENTAL, PIETISTIC TYPE OF LUTHERANISM) THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY CLEARLY THAT DIVISION IS A BAD THING.
THIS IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT, SO LET’S GO OVER IT ONE MORE TIME. IF YOU ARE DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY YOU MUST SAY DIVISION IS A BAD THING. THEN PASS A RESOLUTION AGAINST DIVISION. THEN YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT FOR LABELING AND SILENCING THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO AWAY, OR THE ONES WHO ARE TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY.
ANYWAY, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. WE DO NOT HAVE A LUTHERAN IDENTITY CRISIS, OK? A GOOD PLAN TO IMPLEMENT YOUR PLAN TO IMPOSE RECYCLING ON THE WORLD WOULD INCLUDE KEEPING YOUR POWER BASE HAPPY. NOW, WHEN YOUR COMMITMENT TO RECYCLING MEANT MAKING ALLIANCES WITH EVERY LIBERAL YOU CAN FIND, YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE PROMISES TO THE GAY AGENDA PEOPLE. GOT THAT? OF COURSE. NOW, WHAT THE GOOD BUT MISGUIDED PEOPLE HAD NOT COUNTED ON WAS THAT THE GAYS WERE ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE SATISFIED UNTIL THEY GOT EVERYTHING, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO IMPOSE COMPLETE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THINGS GAY BEFORE YOUR PLAN OF WORLD-WIDE DOMINATION COULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE STICKY. SOME PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH STILL READ THE BIBLE. I KNOW, I KNOW, IT’S ONLY A FEW, BUT THEY ARE COMPLAINING A LOT ABOUT THE TOTAL DISREGARD OF SCRIPTURE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. SO A REALLY GOOD PLAN INCLUDES, GUESS SPIN BIG TIME SPIN. WE MUST FRAME THE DEBATE. GUESS HOW? GET SOMEONE ELSE TO SAY, “WE DO NOT HAVE A LUTHERAN IDENTITY CRISIS, OK?
SO, FRESH FROM THE ELCA WEB SITE, TOP RIGHT SPOT ON THE “HOT TOPIC #7” PAGE:
SAINTS OR SINNERS?
BY BISHOP MARGARET PAYNE
ONE OF THE UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE SEXUALITY STUDY HAS BEEN THE REALIZATION THAT PEOPLE DO NOT ALWAYS KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN THEY SAY: WE ARE LUTHERAN. WE DO NOT HAVE A DENOMINATIONAL IDENTITY CRISIS, BUT WE COULD USE A CHURCHWIDE REMEDIAL REVIEW OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE US LUTHERAN CHRISTIANS.
OK. WHY DO THEY KEEP SAYING WE DO NOT HAVE AN IDENTITY CRISIS? IS IT BECAUSE THEY HEAR IT OVER AND OVER WHEN THEY COME OUT OF HIGGINS ROAD?
THE CAPSULE VERSION OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE LUTHERAN IS TO LIVE DAILY WITH AN AWARENESS OF GOD’S GRACE. THERE ARE OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS. WE DRINK A LOT OF COFFEE AND WE LOVE TO EAT TOGETHER. ALSO, WE KNOW THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT RELATIONSHIP TO GOD BECAUSE WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY OUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST AND NOT BY ANYTHING WE DO OR DON’T DO. WE SEE THE BIBLE NOT AS A HANDBOOK FOR MORAL BEHAVIOR, BUT AS A SOURCE OF WISDOM FOR LIFE IN THE COMPASSION AND PEACE OF CHRIST. WE SING LUSTILY. WE KNOW THAT WE WERE “BORN AGAIN” NOT BY OUR OWN CONSCIOUS DECISION, BUT AS A GIFT FROM GOD THROUGH OUR BAPTISM. WE ARE A PEOPLE WHO CHERISH WORD AND SACRAMENT AS THE CENTER OF OUR LIFE OF FAITH. WE HATE TO BRAG, EVEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE DO A BETTER JOB OF DELIVERING CARE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING THAN ANY OTHER AGENCY IN THE WORLD.
GOOD FOLKSY TOUCH, MARGARET. YEP, WE LOVE OUR COFFEE AND GIVE US ENOUGH DONUTS AND WE WILL LOVE YOU TOO UNTIL THE SUGAR CRASH. THEN WE WILL REMEMBER THE, WHAT WAS IT? 2.2 MILLION OF OUR DOLLARS YOU SPENT DECIDING THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT ORDAINING GAYS WITH LIFE PARTNERS. YOU KNOW, ITS SO FOLKSY AND WRITTEN AT THE FOURTH GRADE LEVEL THAT SHE ALMOST SNUCK, “WE DO NOT SEE THE BIBLE AS A HANDBOOK FOR MORAL BEHAVIOR” WRONG! I DO, MY FAMILY ALWAYS HAS, AND MANY, MANY PEOPLE I KNOW FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES MORALITY. THE ABOVE IS RIDDLED WITH OTHER ERRORS AS WELL AS THINGS IN WHICH WE DISAGREE, SUCH AS I GUESS I WAS NOT BORN AGAIN THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT, OR FAITH, BUT BECAUSE SOME MAGICAL WORDS WERE SAID OVER ME, BUT THAT TAKES US AWAY FROM OUR MAIN POINT, "IF WE CHERISH THE WORD SO MUCH, WHY DO WE IGNORE IT WHEN WE MAKE DECISIONS?"
ANOTHER PECULIARLY LUTHERAN TRAIT IS TO SEE EVERY HUMAN BEING AS BOTH SAINT AND SINNER. THAT TENSION IS BOTH AGONIZING AND PROFOUNDLY TRUE. IT IS MUCH EASIER TO SAY: “THERE IS A GOOD PERSON” OR “THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVIL.” BUT LUTHERANS BELIEVE THAT WE LIVE IN THE TENSION OF KNOWING THAT THERE IS GOOD AND EVIL IN EVERY HUMAN HEART. WE STRUGGLE TO INCREASE GOODNESS AND BATTLE AGAINST THE EVIL THAT IS BOTH WITHIN US AND ALL AROUND US.
