The Muncie Star Press has an article entitled Billboards spark Biblical debate about homosexuality. The story has to do with a recent billboard campaign citing a Bible verse and saying, “Jesus affirmed a gay couple.” I’d love to do a long blog post on this, but I don’t have the time at the moment. However, I did want to mention that I love the potential for debate that this brings. My incomplete research suggests that Jesus didn’t have much to say one way or the other about homosexuality. Most of the anti-gay passages of the Bible seem to come from older texts that are routinely ignored on other subjects — for example, Leviticus and its dietary commandments, endorsement of slavery, and the like.
If this kind of thing gets traction, I think what it can do is put forward the case that the Bible really isn’t a solid foundation on which to base an anti-gay viewpoint. If those who are against gays want to persist, they’ll have to come up with something more convincing. At least that’s my hope. My suspicion is that reason and Bible quotations won’t make a difference. Some people just have an emotional need to dislike The Other, and rationality has nothing to do with it.
Im sure I will stand corrected,and I apologize in advance for talking religion,but there needs to be more honest examination on all matters of faith as it relates to PUBLIC policy.Those who ‘talk Bible’ are always on one side. In my view, Jesus emphasis on Biblical sin is on the forgiveness side and strong on reconcilitation,not in the defining and of the naming of the sin and the branding of the sinner with a scarlet letter. People came to Jesus to be forgiven,so they already had a definite view of how they had sinned and no one had to define for them what the sin was and Jesus is quoted as saying afterwards. ‘go and sin no more’ He did not give a speech on morality afterwards to the reconciled .No need for public laws on sin, as sin is reconciled person by person in a quiet unobtrusive way. Law is a legal matter,not a moral one.Didn’t Jesus also say ‘Render unto Caesar what is his and render onto The Lord what is His’? (paraphrased quote)
This quote is the best Biblical reference I’m aware of for the need for separation of church and state.Jesus himself divided Caesars domain from God’s domain as far as taxes are concerned,so the precedent has been established!I have never seen any conflict between Church and state .its always been clear to me that there is a clear division.There’s no conflict between science and creationism either,but this the danger of religion when we are made to see one.
No need to apologize for talking religion. It’s a post about the Bible, after all.
A couple of weeks ago, I was reading the Gospel of Matthew, and there were a couple of things that stood out to me about Jesus’ rabble rousing in Jerusalem (and make no mistake, he was a huge thorn in the side of the religious conservatives of the day). First, I’m always taken aback when I read his warning against ostentatious prayer — “be not as the hypocrites” and all of that. The flagrancy with which this is ignored by many Christians, particularly those who are active in politics, is astounding.
Second, when the conservative priests are trying to trap him in some legal nicety, he basically cuts the Gordian knot and says, essentially, there are two primary rules upon which all else is based. First, love God with all your heart. Second, love your neighbor as yourself. As I have said before, I’m not a religious person, so the first commandment in particular is problematic. Still that is powerful stuff and seems very rarely reflected in the rhetoric of politically active Christians. Seems to me, if this Christian Nation of ours actually knew what was in the Bible, a lot of these political charlatans would get kicked to the curb very quickly.
Doug –
My reading of the Bible [especially the New Testament and the Gospels in particular] is that it is not a solid foundation for hating anybody.
I wish Fred Phelps’ eyes would be opened to that – along with wishing that he and his ilk would spend their time silently cleaning up roadside litter, or something else useful.
I’d pay for any number of orange safety vests to help make that happen…
This is likely going to shock quite a large number of people, but there are a number of congregations that teach love, compassion and forgiveness and aren’t welcoming of Phelps, Eric Miller, et all.
I think the New Testament’s admonishments towards homosexuality came more from Paul then Christ. As Paul’s writings are typically used as foundation for the structure of churches (after all, his letters were written to new congregations that had no idea what being a Christian was), that’s likely where it comes from.
As the plank in my eye is considerably larger than the speck in yours, I’ll worry about my household and let God pass judgment.
Lou,Parker, Doug: very well said.
The scribe: also well said (falling off chair as I type this.)
I would agree that the Bible as a whole is not anti-homosexual, although you certainly can find a passage here & there that might support that view (just like previous generations used to find passages that in isolation would support the institution of slavery, etc.). My fear is that these billboards might have the opposite of their deired effect as far as “enlightening” people & might cause a backlash. Maybe they already have. For example, the “Jesus affirmed a gay couple” billboard directs the reader to Matthew 8:5-13. If a person grabs a copy of a Bible in any of the standard translations, they’ll read a story about a centurion who asks Jesus to heal his servant, & Jesus does so & praises the centurion’s faith. The average joe will read that & say, “what does that have to do with affirming a gay couple? They’re trying to pull a fast one on me.” There is scholarship out there suggesting that the centurion & his servant were homosexual lovers, but that’s not evident from just reading a standard translation of the text. Most people, however, are not going to delve that far into the issue but will stop at just reading a standard translation & feel misled by the billboard, & distrust other attempts at finding “support” for homosexuality in the Bible. In other words, a billboard or a yard sign can’t address such a complicated issue adequately & they necessarily have to oversimplify it–thus causing some to label the billboards/signs as “lies.”
