God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference.
~ Reinhold Niehbuhr ~
It is ironic that in this nation, where the right of an individual to be an individual was first inscribed into a constitutional bill of rights, there continues to be a struggle over affording such rights to LGBT individuals who are only seeking equal protection under law and within the framework of societal norms to marry the person they love, to establish their homes in peace, to raise their children without fear, to contribute to their communities, and to serve their nation with honor.
Promoting and preserving the human and social rights of LGBT individuals is very important to the welfare of this nation and the world. That they are being questioned and threatened by some ultra-conservative groups and individuals within the United States on the basis of religious freedom is disturbing and has the potential of undermining the very thing they are purportedly trying to save. I quoted Reinhold Niehbuhr's prayer, better known as the serenity prayer, because it marks a milestone in religious thought and provides us with a paradigm for how to think religiously and how to move forward.
Promoting and preserving the human and social rights of LGBT individuals is very important to the welfare of this nation and the world. That they are being questioned and threatened by some ultra-conservative groups and individuals within the United States on the basis of religious freedom is disturbing and has the potential of undermining the very thing they are purportedly trying to save. I quoted Reinhold Niehbuhr's prayer, better known as the serenity prayer, because it marks a milestone in religious thought and provides us with a paradigm for how to think religiously and how to move forward.
Let me be very clear from the onset of this post:
Homosexuality is not a disease, and it is not a disorder, whereas homophobia is both a social disease and mental disorder.
I know LGBT individuals who are caring, contributing, and creative people. I have worked in mental health all my life and I can attest, first hand, how disordered homophobia is. Homophobia is not just a mental disorder, it is a dangerous mental disorder that has resulted in the murder of people and it can spread socially.
Homosexuality is not a disease, and it is not a disorder, whereas homophobia is both a social disease and mental disorder.
I know LGBT individuals who are caring, contributing, and creative people. I have worked in mental health all my life and I can attest, first hand, how disordered homophobia is. Homophobia is not just a mental disorder, it is a dangerous mental disorder that has resulted in the murder of people and it can spread socially.
Since religion and, in particular, a certain understanding of Christianity is at the heart of a tragic and dangerous devolution by politicians into theology, I thought it would be good to pause and consider what exactly politicians are basing their political theology on. So what I am offering is a quick excursion through Biblical texts upon which some are basing a right to openly to display their fear and opposition to the LGBT community in destructive ways.
In Western and Mideast culture the discrimination and persecution of homosexual individuals is connected to Abrahamic monotheism and its one prohibition against homosexuality. It has taken centuries, after the rise and establishment of Abrahamic monotheism as the predominant religious perspective, for LGBT individuals in the West to gain some acceptance to live openly as such. In fact, the social acceptance of LGBT individuals is so new that there are still laws on the books in some U.S. states that engaging in any homosexual activity is illegal.
A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM
Discrimination against LGBT individuals is a religious problem that, thankfully, a growing number of Christian and Jewish denominations are owning and are finding, as Niehbuhr said, the courage to change their ways because there have always been homosexual people from the dawn of human existence and there always will be homosexual people. The fact is this is not going to change. Homosexuality cannot be eradicated. Homosexuals cannot be converted. Now that these facts are out of society's closet, it is doubtful that homosexuality can ever be suppressed back into that closet.
As one LGBT slogan puts it, "Some people are Gay. Get over it!"
That the rights of gay and lesbian individuals has become connected to the issue of marriage is new, but looking at marriage in ancient societies might help us "get over " the fear that surrounds that issue. Without going into a great deal of detail, let me provide a thumbnail excursion into the historical identification of the problem as associated with the rise of monotheism in the ancient kingdom of Judah.
SEX IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES
As early as the building of Solomon's temple in Jerusalem, the wise King Solomon understood, what almost every king understood at the time, the importance of making alliances in order to protect one's kingdom. Alliances at this time were sealed through marriage and Solomon made a lot of alliances, around 700 by the Biblical record. With marriage comes religion.