THIS PART WAS GOOD. POINT TO MARGARET.
SOME PEOPLE CRITICIZE LUTHERANS FOR “SITTING ON THE FENCE” AND OTHERS ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THE ELCA DOES NOT HAVE A LIST OF HOLY PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT DECLARE WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO. THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEEP RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE THAT IS BOUND TO THE WORD OF GOD, AND WE SEE PASTORS AS THE SPIRITUAL LEADERS WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH PEOPLE TO HELP THEM MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS AS THEY TRY TO BE MORE SAINT THAN SINNER. WE TRUST PEOPLE AND PASTORS, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF THE FAITHFUL, TO WORK AND PRAY TOGETHER TO FIND THE WAY THROUGH THE WILDERNESS OF PAINFUL LIFE CHOICES.
DICEY. SOUNDS NICE, BUT GIVE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WORK ON THE SEXUALITY STUFF HOW YOU ARE EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR CONSCIENCE BOUND TO THE WORD? BY SAYING THERE ARE TWO IRRECONCILABLE HERMENEUTICS, AND I AM FREE TO CHOOSE THE ONE THAT SUITS ME?
ONE INTERESTING THING GOING ON IN AMERICA TODAY IS THAT PEOPLE ARE CRAVING CERTAINTY, EVEN MORE THAN CHOCOLATE OR KRISPY KREME DONUTS. MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE FEAR IS IN THE AIR, AND PEOPLE WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO AND WHAT TO BELIEVE. BUT LUTHERANS ARE SUSPICIOUS OF CERTAINTY UNLESS IT IS THE CERTAINTY THAT JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS. LUTHERANS KNOW THAT WE ARE ON SHAKY GROUND WHENEVER WE DECLARE THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS A SINNER MORE FERVENTLY THAN WE DO THE HARD WORK OF SEEING OUR OWN SIN. FOR LUTHERANS, THE CROSS IS THE COMPASS. IT AIMS US IN THE DIRECTION OF SACRIFICIAL LOVE INSTEAD OF TRIUMPHANT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CERTITUDE. GOD IS ALWAYS PRESENT IN OUR LOVE FOR OTHERS, BUT REMINDS US REPEATEDLY THAT WE SHOULD NOT JUDGE AND CONDEMN OTHERS.
FEAR BAD, JUDGING BAD, CONDEMNING BAD. GOT IT? IF WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS A SINNER, WE ARE A SINNER: THIS IS THE NEW MEANING OF SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR.
THE ELCA TASK FORCE HAS PRODUCED A REPORT THAT DESCRIBES THE DISAGREEMENTS IN OUR CHURCH REGARDING ISSUES OF HUMAN SEXUALITY AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WAY TO LIVE TOGETHER AS WE CONTINUE TO PRAY, STUDY AND COMPARE OUR CERTAINTIES.
WRONG, IT IS NOT A WAY TO LIVE TOGETHER! PASTORS AND CONGREGATIONS HAVE LEFT, OTHERS ARE WAITING FOR PROOF THAT THE ELCA IS TOO FAR GONE--WHICH, OF COURSE, MARGARET IS ARGUING IN FAVOR OF HERE!
THIS REPORT IS NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION; IT IS THE JOINT OFFERING OF 14 SAINTS AND SINNERS WHO DESPERATELY SOUGHT TO DISCERN THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR OUR CHURCH AT THIS TIME. IT IS FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE, RESPECTFUL OF ALL SIDES OF THE DEBATE, AND HUMBLY OPEN TO FURTHER AMENDMENT. IT DOES NOT PRETEND TO PROVIDE THE MAGIC BULLET OR THE FINAL ANSWER. IF THE ULTIMATE “AHA” SOLUTION APPEARS BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST, EVERY MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE WOULD DO THE LUTHERAN VERSION OF JUMPING UP AND DOWN WITH JOY – WHICH IS A NOD AND A SMILE – AND VOTE FOR IT.
ACTUALLY, FROM WHAT WE READ ELSEWHERE, IT AGREES WITH WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AND DONE. WHY ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE FORBID PEOPLE TO PASS OUT DISSENTING LITERATURE AT YOUR LAST NEW ENGLAND SYNOD ASSEMBLY? AS FAR AS THE TASK FORCE REPORT BEING A "JOINT OFFERING," IT CAME WITH SEVERAL DISSENTING POSITIONS, AND ONLY DISSENTING POSITION ONE IS ACTUALLY FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE.
BUT MEANWHILE WE KNOW THAT WE DUG DOWN AND DID OUR VERY BEST WORK. THE REPORT IS UNAPOLOGETICALLY LUTHERAN. IT WRAPS ITSELF AROUND THE PAINFUL AMBIVALENCE OF THE ISSUES OF HUMAN SEXUALITY AND ASKS THAT, FOR NOW, WE LEAVE DIFFICULT DECISIONS IN THE HANDS OF PASTORS AND CHURCH LEADERSHIP. THE INTENT OF ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO HONOR TRADITION WHILE WE CREATE A NEW SPACE TO DISCERN WHERE THE SPIRIT OF GOD MIGHT BE LEADING US TO WELCOME GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE MORE FULLY INTO EVERY ASPECT OF THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH. TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO PROCLAIM “THE RIGHT THING” AND TO SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE TO LIVE IN TENSION IS A VERY LUTHERAN THING TO DO. IF I WERE NOT LUTHERAN, I WOULD BE PROUD OF THIS REPORT, BUT LUTHERANS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE BEING PROUD. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, I THINK I WILL PART WAYS WITH MY LUTHERANISM. I AM PROUD THAT THE ELCA HAS PRODUCED A DISTINCTIVE WAY TO HANDLE THIS TOUCHY SUBJECT. IT IS DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER PATH SUGGESTED BY A CHURCH. IT CLINGS TO PAST WISDOM BUT OFFERS HOPE AND A WAY TO GET BEYOND AN IMPASSE. I TRUST THAT THE CHURCH IN ASSEMBLY THIS AUGUST WILL REFINE IT INTO A USEFUL TOOL FOR OUR LIFE TOGETHER.
