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 Andy Bonnell on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 10:22am: "The allegations made on this score are in error, and are offered only out of ignorance or sometimes malice." I agree that such allegations are in error, but I object to the claim that they "are offered only out of ignorance or sometimes malice." Thinking of the meeting I attend, several weighty Friends come to mind who would endorse those allegations. A rather larger number of equally weighty Friends there would not endorse them, and in this matter I may know something that those on the other side don't know. However, it is so patently obvious that I have more to learn from each of the elders of our meeting than they have to learn from me that it would be not only insolent, but silly for me to use the word "ignorance" to characterize them. As for "malice," I must confess that when I visualized the people I know from meeting with whom I disagree about homosexuality and thought of them as being driven by malice, I laughed out loud.

Comment by ben schultz on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 12:53pm: Yes, the measured loving polite musings of our elders, no matter how much they may harm with their, "oh so thoughtful", ideas. No matter how much death and fear these little talks might engender.
So lovely.
Why sometimes they might wonder about how slavery (instructions for doing in bible) might not have been quite so bad.
Hell with em.
My life and love is not up to your discussion, there is no room for debate. One may be peacefull and still insist on justice.

Comment by Thomas Kent on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 2:07pm: Jeff,

Unfortunately what you have written here will do a great deal of harm to young people struggling with same sex attraction. For anyone to tell them that this is the way things are and that there is no hope for change is truly reprehensible.

Using words like homophobia against Christians is wrong and hateful. For an individual or church to call homosexual behavior a sin does not make them homophobic.

As Christians, we are not allowed to judge those outside the church. However, Scripture clearly teaches us that we are to judge those who claim to be Christians and living in sin. We don’t get to choose what things are sinful. This has already been decided by God.

We may not all agree on what the bible teaches but we live in a society that values freedom of speech. Tolerance is something the gay community is sorely lacking. We should not tolerate bullying of children in any way shape or form. We should also not tolerate gay activists trying to force their agenda on churches. This is also “bullying”.

If someone doesn’t like a particular church’s position on homosexuality then they should just find a church that agrees with them. It’s quite simple.

Holding you in the Light,

Tom

Comment by Mackenzie on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 2:12pm: Thomas:

How will telling young people "it's ok" do anywhere near the harm to them that suicide will?

Comment by Thomas Kent on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 2:26pm: The chances are just as likely someone will commit suicide if they are told there is no hope for change or that they are told not to worry and that everything is okay when they know in their heart that everything is not okay.

Comment by Thomas Kent on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 2:51pm: I will no longer be posting on this issue. I will continue to hold everyone in the Light.

Comment by Mackenzie on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 2:52pm: I'm not sure what kind of change you mean. If you mean celibacy, well yes, that's a choice. So is marrying someone you're not actually attracted to.

But "reparative therapies" (attempts to "straighten out" people) have been found to be extremely dangerous. The APA recommends against them. If you are unfamiliar, I suggest the documentary This is What Love in Action Looks Like, featuring Friend Peterson Toscano who spent years in a residental reparative therapy program. He's since spent years in therapy to undo all the "I am the absolute scum of the earth" feelings instilled. These "therapies" aim to work by using shame and self-hate to force people back into the closet. They teach the person to believe themself to be totally depraved and unable to be saved, that they are despised by God and Jesus unless they get fixed. I don't think "Jesus hates you" is a message of hope.

John Smid used to run the residential program that Peterson attended and that is in the documentary. He has since admitted that he never met anyone who successfully became straight. He now calls himself a heterosexually-married homosexual. Being honest about himself, he admits that he is still attracted to men and therefore homosexual. I suppose that means he has to use a vivid imagination when having relations with his wife. Anyway, he now runs a different ministry, which instead of preaching "Jesus hates you for being gay" preaches "We're all sinners, and Jesus loves you anyway."

I'll believe that homosexuality is being treated as just a regular old sin, not some special superclass of super duper evil sin... when it is treated the same as a child disobeying their parents by eating a cookie before dinner, divorce, or lying when asked "do these jeans make me look fat?"

Comment by Andy Bonnell on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 3:21pm: Psychologist Thomas Joiner found that a combination of three factors put a person most at risk of committing suicide: a low sense of social belongingness; a high sense that one is a burden to others; and a lack of fear of death. Clearly, an aggressive, insistent preaching that homosexuality is sinful can only keep LGBT youth from feeling that they belong; an expensive and time-consuming course of anti-gay therapy can only make them feel like burdens; and a social environment in which a demand for gender conformity overshadows everything else can only reduce their fear of death. So these things, when they appear together, may very well promote suicide among young same-sexers. As for what I mean by "a social environment in which a demand for gender conformity overshadows everything else," I hope you can understand why I have to cite as an example your own remark that "If someone doesn’t like a particular church’s position on homosexuality then they should just find a church that agrees with them. It’s quite simple." If every disagreement about homosexuality requires a schism, then homosexuality must be a matter that isolates people from each other in some radical way that makes similarities in other matters either impossible or irrelevant.

That said, if we're serious about reducing suicide in general or even suicide among LGBT youth, we need to do a lot more than simply adopt a relaxed attitude towards gender nonconformity. I agree with you, Friend Thomas, that angry demands for tolerance are of little worth. Only peaceful people can make peace, and one can be peaceful only when one earnestly seeks that of God in every one.

Friend Ben, I invite you to visit our meeting. You'll find people who, if you ask them, will express a variety of opinions about homosexuality. What you won't find are people who are likely to volunteer those opinions, or to show signs of wanting to recruit God as an ally in a war against you or anyone else. If you do winkle their views out of them, the more old-fashioned among our weighty friends may quote the cherry-picked Bible passages Doug discusses in the post, but if you encourage them to go on until they get to what is rally bothering them, they will likely explain them in terms of their own positive experiences with marriage and other heteronormative institutions and their concern that others not miss out on the blessings they themselves have derived from those institutions. You and I may agree that this is a misplaced concern, but I find it impossible to detect any malice in it.

Comment by Nicholas Churchill on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 3:30pm: "We don’t get to choose what things are sinful. This has already been decided by God."

At one time, slavery was considered moral, sanctioned by Scripture. Did Friends and others go against the will of God by calling it a sin when God did not? At one time, it was customary to stone adulteresses to death. The Bible sanctions this. Do we go against the will of God by calling this sinful and immoral? If we have grown as human beings - if we have the capacity to call "immoral", things which can be said to be condoned by Scripture, then why do we not have the ability, when standing in the Light, to do the opposite as well? To say that something once thought "sinful", is not a sin?

In the past, marriages were arranged, and each half of the couple was expected to have children, to be of the same faith, race, and often social class, with the husband "governing" the wife and having the right to physically discipline her if need be. All of this was connected to Scripture. We no longer believe that married couples MUST have children, that sex is ONLY for procreation, or that any other of these details must be adhered to. Have we gone against the intent of the Creator thereby?

In the past, people who embraced the Protestant faith were called sinners by Catholics, and Scripture was used to explain and justify aspects of the "true" Roman Catholic religion. Did Bible fearing protestants agree with this, or was their understanding different? We clearly have come to various understandings over the centuries as to what "sin" means, and what love means as well. When we listen to that "still, small voice", it rarely says (in my experience) "Why arr thou seeking me in this manner? Everything I have to say to thee is in My Book."

Comment by Andy Bonnell on 3rd mo. 27, 2012 at 3:41pm: Good point, Friend Nicholas. You remind me of what Doug says in the original post when he comments on Jesus as a reader of Scripture, that "He invariably turns the meaning towards a new teaching."

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.