Solomon didn't require that his wives change their religion. On the contrary, it was understood that in allying one's self through marriage one accepted the gods and goddesses of that partner's kingdom of origin. The temple in Jerusalem soon became a center for polytheistic worship. At this time, the idea of only one God was not a consideration. Strict monotheism comes relatively late in antiquity. The Hebrew scriptures will attest to that. Along with those religions came religious practices, many of which involved sexual rituals for the purpose of ensuring fertility of the land. The connection between agrarian fertility and sexuality goes back to prehistory. Sexuality in all its forms became part of these rituals, including homosexuality.
Fast forward to the reign of King Manasseh, Solomon's great, great. great... grandson, several generations later. Manasseh was the longest reigning monarch in the Kingdom of Judah, some fifty-plus years, and by many accounts his was one of the most successful reigns. He is particularly noted in the Book of King and Chronicles for "re-introducing" idolatry to Judah (it was always about and around the area) after his father, the more biblically respected Hezekiah, banned it. Manasseh was particularly devoted to and set up shrines around the countryside to the Canaanite and Phoenician goddess, Asherah and the god, Mollech. He is reported as having fully participated in these rites, including the sacrifice of his own children. He also erected shrines to these gods and goddesses in the Temple of Jerusalem.
Included in the Temple cult were male prostitutes presumably used for fertility rituals, but the term prostitute indicates that these male individuals were used recreationally, implying casual sexual relations with men outside of ritual. So when the theological concept that there is only one God, the God of Abraham, becomes firmly established in the kingdom of Judah, the Temple is purged of its idols, along with its male prostitutes.
As monotheistic rigidity becomes the order of the day, the ability of kings to ally themselves to other kingdoms is curtailed and within a relatively short period of historical time, the kingdom of Judah falls to the Babylonians, the Temple is destroyed, and the elite of this kingdom are packed off to live in Babylonia. What is evident, even in Hebrew scripture, is that those kings who married most and married well provided the best economic and political security for their kingdoms.
SENSELESS SEX
So onto the topic of sex - Monotheistic scribes around this time asserted that only Yahweh is God. They started writing down Hebrew oral tradition around the 7th century BCE in what we have come to know as the Torah or the Books of Moses (some scholars would date some parts much later than that).
[No - Moses did not write these books. They were ascribed to him to lend authority to them.]
In one of them, the Book of Leviticus, we find the first and only specific prohibition against homosexuality.
[No - the story of Sodom (where the term sodomy comes from) and Gomorrah is not the first indication of God's disapproval of homosexuality - The entire Book of Genesis is neither fact nor history. Its entire content is mythic (I will write about the role of myth in the Bible in future posts.) That the story of Sodom and Gomorrah may have been included to provide some backing for the prohibition against homosexuality and incest in Leviticus and monotheism.]
The Book of Leviticus (named after the priestly tribe of Levi) is noteworthy because it specifically is dealing with priestly function and life style in order to keep Temple worship pure and free of idolatry - thus we see the connection to male prostitutes in the Temple. It is also an early theological work that is differentiating monotheism from polytheism by its vehement opposition to anything associated with the worship of idols and their practices. This became particularly important in maintaining Jewish identity during the Babylonian Captivity. As such, Leviticus is designed to establish differences between what becomes Judaism and other religions of the time.
Keep this in mind as you read the list of prohibitions that follow. You will notice the biggest concern for these scribes was to address incest which apparently was widely practiced.
I will be using the King James Version (KJV) throughout this post.
* * * * * * * * * *
Leviticus 18
5 Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the Lord your God.
6 None of you shall approach to any that is near kin of him, to uncover their nakedness:* I am the Lord.
7 The nakedness of thy father, or the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover: she is thy mother; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
8 The nakedness of they father's wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father's nakedness.
9 The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or the daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover.
10 The nakedness of they son's daughter, or of thy daughter's daughter, even their nakedness thou shalt not uncover: for their is thine own nakedness.