ACTUALLY, IT IS THE “PAINFUL AMBIVALENCE” OF LIFE THAT DEMANDS CLARITY. IF YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE A MORAL HANDBOOK YOU WOULD KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN ANSWER.
I WAS NOT “PROUD” WHEN I READ THE REPORT. I LET OUT AN AUDIBLE MOAN WHEN I GOT PAST THE FIRST FEW SENTENCES OF RECOMMENDATION THREE, THAT WE KEEP OUR RULES BUT NOT ENFORCE THEM.
NOT ONLY IS IT BAD THEOLOGY, BAD ORGANIZATIONAL THINKING, IT WOULD ACTUALLY PUT EVERY CONGREGATION THAT REMAINED IN THE ELCA IN LEGAL JEOPARDY, IF PASSED. THAT JIM CHILDS, WHO WAS CALLED TO GUIDE THIS PROCESS, WAS NAMED IN THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE LUTHERAN PASTOR CONVICTED OF PEDOPHILIA, AND DIDN’T POINT THAT OUT, WELL, IT BEGGARS BELIEF.
I PRAY THAT THE ASSEMBLY REJECTS THIS OUT OF HAND.
MARGARET, BISHOP OF NEW ENGLAND, WANTS YOU TO KNOW THAT. WELL, ACTUALLY, SHE WANTED HER CONSTITUENTS IN NEW ENGLAND TO KNOW THAT, AND THEN SOMEONE AT HIGGINS ROAD SAW IT, THEY BEGAN EMAILING IT AROUND, AND THEN, VIOLA!, IT MADE IT TO THE ELCA WEB SITE.
FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME CLEARLY: MARGARET IS A GOOD PERSON AND SHE LOVES JESUS. HOWEVER, I AM GOING TO POINT OUT A FEW PROBLEMS WE SHOULD ALL HAVE WITH WHAT SHE IS TRYING TO SAY HERE. OTHERWISE, OUR DENOMINATION MIGHT DIE, AND WHILE I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE THAT GOD IS TRYING TO HELP THIS ALONG, WE ARE BY NO MEANS SURE OF THAT, SO LET'S DO THE PRUDENT THING AND CONTINUE TO GENTLY PROBE AROUND THE WOODPILE FOR SNAKES BEFORE WE PICK UP ANY LOGS FOR BURNING, OK?.
AT THE END OF HIS FIRST YEAR AS PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE ELCA MARK HANSON GAVE SPEECHES LIKE THIS: “ON THIS ONE THING, I TRUST WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT: WE CANNOT SEE WITH ANY CLARITY WHERE GOD IS LEADING US IF WE DO NOT KNOW FROM WHENCE WE HAVE COME AND TO WHOM WE BELONG. IN FACT, IN MY MORE SKEPTICAL MOMENTS, I SOMETIMES WONDER IF OUR DRIVING NEED TO BE INVOLVED IN STRATEGIC PLANNING AND CREATE MEMORABLE STATEMENTS OF MISSION, VISION, AND VALUES IS AN ATTEMPT TO FILL A VOID CREATED BY OUR LOSS OF IDENTITY, UNITY, AND PURPOSE.”
HIS MEDIA PEOPLE MUST HAVE TOLD HIM TO NOT SAY THAT AGAIN, BECAUSE LATER HE WOULD SAY THE OPPOSITE. "THERE ARE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT THE ELCA IS IN SEARCH OF ITS IDENTITY: LOOKING BACK TO PREDECESSOR CHURCH BODIES, LOOKING AROUND AT ECUMENICAL AND GLOBAL PARTNERS, AND LOOKING AHEAD, WONDERING WHO WE ARE BECOMING."
WE DO NOT HAVE A LUTHERAN IDENTITY CRISIS, OK?
PERHAPS A LITTLE BACKGROUND IS IN ORDER. ELCA PRESIDING BISHOP MARK HANSON IS A GOOD MAN WHO LOVES JESUS BUT WHO IS LIVING THE SOCIAL ACTIVIST’S DREAM, “NOW I CAN BRING IN THE KINGDOM, YES SIR!” OF COURSE, LIKE ALL GOOD, MISGUIDED PEOPLE HE HAS NO CLUE AS TO HOW TO DO THIS BESIDES SMILE A LOT, TALK ABOUT LOVE AND BRING RESOLUTIONS TO THE OTHER GOOD KIDS AT WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR MEETINGS.
HE BEGAN TO GET A CLUE THOUGH THAT PERHAPS IT WASN’T GOING AS WELL AS HE FIRST THOUGHT, AND IN 2004 HE TRIED A LITTLE PREEMPTIVE SPIN AND MADE A VIDEO OF HIM TALKING TO A BUNCH OF ELDERLY LUTHERANS. THE PLAN WAS FOR HIM TO LOOK RESPONSIBLE AS THOUGH HE CARED IF THE CHURCH BURNED TO THE GROUND.
HERE’S A QUOTE FROM THE VIDEO: “I DON’T WANT TO GO DOWN IN HISTORY AS THE BISHOP WHO PRESIDED OVER THE DISINTEGRATION OF A DENOMINATION BECAUSE WE HAVE SOMEHOW LET THE QUESTIONS THAT DIVIDE US NOW DEFINE US.
