QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Five Snippets

So it comes down to five Bible verses.

The argument that homosexuality is wrong, that homosexuality is sinful, has no other leg to stand upon – if it has any at all – than these five verses: two from Leviticus, one from Romans, one from First Corinthians, and one from First Timothy.

Some want to argue that homosexuality is wrong because it is harmful to others, but there simply is no evidence that homosexuality causes harm to others. The allegations made on this score are in error, and are offered only out of ignorance or sometimes malice.

Some want to argue that homosexuality is wrong because it is “unnatural.” And yet beyond a shadow of a doubt, homosexuality (a sexual attraction to those of the same sex) arises frequently in human beings and frequently in hundreds of other animal species. Nature is far from homogeneous; nature is given to variety and diversity. It is only out of ignorance (or, again, malice) that one would try to argue that homosexuality was unnatural. And is the naturalness of something our test of its morality?

The Indiana Yearly Meeting Minute on homosexuality says that “We believe the Holy Spirit and Scriptures witness to this” [homosexual practices as contrary to the intent and will of God for humankind], but I hear in our discussions only appeals to Scripture, not appeals to the Holy Spirit.

No, the only argument that might have any standing is the claim that there are five verses in Scripture that supposedly proclaim homosexuality to be sinful. Some people have come to call these the “clobber texts” because they have been repeatedly used to clobber gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people as sinful.

And so it matters how we read the Bible. The Bible is really a complex collection of books, some histories, some prayers, some letters, some imaginative stories, some poetry, some prophecy. Some of it is written in Hebrew, and some in a 1^st century conversational Greek even though Jesus spoke Aramaic. So translations have to be worked through. In the face of this complexity, we need a consistent approach to reading the Bible: we cannot read some passages one way, and some passages another. How we read the five clobber texts has to have some consistency with how we read what the Bible says about war, adultery, the role of women in the church, what foods we should eat, what we should do about wealth, what we should do about our desires, or hundreds of other questions.

At an Indiana Yearly Meeting annual session a year or two ago, the Bible came up in one heated session, and a pastor said “God-breathed” in the midst of the discussion, and others murmured, “God-breathed” in agreement. They were quoting 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

“God-breathed.” Yes, useful to remember. But what does it mean? What was “Scripture” when the author of 2 Timothy wrote these words? 2 Timothy was likely written towards the end of the first century C.E. There wasn’t yet a New Testament to which he could refer. Paul’s letters were written before the Gospels. The various manuscripts that are compiled into our New Testament were written and circulated in various collections over the first two or three centuries C.E., and weren’t accepted as an authoritative corpus until the late 4^th century by action of various gatherings of bishops (the Synod of Hippo, 393, the Third Council of Carthage, 397).

And who wrote 2 Timothy? The letter begins “Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, in keeping with the promise of life that is in Christ Jesus, to Timothy, my dear son: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.” But there are a good many reasons to doubt that it was Paul who wrote this letter. It doesn’t match the style of his other letters, and we can’t fit it into the sequence of his known travels as reported, for example, in Acts. Most Bible scholars take it to have been written by a follower of Paul, someone trying to copy his example. But what are we then to make of a letter that begins by telling us something that probably isn’t true?

2 Timothy is a letter with a good deal of holy wisdom in it. It is worth study and reverence. But we can hardly take it to be absolutely the literal, end-all truth because the not-Paul who wrote it, claiming he was Paul, tells us that other Scripture (not specified) is “God-breathed.”

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5-17). Jesus uses the Scriptures, which like his Jewish compatriots he would have considered holy but neither complete nor inerrant. More importantly, He invariably turns the meaning towards a new teaching. And his teachings often come in parables, the meaning of which we are led to puzzle through. His disciples were often confused and on the wrong track – the Bible tells us repeatedly. The parables do not yield their meanings easily.

So how come we to think that the Bible gives us its meanings easily and plainly to us? How can we grab a snippet of text and say “there, that’s clear,” especially when the snippet runs against the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount or the two Great Commandments? Especially when the snippet runs against the srong current of Jesus’s good news.