11 The nakedness of they father's wife's daughter, begotten of they father, she is thy sister, thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
12 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's sister; she is thy father's near kinswoman.
13 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they mother's sister; for she is thy mother's near kinswoman.
14 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy father's brother, thou shalt not approach to his wife; she is thine aunt.
15 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law; she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness.
16 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of they brother's wife; it is thy brother's nakedness.
17 Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, neither shalt thou take her son's daughter, or her daughter's daughter, to uncover her nakedness; for thy are her near kinswomen; it is wickedness.
18 Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister to vex her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.
19 Also thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is put apart for uncleanness**.
20 Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife to defile thyself with her.
21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Mollech***, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith; neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto; it is confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things; for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
* Nakedness is translated as sexual relations in other versions
** refers to a woman's menstrual period
*** Mollech refers to the king of the Canaanite gods. This verse is understood to mean a prohibition against sacrificing one's child to this god, as in burning the child alive. - Manasseh?
* * * * * * * * * *
[A follow up to this list if found in Leviticus 20 which states the punishment for these offenses. With the exception of Vs. 19 above, all of them resulted in being sentenced to death.]
I know this can be a tedious read, but take a close look at it. If you have another translation, read this passage in it. Can you see anything missing?
Let me give you a clue. Look closely at verses 22 and 23. Now do you see what's missing?
Why is there only a prohibition of men having sex with men? Why not women having sex with women?
The only thing women are prohibited from in this long list is the implied prohibition of sex with one's father and not having sex with an animal. [Certain animals were associated with various ancient gods and goddesses.] All the other prohibitions are being addressed to men. Why is that?
Simple answer is that the authors of the Bible didn't understand the reproductive system.
They didn't understand sex.
They didn't understand sex.
BIRDS AND BEES IN ANTIQUITY
So let's deal with the facts about sex at the time in which Leviticus was written. Have you ever noticed that in the Bible if couple is childless it is because the woman is considered "barren?"
What ancient people understood about sex is intimated in this list prohibitions. It demonstrates an understanding that if a male and female of any species or possibly between species had sexual intercourse the result could be offspring. The term barren when applied to a women was an agrarian simile. Seed doesn't grow in land considered barren, where the nutrients necessary for growth were lacking. Likewise a man's seed (sperm) would not grow in the barren field of a woman's womb, thus being childless was a woman's problem.
Ancient people could only base their understanding of sex on observation and making the connection between cause and effect. They knew that women had menstrual periods which played a role in the reproduction cycle, that men produced seed, and that sexual intercourse produced offspring.
"To every thing there is a season... "A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plan, and a time to pluck up that which is planted" Ecclesiastes 3:1&2
That's it.
Since men obviously had seed, it apparently was never considered it to be ineffective seed, even though one could have deduced that from agriculture. The problem with proving that, however, was that it could only be demonstrated if a man's wife was impregnated by some other male. If that occurred (and it did) both the man and the woman involved would have kept quiet or face being publically executed. You don't hear about "barren men" or male erectile dysfunction in the Bible.
Ancient people could only base their understanding of sex on observation and making the connection between cause and effect. They knew that women had menstrual periods which played a role in the reproduction cycle, that men produced seed, and that sexual intercourse produced offspring.
"To every thing there is a season... "A time to be born and a time to die; a time to plan, and a time to pluck up that which is planted" Ecclesiastes 3:1&2
That's it.
Since men obviously had seed, it apparently was never considered it to be ineffective seed, even though one could have deduced that from agriculture. The problem with proving that, however, was that it could only be demonstrated if a man's wife was impregnated by some other male. If that occurred (and it did) both the man and the woman involved would have kept quiet or face being publically executed. You don't hear about "barren men" or male erectile dysfunction in the Bible.
The lack of a prohibition of a woman having sex with another woman didn't mean women didn't have sexual relationships with other women back then. History will inform you that they did. It's just that it didn't matter. Why? Well... one can think of several reasons why that might be the case. First of all, polygamy was practiced by men in the kingdoms of Israel and Judah at this time as referenced in these prohibitions and found in verses 8 & 9. Depending on how many wives one had, this meant that not all would have had sexual relations with their husband on a regular basis. You can catch my drift where this is going.