GOT THAT? DIVISION IS A BAD THING. UNLESS, OF COURSE, YOU ARE THE ONE WHOSE ACTIONS ARE DRIVING THE DIVISION. IF YOU ARE THE ONE DRIVING FAITHFUL, CONFESSIONAL, EVANGELICALS OUT OF THE CHURCH (THEY REALLY ARE SUCH A DRAG, BRINGING UP THAT OLD, DEPRESSING, FUNDAMENTAL, PIETISTIC TYPE OF LUTHERANISM) THEN YOU HAVE TO SAY CLEARLY THAT DIVISION IS A BAD THING.
THIS IS REALLY AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT, SO LET’S GO OVER IT ONE MORE TIME. IF YOU ARE DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY YOU MUST SAY DIVISION IS A BAD THING. THEN PASS A RESOLUTION AGAINST DIVISION. THEN YOU HAVE A PRESIDENT FOR LABELING AND SILENCING THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO AWAY, OR THE ONES WHO ARE TRYING TO STOP YOU FROM DRIVING PEOPLE AWAY.
ANYWAY, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ARGUMENT. WE DO NOT HAVE A LUTHERAN IDENTITY CRISIS, OK? A GOOD PLAN TO IMPLEMENT YOUR PLAN TO IMPOSE RECYCLING ON THE WORLD WOULD INCLUDE KEEPING YOUR POWER BASE HAPPY. NOW, WHEN YOUR COMMITMENT TO RECYCLING MEANT MAKING ALLIANCES WITH EVERY LIBERAL YOU CAN FIND, YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE PROMISES TO THE GAY AGENDA PEOPLE. GOT THAT? OF COURSE. NOW, WHAT THE GOOD BUT MISGUIDED PEOPLE HAD NOT COUNTED ON WAS THAT THE GAYS WERE ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE SATISFIED UNTIL THEY GOT EVERYTHING, SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO IMPOSE COMPLETE ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THINGS GAY BEFORE YOUR PLAN OF WORLD-WIDE DOMINATION COULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
NOW THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE STICKY. SOME PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH STILL READ THE BIBLE. I KNOW, I KNOW, IT’S ONLY A FEW, BUT THEY ARE COMPLAINING A LOT ABOUT THE TOTAL DISREGARD OF SCRIPTURE IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. SO A REALLY GOOD PLAN INCLUDES, GUESS SPIN BIG TIME SPIN. WE MUST FRAME THE DEBATE. GUESS HOW? GET SOMEONE ELSE TO SAY, “WE DO NOT HAVE A LUTHERAN IDENTITY CRISIS, OK?
SO, FRESH FROM THE ELCA WEB SITE, TOP RIGHT SPOT ON THE “HOT TOPIC #7” PAGE:
SAINTS OR SINNERS?
BY BISHOP MARGARET PAYNE
ONE OF THE UNEXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE SEXUALITY STUDY HAS BEEN THE REALIZATION THAT PEOPLE DO NOT ALWAYS KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN WHEN THEY SAY: WE ARE LUTHERAN. WE DO NOT HAVE A DENOMINATIONAL IDENTITY CRISIS, BUT WE COULD USE A CHURCHWIDE REMEDIAL REVIEW OF THE THINGS THAT MAKE US LUTHERAN CHRISTIANS.
OK. WHY DO THEY KEEP SAYING WE DO NOT HAVE AN IDENTITY CRISIS? IS IT BECAUSE THEY HEAR IT OVER AND OVER WHEN THEY COME OUT OF HIGGINS ROAD?
THE CAPSULE VERSION OF WHAT IT MEANS TO BE LUTHERAN IS TO LIVE DAILY WITH AN AWARENESS OF GOD’S GRACE. THERE ARE OTHER IMPORTANT MATTERS. WE DRINK A LOT OF COFFEE AND WE LOVE TO EAT TOGETHER. ALSO, WE KNOW THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT RELATIONSHIP TO GOD BECAUSE WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY OUR FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST AND NOT BY ANYTHING WE DO OR DON’T DO. WE SEE THE BIBLE NOT AS A HANDBOOK FOR MORAL BEHAVIOR, BUT AS A SOURCE OF WISDOM FOR LIFE IN THE COMPASSION AND PEACE OF CHRIST. WE SING LUSTILY. WE KNOW THAT WE WERE “BORN AGAIN” NOT BY OUR OWN CONSCIOUS DECISION, BUT AS A GIFT FROM GOD THROUGH OUR BAPTISM. WE ARE A PEOPLE WHO CHERISH WORD AND SACRAMENT AS THE CENTER OF OUR LIFE OF FAITH. WE HATE TO BRAG, EVEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE DO A BETTER JOB OF DELIVERING CARE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFERING THAN ANY OTHER AGENCY IN THE WORLD.
GOOD FOLKSY TOUCH, MARGARET. YEP, WE LOVE OUR COFFEE AND GIVE US ENOUGH DONUTS AND WE WILL LOVE YOU TOO UNTIL THE SUGAR CRASH. THEN WE WILL REMEMBER THE, WHAT WAS IT? 2.2 MILLION OF OUR DOLLARS YOU SPENT DECIDING THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ON WHAT TO DO ABOUT ORDAINING GAYS WITH LIFE PARTNERS. YOU KNOW, ITS SO FOLKSY AND WRITTEN AT THE FOURTH GRADE LEVEL THAT SHE ALMOST SNUCK, “WE DO NOT SEE THE BIBLE AS A HANDBOOK FOR MORAL BEHAVIOR” WRONG! I DO, MY FAMILY ALWAYS HAS, AND MANY, MANY PEOPLE I KNOW FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THE BIBLE TEACHES MORALITY. THE ABOVE IS RIDDLED WITH OTHER ERRORS AS WELL AS THINGS IN WHICH WE DISAGREE, SUCH AS I GUESS I WAS NOT BORN AGAIN THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT, OR FAITH, BUT BECAUSE SOME MAGICAL WORDS WERE SAID OVER ME, BUT THAT TAKES US AWAY FROM OUR MAIN POINT, "IF WE CHERISH THE WORD SO MUCH, WHY DO WE IGNORE IT WHEN WE MAKE DECISIONS?"