George Fox knew the Bible by heart as did many other early Friends. He already knew it by heart, however, when he was in his time of seeking and despair – and yet it did not suffice. When he had his epiphany on Pendle Hill, he didn’t say, “I see, the Bible is all we need. It’s a finished revelation that is utterly sufficient in all ways.” Instead he said, “Jesus has come to teach His people Himself.” We need the Holy Spirit to help us understand the Bible, a treasured book of incomparable wisdom and instruction. But to substitute the Bible for the Holy Spirit is not what Jesus has in mind when he tells us to “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind” (Matthew 22:37), reaching back to Deuteronomy 6:5.

Revering the Bible doesn’t mean thinking it an easy look-up reference, a closed book of act-by-rote-rule instruction. Jesus came to breathe a new spirit of love into the old law.

1 member likes this

Comment by James C Schultz on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 5:57pm: using the word justice is not recommended. I don't think any of us could handle justice. The best we can ask for is fairness and that is hard to get but I agree we all have a right to it. But I didn't think this was a discussion of fairness. I thought it was a theological discussion. I don't think any Quaker has any problem with homosexuals being treated fairly in the context of sectarian life. I think the problem is some of us believe we have a right to live in accordance with our own conscience and to choose to nurture our spiritual life, to the the extent that it is lovingly possible, amongst those of a similar conscience and I am not saying that that is even possible as God's ways are not my ways. Sorry if you disagree cousin Ben.

Comment by ben schultz on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 9:44pm: Read Thomas's nastiness and start wondering what this is like to hear, year after year from some very "nice" honestly seeking people. Sometimes it's just to much to bear and it's why "Christianity" in our context usually-well---sucks.
Oops, I should have said that with longer words.

Comment by James C Schultz on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 12:13am: It might be hard to believe but we all have problems to deal with. Overweight (or fat if you want a shorter word) people get bullied as do ugly ones, short ones, poor ones, mentally challenged, ethnic minorities. Homosexuals don't have a monopoly on not being treated fairly. Illegal immigrants get their share of hatred. None of it makes the way homosexuals get treated better but unfairness is the world we live in. Those of us in the US don't fully appreciate how lucky -see I can use a short word :) - we are. I just think trying to love those who persecute us - I guess in your case that would be me - is what we are called to instead of judging each other's intelligence or motive. In the end it doesn't matter what I believe. If you know God loves you then you don't need anyone's approval and if you are completely right good for you. In the meantime I will walk in the light I have while seeking more. God bless.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 1:50am: "And if someone slaps your brother's face, tell he should turn the other cheek, for other people get insulted and abused, and he might as well get used to it?"

I don't think there's any point in keeping score, re who gets most unfairly mistreated. It shouldn't happen, period.

I don't know to what extent unconscious hostility may, or may not, be biasing people's position on the actual religious question: "Does God object to homosexual behavior, per se?"

Where Jesus really comes into this, in a significant way, is how he reacted, consistently, to the established religious authorities' judgment and condemnation of people for harmless and necessary violations of what they considered to be Commandments of God-- but he called "the doctrines of human beings."

Now if you think that God has created certain people with harmless, common, but socially-stigmatized sexual desires-- and made these their only satisfactory outlet-- but expected them not to indulge such desires, because some passages in an often-confusing book claim He tells them not to-- although they themselves don't sense or believe any such thing... this doesn't fit, at all, with what Jesus had to say about God.

Comment by Irene Lape on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 9:18am: This conversation has to be one of the most difficult conversations to have these days. I hesitate to get into it myself because it is a quagmire - or at least it is for me. But I am feeling moved to share my sense of confusion. I am pretty sure there are others out there who share my feelings. Let me start by just saying a few things about the stream of comments so far. I think the introduction by Doug was very good. I am not sure I agree with everything, but I think he presented most of the arguments fairly. And the conversation has been good. I do disagree with the comment that about "Thomas' nastiness" - I don't see anything Thomas has said as "nasty." He's just saying what he thinks.

My own bottom-line involves the following:

1. I believe that what I hold to - the Truth as I see it - has to be something I discern (feel deeply and can find some words to articulate) - and must come from deep inside. My sense of what is right or wrong cannot be simply based on words I read in scripture.