The other reason for a lack of prohibition on the subject is that women, in general, didn't account for much unless they bore children, especially sons. They were considered property (like a field). Sons were not only important to the man in the patriarchal system, but if a woman in that system failed to have a son to look after her should her husband die, she would have no viable means of support and either had to rely on the beneficence of a husband's brothers or other relatives and that didn't happen often. In fact, prophets in the Bible consistently demanded justice for the widow and the orphan.
The other reason for a lack of prohibition on the subject is that women, in general, didn't account for much unless they bore children, especially sons. They were considered property (like a field). Sons were not only important to the man in the patriarchal system, but if a woman in that system failed to have a son to look after her should her husband die, she would have no viable means of support and either had to rely on the beneficence of a husband's brothers or other relatives and that didn't happen often. In fact, prophets in the Bible consistently demanded justice for the widow and the orphan.
The closest one can get in the Hebrew Scriptures to anything close to a prohibition for women and sexual identity is in Deuteronomy 22:5 which deals with cross-dressing:
"The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."
There's no real explanation for this verse found in the text.
SEX IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
What did Jesus say?
Jesus never specifically addresses the topic of sex. He talks about marriage and he only addresses the issue of marriage because he was asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife.
Here's Matthew 19:3-6:
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh: wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'" [KJV]
The same story is repeated in Mark 10.
Jesus is talking about heterosexual marital relationships. What one finds in Jesus' narrative is that marriage was understood to be a "binding relationship." Jesus's strong statement of the two being no more "twain but one flesh" is a clever means of protecting women in these relationships. If the man wants to divorce his wife, Jesus is saying he is, in essence, tearing out his own flesh.
Jesus had a knack for not addressing issues that weren't specifically brought up. Since no one brought up the topic of homosexuality, Jesus didn't address it. That may leave some to conclude that Jesus being Jewish we can assume he would have frowned on it. Maybe... but...
As demonstrated with by the above exchange he had with the Pharisees on marriage, it's obvious no one at the time would have taken any of Jesus' responses for granted. Why else did the Pharisees approach him about something they already had the answer to? Jesus was very good at throwing curve balls at his detractors. There is simply no way of knowing what Jesus would have said, and we must leave it at that. One cannot contrive from Jesus' comment about marriage what his attitude towards or view of homosexuality was.
Marriage amongst common folk were also about establishing proprietary claims in antiquity. Marriages were largely arranged for that purpose. The poorer two people were the more likely they married for love and/or protection. Nevertheless, females continued to be treated like property than anything else, and if the couple of an arranged marriage ended up loving each other, (and we can assume many did) good and well, but if they didn't, as noted in conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees, it was understood a man could easily dump his wife with little or no cause to which Jesus said, "No."
Who one married back then was not a personal choice. Those who fell in love and sought marriage needed to seek approval from their fathers or a male patriarch. Traces of this ancient practice is till found in many Christian weddings in the form of "giving the bride away" as in when a priest or minister says, "Who give this woman to this man? - an echo of a past where women were considered the property of their fathers until married off.
Frankly, sex was understood as sealing the deal. The first sexual encounter on the wedding night was (via examination of the bed sheets) proof of the woman's goods. Marriage then and now is about establishing a proprietary covenant or contract of who is responsible for whom.
Check out Deuteronomy 22 again to see what kind of penalty a husband would have to pay for accusing his wife wrongly of not being a virgin after the first night of marriage. Not much, other than being stuck with her for the rest of his life.
The issue of same-sex marriage is only an issue because gay and lesbian couples have been denied proprietary rights and responsibilities to each other. That sexual orientation has become a concern for some is a clearly a religious concern, not a civil one.