ANOTHER PECULIARLY LUTHERAN TRAIT IS TO SEE EVERY HUMAN BEING AS BOTH SAINT AND SINNER. THAT TENSION IS BOTH AGONIZING AND PROFOUNDLY TRUE. IT IS MUCH EASIER TO SAY: “THERE IS A GOOD PERSON” OR “THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVIL.” BUT LUTHERANS BELIEVE THAT WE LIVE IN THE TENSION OF KNOWING THAT THERE IS GOOD AND EVIL IN EVERY HUMAN HEART. WE STRUGGLE TO INCREASE GOODNESS AND BATTLE AGAINST THE EVIL THAT IS BOTH WITHIN US AND ALL AROUND US.
THIS PART WAS GOOD. POINT TO MARGARET.
SOME PEOPLE CRITICIZE LUTHERANS FOR “SITTING ON THE FENCE” AND OTHERS ARE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THE ELCA DOES NOT HAVE A LIST OF HOLY PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT DECLARE WHAT PEOPLE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO. THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEEP RESPECT FOR THE INDIVIDUAL CONSCIENCE THAT IS BOUND TO THE WORD OF GOD, AND WE SEE PASTORS AS THE SPIRITUAL LEADERS WHO WORK CLOSELY WITH PEOPLE TO HELP THEM MAKE DIFFICULT DECISIONS AS THEY TRY TO BE MORE SAINT THAN SINNER. WE TRUST PEOPLE AND PASTORS, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY OF THE FAITHFUL, TO WORK AND PRAY TOGETHER TO FIND THE WAY THROUGH THE WILDERNESS OF PAINFUL LIFE CHOICES.
DICEY. SOUNDS NICE, BUT GIVE EVIDENCE FROM YOUR WORK ON THE SEXUALITY STUFF HOW YOU ARE EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO HAVE THEIR CONSCIENCE BOUND TO THE WORD? BY SAYING THERE ARE TWO IRRECONCILABLE HERMENEUTICS, AND I AM FREE TO CHOOSE THE ONE THAT SUITS ME?
ONE INTERESTING THING GOING ON IN AMERICA TODAY IS THAT PEOPLE ARE CRAVING CERTAINTY, EVEN MORE THAN CHOCOLATE OR KRISPY KREME DONUTS. MAYBE IT’S BECAUSE FEAR IS IN THE AIR, AND PEOPLE WANT TO BE TOLD WHAT TO DO AND WHAT TO BELIEVE. BUT LUTHERANS ARE SUSPICIOUS OF CERTAINTY UNLESS IT IS THE CERTAINTY THAT JESUS DIED FOR OUR SINS. LUTHERANS KNOW THAT WE ARE ON SHAKY GROUND WHENEVER WE DECLARE THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS A SINNER MORE FERVENTLY THAN WE DO THE HARD WORK OF SEEING OUR OWN SIN. FOR LUTHERANS, THE CROSS IS THE COMPASS. IT AIMS US IN THE DIRECTION OF SACRIFICIAL LOVE INSTEAD OF TRIUMPHANT ANNOUNCEMENTS OF CERTITUDE. GOD IS ALWAYS PRESENT IN OUR LOVE FOR OTHERS, BUT REMINDS US REPEATEDLY THAT WE SHOULD NOT JUDGE AND CONDEMN OTHERS.
FEAR BAD, JUDGING BAD, CONDEMNING BAD. GOT IT? IF WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS A SINNER, WE ARE A SINNER: THIS IS THE NEW MEANING OF SIMUL IUSTUS ET PECCATOR.
THE ELCA TASK FORCE HAS PRODUCED A REPORT THAT DESCRIBES THE DISAGREEMENTS IN OUR CHURCH REGARDING ISSUES OF HUMAN SEXUALITY AND MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A WAY TO LIVE TOGETHER AS WE CONTINUE TO PRAY, STUDY AND COMPARE OUR CERTAINTIES.
WRONG, IT IS NOT A WAY TO LIVE TOGETHER! PASTORS AND CONGREGATIONS HAVE LEFT, OTHERS ARE WAITING FOR PROOF THAT THE ELCA IS TOO FAR GONE--WHICH, OF COURSE, MARGARET IS ARGUING IN FAVOR OF HERE!
THIS REPORT IS NOT MY PERSONAL OPINION; IT IS THE JOINT OFFERING OF 14 SAINTS AND SINNERS WHO DESPERATELY SOUGHT TO DISCERN THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION FOR OUR CHURCH AT THIS TIME. IT IS FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE, RESPECTFUL OF ALL SIDES OF THE DEBATE, AND HUMBLY OPEN TO FURTHER AMENDMENT. IT DOES NOT PRETEND TO PROVIDE THE MAGIC BULLET OR THE FINAL ANSWER. IF THE ULTIMATE “AHA” SOLUTION APPEARS BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST, EVERY MEMBER OF THE TASK FORCE WOULD DO THE LUTHERAN VERSION OF JUMPING UP AND DOWN WITH JOY – WHICH IS A NOD AND A SMILE – AND VOTE FOR IT.