2. But similarly, what I discern as true, cannot be based on words I hear all around me, from people who clearly want me to agree with them because they are completely sure what I should think. "The world" as Fox and early Friends clearly saw, can be a hard nut to crack, a hard foe to oppose. What "the world" IS in the issue we are talking about is not easy to discern. Is it the voice of the traditionalists who like the clarity of the "five snippets" and the apparently clear will of what is still the majority of Christian believers on this issue. Or, is it the loud, opposing voice of those who are challenging the tradition and asserting that any reluctance to affirm the legitimacy of gay love is somehow unbelievably backward, stupid and nasty. In some ways it depends on what "world" you are closest to. But the pressure is equally great from both sides. It is very difficult to settle in to a peace in which you can truly discern what God is saying in you on the issue.

3. For me the biblical verses are not decisive, but they are an influence. I am quite sure that the culture and tradition I mostly want to embrace as the source of the narrative that best opens God to me, is negative about homosexuality. And the "natural law" philosophy that has been almost equally influential in my own life also weighs against the new view that is challenging us all.

4. There have been a good many gay people in my life whom I have loved deeply - family, friends, students I have taught. And my faith demands really only one thing from me - that I love others, so that is where I try to start.

5. When it comes to the subject of marriage, I am mostly on board with Thomas and the traditionalists. I think there is something about the existential differences between male and female, the mutuality of natures and the place of conception in the idea of marriage, that I have great difficulty with seeing it enlarged to just be a commitment between two people.

6. Where I think I am right now is this: If the matter could be settled with a new reality like "civil unions" or "covenant relationships," I could probably be on board for an historic change in legitimizing and confirming same sex relationships. But deep inside I do not feel comfortable with changing what marriage is. That is just where I really am right now, and I do think a good many others feel similarly.

Comment by James C Schultz on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 9:30am: I don't think God created people with harmless sexual desires and I don't think they are "common". At least not in my definitition of common. I admit they are not "rare". And I am one of those people who do believe in turning the other cheek when it will calm things down rather than escalate a situation. This is all about the heart. Proverbs tells us to watch over our hearts with all diligence for from it flows the springs of life. Don't allow someone else such as myself to provoke you to the point of allowing resentment or bitterness into your heart. I am not worth it.
Since I am afraid that is what I am doing, I will refrain from further comments on this topic. I respect your position but I have prayed about this topic and will continue to keep it in prayer. It is too serious an issue for everyone for me to simply say the bible says it and I believe it, but so far I have no reason to not believe a homosexual life style is a sin. Not a greater sin than those I personally own but a sin nevertheless. God bless you and keep you in His grace and mercy.

Comment by Mackenzie on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 9:46am: Irene:

An idea I see put about frequently is to have "civil union" be the ONLY legal status for joining two people, and make it what both same-sex and opposite-sex couples get. Then leave marriage for the religions to define. Want to be joined in the eyes of both your faith community and the law? Get a marriage and a civil union. Only care about the law? Just get a civil union. Only care about the faith community? Just get a marriage.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 11:07am: James & I agree that the best response to hostility is to try to accept it without returning it; it just isn't something we can rightly require of someone else while they're in pain from such hostility. When last I checked, there were at least 200 homeless kids on the streets of my county, thrown out of their homes, often violently. Sometimes just abandoned there. "Fat" was sometimes the reason for this; and I've seen perfectly nice people be shockingly cruel to one of their children about that condition. But being "gay" was definitely the most common reason. We really can't know what anyone else suffers from popular contempt-- and aren't entitled to downplay someone else's suffering.

To know God the way Jesus did... is not to escape all restraint. But it does bring one's relation to God far beyond law codes and regulations.

Comment by ben schultz on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 1:11pm: The image of the recent hearings on contraception come to mind here, a room full of old white guys sitting in careful judgment of womens right to their own fertility, not a woman in the room. I think that though this kind of exercise would be relevant for a Talmudic exercise, but for friends?

No wonder we have such little relevance.

Comment by Aaron Clark on 3rd mo. 28, 2012 at 11:13pm: Your sexuality is chosen for you at birth and cannot be changed. And the idea that any loving intellelgent God would be against something you are born with and cannot change I find makes that God out to be very stupid. The bible is not always clear on certain things and you get the bible to say whatever you want it to say. Not mention most people only believe what they believe about the bible because their were raised to believe that way.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.