Paul
Lesbians finally received some press in the Bible by none other than the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. In the very first chapter Paul says this:
24 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own heart, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who change the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." [KJV]
In a strict reading of Paul's letter to the Romans, one would have to conclude the homosexuality is something God bestows on people as a punishment for idolatry. Undoubtedly this goes back to Paul's understanding of the connection between idolatry and male homosexuality in Leviticus. Paul was probably reacting to all the nude statutes that literally covered ancient Greek and Roman cities, as noted in his observation " Who... worshipped and served the creature... ."
With all those very human-looking, nude gods and goddesses distracting or attracting a person, one's sense of sexual morality could be loosened. I find his response revealing. Obviously all this nudity and sexual frivolity was too much sensory overload for Paul. It triggers for Paul a rather traditional Jewish response when he says at the end of verse 25, " the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Oy veh!
Paul, being Paul, will go on in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 6, to make a list of people who will have a problem making it into heaven:
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkard, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All thing are lawful unto me, but all thing are not expedient: all thing are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
One good thing (and there are good other things) about Paul is that he does not advocate violence against homosexuals or any one, as we saw in the Leviticus. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul's reaction is more about the looseness of moral conduct in the Greek and Roman society at the time(and they were very loose). In particularly, Paul is concerned about such conduct amongst the member of the small Christian community in Corinth.
He identifies homosexuality in this context of seeing it used abusively, along with a number of other abusive behaviors. It is the abusiveness in human relationship that Paul is really addressing. As much as Paul might found some behaviors repulsive, he is stating that he knowingly accepted homosexuals into the church.
Paul is strongly advocated that difference is not cause to take legal action which he see as an obstruction to the Gospel message; something Christian political theologians should take note of.
Paul makes an interesting statement at the end of this list. He says:
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." 1 Corinthians 6:12
In other words, what Paul is admitting that these situations exist (things that can't be changed), but not to let any one particular issue define one's life. For Paul the only true definition of a full self was to identify with the mind of Christ.
Let's be honest, we all have issues, and we all possess the capacity to make our own list of issues.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
What has been presented in this post demonstrates there is no clear mandate against individuals being homosexual in the Bible. In fact, the Bible makes the case that homosexuality has been around for a since the dawn of human existence and it is not going away. Any prohibition against it found in the Bible resides within a specific context that argues against broad or universal application.
The fact is the Bible offers very little support to any of the human rights that have been identified since the abolition of slavery in the United Stated in the mid-19th century.
Let's face it, some individuals still haven't come to grips that slavery is wrong. Some still struggle with the rights of women to vote and receive equal pay because the Bible is fairly prescriptive when it comes to how a woman should dress and act in public.
If the Bible were taken literally, women would still be treated as property and made to stop wearing jewelry and makeup. They would be made to stay at home, and away from the workplace. Their lives would be totally dependent on men. Slavery would exist because there is no prohibition against slavery in the Bible. Paul's letter to Philemon provides proof of that. The Bible simply does not address or provide answers to all our problems today because it is a product of the time in which it was written.
Insisting on a literal interpretation of Abrahamic monotheism in the sense that the Bible, a collection documents written over two thousand years ago, contains all the answers to all our questions today is sheer nonsense. The insistence that one particular, minimally addressed issue of a bygone era, must define an issue of our day is the elephant in the room regarding the human rights of LGBT individuals.
There is a huge difference between the concepts of being People of the Book and being People by the Book. To treat the Bible as something as having a literal meaning carved into granite is nothing short of ideological idolatry. With that said, various Christian and Judaic denominations are evolving and finding ways to offer broad support for the human rights of LGBT individuals; to support these individuals for who they are, to promote that they be allowed to live in society free of oppression or suppression within the context of a living, life-giving, and loving understanding of sacred scripture. They are trying to rectify their stance on things that cannot be changed and to make needed changes in order to accommodate what is just and right, and they are courageously leading the way for others religious people to follow.
COURAGE Jesus never specifically addresses the topic of sex. He talks about marriage and he only addresses the issue of marriage because he was asked if it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife.