ACTUALLY, FROM WHAT WE READ ELSEWHERE, IT AGREES WITH WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AND DONE. WHY ELSE WOULD YOU HAVE FORBID PEOPLE TO PASS OUT DISSENTING LITERATURE AT YOUR LAST NEW ENGLAND SYNOD ASSEMBLY? AS FAR AS THE TASK FORCE REPORT BEING A "JOINT OFFERING," IT CAME WITH SEVERAL DISSENTING POSITIONS, AND ONLY DISSENTING POSITION ONE IS ACTUALLY FAITHFUL TO SCRIPTURE.
BUT MEANWHILE WE KNOW THAT WE DUG DOWN AND DID OUR VERY BEST WORK. THE REPORT IS UNAPOLOGETICALLY LUTHERAN. IT WRAPS ITSELF AROUND THE PAINFUL AMBIVALENCE OF THE ISSUES OF HUMAN SEXUALITY AND ASKS THAT, FOR NOW, WE LEAVE DIFFICULT DECISIONS IN THE HANDS OF PASTORS AND CHURCH LEADERSHIP. THE INTENT OF ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS IS TO HONOR TRADITION WHILE WE CREATE A NEW SPACE TO DISCERN WHERE THE SPIRIT OF GOD MIGHT BE LEADING US TO WELCOME GAY AND LESBIAN PEOPLE MORE FULLY INTO EVERY ASPECT OF THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH. TO RESIST THE TEMPTATION TO PROCLAIM “THE RIGHT THING” AND TO SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE TO LIVE IN TENSION IS A VERY LUTHERAN THING TO DO. IF I WERE NOT LUTHERAN, I WOULD BE PROUD OF THIS REPORT, BUT LUTHERANS ARE UNCOMFORTABLE BEING PROUD. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, I THINK I WILL PART WAYS WITH MY LUTHERANISM. I AM PROUD THAT THE ELCA HAS PRODUCED A DISTINCTIVE WAY TO HANDLE THIS TOUCHY SUBJECT. IT IS DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER PATH SUGGESTED BY A CHURCH. IT CLINGS TO PAST WISDOM BUT OFFERS HOPE AND A WAY TO GET BEYOND AN IMPASSE. I TRUST THAT THE CHURCH IN ASSEMBLY THIS AUGUST WILL REFINE IT INTO A USEFUL TOOL FOR OUR LIFE TOGETHER.
ACTUALLY, IT IS THE “PAINFUL AMBIVALENCE” OF LIFE THAT DEMANDS CLARITY. IF YOU WOULD REALIZE THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE A MORAL HANDBOOK YOU WOULD KNOW THAT WE HAVE AN ANSWER.
I WAS NOT “PROUD” WHEN I READ THE REPORT. I LET OUT AN AUDIBLE MOAN WHEN I GOT PAST THE FIRST FEW SENTENCES OF RECOMMENDATION THREE, THAT WE KEEP OUR RULES BUT NOT ENFORCE THEM.
NOT ONLY IS IT BAD THEOLOGY, BAD ORGANIZATIONAL THINKING, IT WOULD ACTUALLY PUT EVERY CONGREGATION THAT REMAINED IN THE ELCA IN LEGAL JEOPARDY, IF PASSED. THAT JIM CHILDS, WHO WAS CALLED TO GUIDE THIS PROCESS, WAS NAMED IN THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE LUTHERAN PASTOR CONVICTED OF PEDOPHILIA, AND DIDN’T POINT THAT OUT, WELL, IT BEGGARS BELIEF.
I PRAY THAT THE ASSEMBLY REJECTS THIS OUT OF HAND.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Shrimp here:
I want to review the issue of statement that was drafted by two theologians from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Rev. Barbara R. Rossing and Rev. Ralph W. Klein, and released on Apr. 6 -- just three days prior to the ELCA Church Council meeting slated to tackle the topic of homosexuality in the Church.
The ELCA Church Council then made the church-dividing recommendation to ordain actively homosexual clergy as "an exception," thus going further than the task force on sexuality.
This, of course, is the pattern, to move the agend forward by degrees.
One might will wonder if the statement, which in actuality is an online petition, was not meant to do just what its ewffect was, to provide some justification for Church Council's actions?
There is one piece of theological reasoning in the petition (which by the way was signed by 107 theologians and can be seen at http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/ )
"We disagree with the claims of the seventeen theologians who have criticized the taskforce’s recommendations on ecclesiological and theological grounds. Churches in the Lutheran World Federation already hold multiple positions on both sexuality and ecclesiology, and the Federation’s communion holds together in the midst of this diversity. The taskforce’s recommendations do not jeopardize our Lutheran communion or our ecumenical partnerships. Differences on sexuality and ecclesiology do not threaten the unity of the gospel. "
As reasoning this is outrageous, but the real red flag is that 107 of the ELCA's finest minds put their name to it.
I am just a crustacean, I have no PhD (heck, my brain is smaller than a pea), yet common sense says if it is tearing the Anglican Communion apart that says their reasoning is a disregard of the potential of a similar dvelopment.
Since we know where there is smoke there is fire, let's look at the reasoning which one of the two authors gave to a reporter:
"During a phone interview Friday, Rossing further elaborated the fourth point: “The church does not divide on issues on sexuality and Christians can take different positions on that. We call these Adia Phora -- a Latin term that unity is sufficient if the Word is rightly preached,” said Rossing, an associate professor of New Testament. “We are taking a middle way, and I think that's a gift to the world."
http://www.christianpost.com/article/church/2025/section/lutheran.scholars.send.statement.supporting.%5Cmiddle.way%5C.on.homosexuality/1.htm
Is this a correct usage of adiaphora? Something can only be adiaphora if it is neither commanded nor forbidden by God (as Mark Chavez of WordAlone points out).