Maybe that’s the problem with observing the bit about ostentatious prayer — if the peace, love and understanding congregations are active in politics, they simply aren’t as visible as the grandstanding hypocrites.
As to the writings of Paul, it’s probably presumptuous of me, but I don’t care for them and tend to think that the “Pauline heresy” as I like to call it started the Christian Church down a path that was at odds with Jesus’ message — at least as I read that message in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and (very rarely read by me) John.
First of all, I am a true fundamentalist, believing the Bible is the inspired and perfect Word of God. Therefore, I also believe that homosexuality is a sin, as listed in the Bible, but it is not any different than being an alcoholic, a perpetual liar, or a murderer. It is a perversion of a natural and good human tendency, like all sins. However, I believe those outside the church look at its fight against homosexuality as anti-homosexual. There is no doubt people like Phelps do possess an anti-homosexual stance, but his viewpoint does not echo the vast majority of Christians. Instead, most churches today are open to homosexuals, but pastors are not going to limit themselves from preaching the truth, that homosexuality is a sin. Pastors are able to speak against drunkeness, sexual immorality, and many other sins, but if they preach against homosexuality, there are labeled bigots. This is ridiculous. Churches are filled with sinners, but what seperates them from those outside the church is their desire to follow Christ, striving for holiness.
When I first drove by one of these signs, I will say I was definately taken by suprise. Am I anti-homosexual? No. Do I believe this passage is about a gay couple? I do not know. I have not had a chance to do an exegesis of the passage. Yet, even after reading it as the two men were homosexuals, it still does not say Jesus ‘affirmed’ their lifestyle. Jesus heals and visits several sinners in the New Testament, but he never ‘affirms’ their sin. Instead, many times he confronts their sin, but not always. I think the problem with these signs is the word ‘affirm’ because it suggests Jesus is not against homosexuality, but rather condones it. If the word had been substituted with the word loves, then I believe the response would have been different. I do not believe any Christian or anyone else could have any ground to argue differently than that.
What’s the thought behind continuing to disapprove of some Old Testament sins like homosexuality, but not others – for example, touching a woman while she is menstruating (Leviticus 15:19-24), eating shellfish (an abomination, just like homosexuality per Leviticus 11:10), and working on the Sabbath (an executable offense per Exodus 35:2)?
Josh brings up some very good points.How do we deal with the relativity of sin invariably evident in our emphasis on any particular sin and to the exclusion or de-emphasis of others.I believe the Bible is divinely inspired and I also believe all religion has a cultural biais we cannot escape.We all have our favorite sins and our favorite virtues.. depending on our upbringing ,how we we were taught and what feedback we get from those around us. I wouldn’t presume to even guess what else motivates us to believe certain things to the de-emphasis of other things,all taught as one catechism.How do we keep our perspective and where do we find our moral rudder? I go back to a post above to what I think is the basic measure of how we view everything we profess to believe:
There are two primary rules upon which all else is based.
“First, love God with all your heart. Second, love your neighbor as yourself’ this was posted above by someone who claims not to be religious. It should point out to us all that a self-proclaimed ‘non-religious person’,if that be the case, can still pick out what is basic and true in a set of religious values,and that certain concepts may be just basic human perception,so let us be humbled by the mystery of it all.
That was my post above, Lou. And, it’s correct that I’m not religious. I was raised a Presbyterian but abandoned the faith when I discovered that I had no basis for preferring one religion above the next — and I figured that simply adopting a religion because it was embraced by my parents wasn’t particularly rational.
For a period of time, I fancied myself something of a philosopher. After awhile, though, a lot of philosophy struck me as just so much intellectual masturbation.
Now, I guess I’m just a guy who tries to do right by my family, friends, and neighbors.
Lou, your turn of phrase, “let us be humbled by the mystery of it all” reminded me of some lyrics in Bruce Cockburn’s “Lovers in a Dangerous Time.” I’m not sure they’re particularl applicable here, but I’ll post some of them anyway:
Come to think of it, given that the original topic had to do with homosexuality, I guess “Lovers in a Dangerous Time” is apt.
“As to the writings of Paul, it’s probably presumptuous of me, but I don’t care for them”
I hope that’s St. Paul.