Here's Matthew 19:3-6:
3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, 'Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh: wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.'" [KJV]
The same story is repeated in Mark 10.
Jesus is talking about heterosexual marital relationships. What one finds in Jesus' narrative is that marriage was understood to be a "binding relationship." Jesus's strong statement of the two being no more "twain but one flesh" is a clever means of protecting women in these relationships. If the man wants to divorce his wife, Jesus is saying he is, in essence, tearing out his own flesh.
Jesus had a knack for not addressing issues that weren't specifically brought up. Since no one brought up the topic of homosexuality, Jesus didn't address it. That may leave some to conclude that Jesus being Jewish we can assume he would have frowned on it. Maybe... but...
As demonstrated with by the above exchange he had with the Pharisees on marriage, it's obvious no one at the time would have taken any of Jesus' responses for granted. Why else did the Pharisees approach him about something they already had the answer to? Jesus was very good at throwing curve balls at his detractors. There is simply no way of knowing what Jesus would have said, and we must leave it at that. One cannot contrive from Jesus' comment about marriage what his attitude towards or view of homosexuality was.
Marriage amongst common folk were also about establishing proprietary claims in antiquity. Marriages were largely arranged for that purpose. The poorer two people were the more likely they married for love and/or protection. Nevertheless, females continued to be treated like property than anything else, and if the couple of an arranged marriage ended up loving each other, (and we can assume many did) good and well, but if they didn't, as noted in conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees, it was understood a man could easily dump his wife with little or no cause to which Jesus said, "No."
Who one married back then was not a personal choice. Those who fell in love and sought marriage needed to seek approval from their fathers or a male patriarch. Traces of this ancient practice is till found in many Christian weddings in the form of "giving the bride away" as in when a priest or minister says, "Who give this woman to this man? - an echo of a past where women were considered the property of their fathers until married off.
Frankly, sex was understood as sealing the deal. The first sexual encounter on the wedding night was (via examination of the bed sheets) proof of the woman's goods. Marriage then and now is about establishing a proprietary covenant or contract of who is responsible for whom.
Check out Deuteronomy 22 again to see what kind of penalty a husband would have to pay for accusing his wife wrongly of not being a virgin after the first night of marriage. Not much, other than being stuck with her for the rest of his life.
The issue of same-sex marriage is only an issue because gay and lesbian couples have been denied proprietary rights and responsibilities to each other. That sexual orientation has become a concern for some is a clearly a religious concern, not a civil one.
Paul
Lesbians finally received some press in the Bible by none other than the apostle Paul in his letter to the Romans. In the very first chapter Paul says this:
24 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own heart, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who change the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves the recompense of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient." [KJV]
In a strict reading of Paul's letter to the Romans, one would have to conclude the homosexuality is something God bestows on people as a punishment for idolatry. Undoubtedly this goes back to Paul's understanding of the connection between idolatry and male homosexuality in Leviticus. Paul was probably reacting to all the nude statutes that literally covered ancient Greek and Roman cities, as noted in his observation " Who... worshipped and served the creature... ."
With all those very human-looking, nude gods and goddesses distracting or attracting a person, one's sense of sexual morality could be loosened. I find his response revealing. Obviously all this nudity and sexual frivolity was too much sensory overload for Paul. It triggers for Paul a rather traditional Jewish response when he says at the end of verse 25, " the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen." Oy veh!
Paul, being Paul, will go on in his first letter to the Corinthians, Chapter 6, to make a list of people who will have a problem making it into heaven:
7 Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?
8 Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud and that your brethren.
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkard, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
12 All thing are lawful unto me, but all thing are not expedient: all thing are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.
13 Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.
One good thing (and there are good other things) about Paul is that he does not advocate violence against homosexuals or any one, as we saw in the Leviticus. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul's reaction is more about the looseness of moral conduct in the Greek and Roman society at the time(and they were very loose). In particularly, Paul is concerned about such conduct amongst the member of the small Christian community in Corinth.