Moreover, common sense would reveal that the concept of adiaphora was used rarely by Luther. He used in once in his commentaries. If we do a search of the 55 volumes of Luther's Works we see that 12 0f 19 occurances happen in a few sections of the Formula of Concord. They are concerned with tne Melanchthan/Flaccius dispute over the Interim. Melancthon said certain church customs were adiaphora, but eventually recanted to Flaccius. Two lessons from this is that 1) there is no equivalence between an issue of whether there are seven sacraments of two and the issue of disregarding mutiple biblical injunctions against the practice of homosexuality and 2) Melanchthan lost. (hello?)
So, why propose the argument and why was it so popular amongst Lutheran theologians? Is it anything more than, "Because they wanted to?" or "They did it because they could?"
Ask a real theologian. The above reporter did:
"I wasn’t surprised, and I think the seminaries are washed in theology that is falling down to the culture of decadence,” explained Braaten, the Executive Director of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology. “More and more, this is the kind of Protestantism that is being absorbed by the culture.”
"Braaten said he knows "the people who drafted the counterstatement and their theology.” “There is no basis in scripture or tradition for what they are saying, so that means they are getting their ideas from contemporary culture,” said Braaten. “It has more to do with the collapse of Christian morality in Western culture.”
Now read, not a petitiion, but a real theological statement, well-crafted, succinct, touching on the several issues at stake:
http://www.thelutheran.org/0504/sexuality.html
I'm just a shrimp, but from where I swim, if the logic of the 107 trumps that of the 17, the future of the ELCA is very much in doubt.
I want to review the issue of statement that was drafted by two theologians from the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Rev. Barbara R. Rossing and Rev. Ralph W. Klein, and released on Apr. 6 -- just three days prior to the ELCA Church Council meeting slated to tackle the topic of homosexuality in the Church.
The ELCA Church Council then made the church-dividing recommendation to ordain actively homosexual clergy as "an exception," thus going further than the task force on sexuality.
This, of course, is the pattern, to move the agend forward by degrees.
One might will wonder if the statement, which in actuality is an online petition, was not meant to do just what its ewffect was, to provide some justification for Church Council's actions?
There is one piece of theological reasoning in the petition (which by the way was signed by 107 theologians and can be seen at http://prophetess.lstc.edu/~rklein/ )
"We disagree with the claims of the seventeen theologians who have criticized the taskforce’s recommendations on ecclesiological and theological grounds. Churches in the Lutheran World Federation already hold multiple positions on both sexuality and ecclesiology, and the Federation’s communion holds together in the midst of this diversity. The taskforce’s recommendations do not jeopardize our Lutheran communion or our ecumenical partnerships. Differences on sexuality and ecclesiology do not threaten the unity of the gospel. "
As reasoning this is outrageous, but the real red flag is that 107 of the ELCA's finest minds put their name to it.
I am just a crustacean, I have no PhD (heck, my brain is smaller than a pea), yet common sense says if it is tearing the Anglican Communion apart that says their reasoning is a disregard of the potential of a similar dvelopment.
Since we know where there is smoke there is fire, let's look at the reasoning which one of the two authors gave to a reporter:
"During a phone interview Friday, Rossing further elaborated the fourth point: “The church does not divide on issues on sexuality and Christians can take different positions on that. We call these Adia Phora -- a Latin term that unity is sufficient if the Word is rightly preached,” said Rossing, an associate professor of New Testament. “We are taking a middle way, and I think that's a gift to the world."
http://www.christianpost.com/article/church/2025/section/lutheran.scholars.send.statement.supporting.%5Cmiddle.way%5C.on.homosexuality/1.htm
Is this a correct usage of adiaphora? Something can only be adiaphora if it is neither commanded nor forbidden by God (as Mark Chavez of WordAlone points out).
Moreover, common sense would reveal that the concept of adiaphora was used rarely by Luther. He used in once in his commentaries. If we do a search of the 55 volumes of Luther's Works we see that 12 0f 19 occurances happen in a few sections of the Formula of Concord. They are concerned with tne Melanchthan/Flaccius dispute over the Interim. Melancthon said certain church customs were adiaphora, but eventually recanted to Flaccius. Two lessons from this is that 1) there is no equivalence between an issue of whether there are seven sacraments of two and the issue of disregarding mutiple biblical injunctions against the practice of homosexuality and 2) Melanchthan lost. (hello?)
So, why propose the argument and why was it so popular amongst Lutheran theologians? Is it anything more than, "Because they wanted to?" or "They did it because they could?"
Ask a real theologian. The above reporter did:
"I wasn’t surprised, and I think the seminaries are washed in theology that is falling down to the culture of decadence,” explained Braaten, the Executive Director of the Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology. “More and more, this is the kind of Protestantism that is being absorbed by the culture.”
"Braaten said he knows "the people who drafted the counterstatement and their theology.” “There is no basis in scripture or tradition for what they are saying, so that means they are getting their ideas from contemporary culture,” said Braaten. “It has more to do with the collapse of Christian morality in Western culture.”
Now read, not a petitiion, but a real theological statement, well-crafted, succinct, touching on the several issues at stake:
http://www.thelutheran.org/0504/sexuality.html
I'm just a shrimp, but from where I swim, if the logic of the 107 trumps that of the 17, the future of the ELCA is very much in doubt.
Monday, May 02, 2005
fairly unbalanced
Gene, the "I'm not the gay bishop, I'm a bishop who is gay," Robinson spoke at a rally yesterday in Philadelphia making the 40 year anniversary of the birth of an agenda to make homosexuality normative in America (and about that long in the church).
NY Times gave its normal completely unbalanced coverage, that is, at the end, this little eye-popper
''There are thousands of people who have left homosexuality, including some on our staff. To say that one is born that way obviously flies in the face of facts,'' he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Rights-Rally.html?oref=login
Of course, all good liberals and moderates know that Focus on the Family is a hate group, right?
NY Times gave its normal completely unbalanced coverage, that is, at the end, this little eye-popper
''There are thousands of people who have left homosexuality, including some on our staff. To say that one is born that way obviously flies in the face of facts,'' he said.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Gay-Rights-Rally.html?oref=login
Of course, all good liberals and moderates know that Focus on the Family is a hate group, right?