I think where you stand on the sinfulness or acceptability of homosexuality hinges on whether you believe the practice of homosexual sex is inherently harmful.
I think that it is – but I am more convinced of this for male homosexuality than for female, because of the differing nature of the mechanics of the sexual relationships.
I’m influenced by the fact that every eight weeks when I donate blood, the screening form always asks if I “have had sex with a man, even once” since some time in the 1970’s.
I don’t think the blood bank has an anti-gay agenda – so my inference is that male homosexual sex puts one at risk of something that would harm them, and that this harm could be passed on to others. The history of AIDs, as far as I know it, seems to offer some support for this.
My opinion is based on the fact that I believe that harm is being done, not that a homosexual orientation makes a person evil, or unworthy of equal protection before the law.
Yup. And when you’re canonized, things are going to get awfully confusing around here.
I’m hoping to become the patron saint of time zones.
I would add to this to Parker’s comments. I don’t think homosexuality will ever be accepted on a moral basis,but the question is rather ‘Do we judge homosexuality morally for exclusion,or is it an issue of civil rights for inclusion ? we haven’t,as a culture, arrived at ‘civil rights inclusion’ yet,but the under 30 generations are much more likely to look at gay as a civil rights issue.No way that’s true for the older generations,but the older generations had no interaction with gays.It was basically taboo.
Tainted blood comes from promiscuity and that’s an issue with unmarried younger men,either gay or straight.Culturally ‘sowing oats’is ‘almost’ expected of men.And it’s a big problem with gay men’s relationships,since there is no easy way to anchor a relationship legally. Does the blood bank ask if you’ve had sex with multiple partners? Or if you used protection? Those would be the most logical questions. I think gay marriage would do a lot to stabilize sexual relationships for gay men and over all be good for all marriage,and certainly greatly diminish promiscuity.
And certainly all promiscuity is harmful as it disorients human relationships as well as passing disease.
Doug,
Thanks for the reference to Bruce Cockburns lyrics.Poetry and music have always lamented the shortness of life and the urgency to love before it’s too late.
Perhaps it’s the discussion of promiscuity, but the cynical part of my mind suspects that the emphasis of poets and musicians on an urgency to love has something to do with wanting to talk young ladies out of their inconvenient notions of virtue.
Consider, for example, Robert Herrick’s To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time. I translate that poem to, roughly, “Hey, pretty young lady, you’ll be ugly and old soon, so you’d better enjoy men’s attention while they’re still interested.
Lou –
They don’t ask about promiscuity in so many words, but they do ask if I have given or taken either money or drugs to have sex with anyone – that’s something of a proxy question, although they don’t have anything to filter out hetero ‘swingers’ that I can recall.
No questions about protection, either, although they do ask whether you are donating just to be tested for the AIDS virus (my understanding is that they will point you to free testing, if that is the case).
It’s an interesting set of questions, and is updated from time to time – it includes a number of questions about foreign travel. [And makes me think that I’m leading a pretty quiet life – who are these people trading money and drugs for sex in sub-Saharan Africa?]
My take is that they are trying to obtain as many donations as they can, while keeping the blood supply as protected as they can – so I don’t think politics and/or civil-rights agendas are much involved.
For those of you I can convince to donate, note that you get free cookies and juice, and you can call them afterward to get your overall cholesterol count and blood type. The couches are comfortable, too!
Pila, perhaps another way you could’ve said that was to state even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. ;)
I think by their very nature, congregations like mine (and many others) refrain from seeking the limelight. We exist to serve Christ and the community (in that order), not to serve a political agenda. You may actually be surprised that there are so many of us out there.
Doug, that’s an oft-used but legitimate point. I’m not versed or intelligent enough to answer it exactly (and perhaps not to your liking), except to hide behind my original statement that most Christian congregations I’m aware of (and I know few people who’ve been a member of more churches than I have) use the writings of Paul far more than those of Leviticus, or other books of The Law. Paul was rather specific regarding his condemnation of homosexuality, so today’s churches take his cue from that. However, he was also quite specific regarding a number of other sins as well, and we tend to view all sins equally.
Bingo. Well put Josh.
here is the part that I don’t get. there are several “flavors” of christianity, with some being at odds with others. for example, some don’t think catholics are “real” christians. some think mormon’s are really a cult.
there are some churches that take paul’s admonition of women cutting their hair to heart and the women in those congregation avoid great clips like the plague. others don’t think it’s that big a deal.
i’ve always heard it said that christ wants us to have a personal relationship with him. to me, personal doesn’t include anyone but me and him.
so here is the part that i don’t get. if the mcc church wants to believe that is what those verses say, why is everyone so up in arms about it? isn’t this america? aren’t we free to worship whomever we choose and however we choose to?