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 Clem Gerdelmann on 6th mo. 19, 2013 at 8:29am: Friends, I believe I have put my finger on the problem here. The "Five Snippets", like five fingers of the human hand, are dangerous, even lethal, when combined and closed into a fist. Similarly, when someone points a finger at someone else's "problem", there's usually three fingers pointing back to the source.

Comment by Irene Lape on 2nd mo. 7, 2014 at 4:12pm: People hear what they want to hear and see the Scriptures as they can read them as consistent with other convictions they have. I think the article at this site provides some evidence that homosexual sex may be somewhat more "harmful" than heterosexual sex. You can check it out: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=Is01B1

I personally am at the point where I think we must be patient and see what the fruits of the revolutionary modern approach will be. I wish we could all agree that "marriage" was between a man and a woman. Those gay men and women who believe that they have the same commitment to their partners enter into a "covenant relationship" and let us love them despite our difficulty in really "getting it." It may be "something new" that God is bringing through them; it may be a big mistake but one made in good faith. I cannot know whether the doubts I have were instilled in me by my society or planted in me by God to speak to the condition of our society. I cannot deny that I have gut-level reservations and doubts. I cannot deny that many of those seeking to forge this new path seem motivated by love.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 2nd mo. 7, 2014 at 6:16pm: I am led to write the silliest sounding words that have ever approached my consciousness and conscience in a year.

In the Presence of Christ there is no gay or straight as there is no male or female. In Christ there is no outward scripture. In Christ, there is no alcoholic. In Christ, it is not for me to deny only to acknowledge. Even as I acknowledge that which I do not wish to validate. Why must we bind our consciousness and conscience to the letter rather than the Life behind the letter. Who among us is going to suggest the Presence and eternal life is not right there within each and every gay individual. Who is growing to throw the stone and deny Christ within an individual. I cannot deny the Presence within each and every person, whatever the life choices. If I deny the Presence within people who manifest life differently than me, my conscience tells me I deny the Presence within me; even as my conscience directs me on a different life path and concsience. In the direct presence of Christ, scripture is lifeless form that only binds consciousness and conscience.

It is said.

Comment by Barbara Harrison on 2nd mo. 7, 2014 at 7:48pm: Indeed.

Comment by Olivia on 2nd mo. 7, 2014 at 11:06pm: Keith,

Then it sounds like we have a fundamental misunderstanding about what "the Christ" actually is, don't we?

(it's funny how people don't think this more often. when miracles don't happen in our midst -- the walking on water kind, and the healings -- we still assume we're on the right track and wouldn't dare imagine that we may have missed the boat and be the people who God's power is not with!)

But couldn't we all sit down and say: "Wow! Given the trouble we're having with this topic and the lack of ability to make collective scriptural sense of it and our tendancy to offend one another and react to one another, maybe we don't understand rightly how to read the Bible or even who this Christ is, and what the message is?"

No...

It's true that it's easy to point fingers at others but that includes all the "clarity" people may have about the original post-er. Where is our ability to rest and to not React all over one another?   Where is the Spirit at our own center guiding us in how to allow the Spirit at the center of others too, and how to encourage it?   What is telling us that something else matters more than that?

Or is this type of conversation the result when we are all afraid to sit down and just feel the unruly Spirit at work which doesn't give us neat answers? We'd rather be chatting online, I guess. :-)    and clearly I identify with that...   (going now to face the crazy Spirit / God a while before bed -- wish me luck!)

Annie Dillard has a great passage about this whole sort of thing -- I think of it often. There are many quotes on this page... it's the one that starts out "On the whole, I do not find Christians, outside of the catacombs, sufficiently sensible of conditions." ha

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/5209.Annie_Dillard

love to all!

Comment by Barbara Harrison on 2nd mo. 8, 2014 at 4:56am: ummn: maybe we just aren't RECOGNIZING the miracles in our midst? As a child in the 1950's it was difficult for me to believe there would still be human life still on the planet at the turn of the century. Anyone here wanting to claim G*d DIDN'T have a hand in preserving us??

Comment by William F Rushby on 2nd mo. 8, 2014 at 11:02am: As I have argued earlier, Doug Bennett's use of the Bible here is a case of proof-texting.

Comment by Olivia on 2nd mo. 8, 2014 at 5:00pm: Just a clarification:

Keith, I appreciated your last post and found your talk about "the Christ" able to inspire me on in my discussion (didn't want it to read as if I was saying "I disagree with your definition of 'the Christ'").

I see that our friend Forrest has another related discussion starting up here.

Comment by Ken Baxter on 2nd mo. 9, 2014 at 8:55am: God-breathed. As Origin of Species, or any number of other works, was 'God-breathed.' My opinion (or am I led by God?) is that reading and using the Bible as practically a fetish is often minimally a disservice to relating to God.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 9, 2014 at 4:06pm: Each person is "God-breathed," but some of our output is better than some of our other output. Same with the Bible, which was given much of its final form by the priests who ruled Israel as a Temple-state under the Persian Empire. [When I say 'final form' I don't mean that even then they had anything like a standard Exodus, say, of which the other copies would be copies. The written copies were like sheet music for a somewhat ad-lib performance of material people carried in their memories most of the time, even while studying together.] This was the xenophobic period in which [for example] the Samaritans were alienated and rejected by the Jerusalem regime; and many mixed marriages were forcibly broken up.

I don't know that _Origin of Species_ is much help towards an understanding of God; but I do find many books besides the Bible which can be. The Bible too "can be" but for that one needs "eyes to see" and "ears to hear."

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
…
4
5
6
Next ›

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.