Sunday, May 01, 2005
[some] "Episcopalians hopeful they will survive gay issue"
We bracket "some" because from what we can learn about them, some of them hope that their denomination will hurry up and split into two so that some of them can go and do what they really want, and the other half want the embarrasment to end.
ELCA folk must feel the same way. A quick look at statements show that the ELCA is lifting both language and actions directly from the ECUSA handbook.
So this is what they meant by "not a merger, but a common mission?" The plan was to burn both churches to the ground?
Our task force officially recommended that gay and lesbian couples be surrounded in prayer: "Commentary on the second recommendation said "the desire to provide the best pastoral care may motivate some pastors and congregations to surround same-sex couples in committed, long-term relationships with prayerful support. Surrounding persons or households with prayerful support does not necessarily mean public approval of homosexual sexual intimacy."
http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?a=2978&p=9
Read what Presiding Bishop Hanson's spin was before the Council decided to go ahead and ordain actively gay pastors (which sort of makes the "shall we do gay weddings?" MOOT)
http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?a=3020&p=13
You can read what Solid Rock wrote about that:
http://www.sldrck.org/documents/Critique_of_Task_Force_Report.pdf
Now, read the following and see if you can follow the bouncing ball:
"Despite angst on the part of many international peers, Bishop Griswold did not apologize for the American church's ordination of an openly gay bishop in 2003.
"He told the Deseret Morning News that U.S. bishops have agreed not to authorize "public rites of blessing (for same-sex couples) as though these were actions of the church. Really the church as a whole has to make that decision."
"But many U.S. bishops are "making some provision for private pastoral care" when it comes to blessing the union of same-sex couples within their own congregations, "recognizing that it's not a formal action of the church."
"Utah's own Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish aligns herself with that position, and requested last year that specific wording for the blessing of same-sex couples be formalized so local clergy have some format to rely on. But she has maintained the action does not have the authority of the church behind it and is simply offered as a way to care for gay and lesbian couples.
"Bishop Griswold said such actions are "consistent with the (faith's) General Convention, and also reflects the distinction the primates made between what is public and official and what is private pastoral care to gay and lesbian people within the context of the local congregation."
"The "fine line" between official blessing and unofficial blessing is a distinction Bishop Griswold acknowledged "would be difficult to comprehend" in many parts of the world, particularly among bishops who believe any recognition of same-sex unions runs counter to biblical teaching.
"It is our way of honoring the request that we not put forward in authorized fashion rites of public blessing. Many things happen in the life of a congregation that are informal with knowledge and encouragement of the local bishop, but they are not seen as formal actions committing the Episcopal Church," Bishop Griswold said.
"Opponents have charged that U.S. bishops are trumping the Bible in their determination to support homosexuality among members and clergy, but Bishop Griswold said the "Holy Spirit can do different things in different places" regarding what works in different cultures.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600130173,00.html
So now, ask the question whose answer is, "Because they could do it."
ELCA folk must feel the same way. A quick look at statements show that the ELCA is lifting both language and actions directly from the ECUSA handbook.
So this is what they meant by "not a merger, but a common mission?" The plan was to burn both churches to the ground?
Our task force officially recommended that gay and lesbian couples be surrounded in prayer: "Commentary on the second recommendation said "the desire to provide the best pastoral care may motivate some pastors and congregations to surround same-sex couples in committed, long-term relationships with prayerful support. Surrounding persons or households with prayerful support does not necessarily mean public approval of homosexual sexual intimacy."
http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?a=2978&p=9
Read what Presiding Bishop Hanson's spin was before the Council decided to go ahead and ordain actively gay pastors (which sort of makes the "shall we do gay weddings?" MOOT)
http://www.elca.org/Scriptlib/CO/ELCA_News/encArticleList.asp?a=3020&p=13
You can read what Solid Rock wrote about that:
http://www.sldrck.org/documents/Critique_of_Task_Force_Report.pdf
Now, read the following and see if you can follow the bouncing ball:
"Despite angst on the part of many international peers, Bishop Griswold did not apologize for the American church's ordination of an openly gay bishop in 2003.
"He told the Deseret Morning News that U.S. bishops have agreed not to authorize "public rites of blessing (for same-sex couples) as though these were actions of the church. Really the church as a whole has to make that decision."
"But many U.S. bishops are "making some provision for private pastoral care" when it comes to blessing the union of same-sex couples within their own congregations, "recognizing that it's not a formal action of the church."
"Utah's own Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish aligns herself with that position, and requested last year that specific wording for the blessing of same-sex couples be formalized so local clergy have some format to rely on. But she has maintained the action does not have the authority of the church behind it and is simply offered as a way to care for gay and lesbian couples.
"Bishop Griswold said such actions are "consistent with the (faith's) General Convention, and also reflects the distinction the primates made between what is public and official and what is private pastoral care to gay and lesbian people within the context of the local congregation."
"The "fine line" between official blessing and unofficial blessing is a distinction Bishop Griswold acknowledged "would be difficult to comprehend" in many parts of the world, particularly among bishops who believe any recognition of same-sex unions runs counter to biblical teaching.
"It is our way of honoring the request that we not put forward in authorized fashion rites of public blessing. Many things happen in the life of a congregation that are informal with knowledge and encouragement of the local bishop, but they are not seen as formal actions committing the Episcopal Church," Bishop Griswold said.
"Opponents have charged that U.S. bishops are trumping the Bible in their determination to support homosexuality among members and clergy, but Bishop Griswold said the "Holy Spirit can do different things in different places" regarding what works in different cultures.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600130173,00.html
So now, ask the question whose answer is, "Because they could do it."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The good ship ELCA...
Or the Shellfish blog...