He identifies homosexuality in this context of seeing it used abusively, along with a number of other abusive behaviors. It is the abusiveness in human relationship that Paul is really addressing. As much as Paul might found some behaviors repulsive, he is stating that he knowingly accepted homosexuals into the church.
Paul is strongly advocated that difference is not cause to take legal action which he see as an obstruction to the Gospel message; something Christian political theologians should take note of.
Paul makes an interesting statement at the end of this list. He says:
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any." 1 Corinthians 6:12
In other words, what Paul is admitting that these situations exist (things that can't be changed), but not to let any one particular issue define one's life. For Paul the only true definition of a full self was to identify with the mind of Christ.
Let's be honest, we all have issues, and we all possess the capacity to make our own list of issues.
THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
What has been presented in this post demonstrates there is no clear mandate against individuals being homosexual in the Bible. In fact, the Bible makes the case that homosexuality has been around for a since the dawn of human existence and it is not going away. Any prohibition against it found in the Bible resides within a specific context that argues against broad or universal application.
The fact is the Bible offers very little support to any of the human rights that have been identified since the abolition of slavery in the United Stated in the mid-19th century.
Let's face it, some individuals still haven't come to grips that slavery is wrong. Some still struggle with the rights of women to vote and receive equal pay because the Bible is fairly prescriptive when it comes to how a woman should dress and act in public.
If the Bible were taken literally, women would still be treated as property and made to stop wearing jewelry and makeup. They would be made to stay at home, and away from the workplace. Their lives would be totally dependent on men. Slavery would exist because there is no prohibition against slavery in the Bible. Paul's letter to Philemon provides proof of that. The Bible simply does not address or provide answers to all our problems today because it is a product of the time in which it was written.
Insisting on a literal interpretation of Abrahamic monotheism in the sense that the Bible, a collection documents written over two thousand years ago, contains all the answers to all our questions today is sheer nonsense. The insistence that one particular, minimally addressed issue of a bygone era, must define an issue of our day is the elephant in the room regarding the human rights of LGBT individuals.
There is a huge difference between the concepts of being People of the Book and being People by the Book. To treat the Bible as something as having a literal meaning carved into granite is nothing short of ideological idolatry. With that said, various Christian and Judaic denominations are evolving and finding ways to offer broad support for the human rights of LGBT individuals; to support these individuals for who they are, to promote that they be allowed to live in society free of oppression or suppression within the context of a living, life-giving, and loving understanding of sacred scripture. They are trying to rectify their stance on things that cannot be changed and to make needed changes in order to accommodate what is just and right, and they are courageously leading the way for others religious people to follow.
No one should be permitted the right to display their disapproval of another human being by the public shunning and persecution of that person or of an identified group simply because of who they are. To base such practices on ancient religious texts is senseless and an affront to human decency, dignity, and progress. It tarnishes the concept of God and religion as a whole.
Times have changed and our understanding of ourselves and our world has never been better. In order for religions rooted in antiquity to survive they must evolve and remain relevant to the present. The major religions of the world have a responsibility "to get their act together" and demonstrate within their distinct traditions mutual respect of each other and to promote the mutual respect of the person in all people.
The fact and the truth of the matter is that human are diverse beings. We're not just men, just women, just straight, just gay, just lesbian, just bisexual, just transgendered just black, just white, just Asian, just Native American, just Hispanic, just Irish, just Italian, just Japanese, just Christian, just Hindu, just Muslim, just Jewish, just Buddhist, just... etc. . Each person is multi-faceted. Humans cover a spectrum of creative interests and passions from artists to zoologists.
Also, humans are naturally prone to discrimination. We are after all the discriminating animal. [Read the creation myth (story) in Genesis 1 through 4]. It's part of our intellectual ability to identify difference. We know now, as never before, that our discriminating capacity requires restraint when applied to other human beings.
Without personal or legal restraint we tend to focus on the differences we see in the other to the degree that it can foster unwarranted fear and hatred of the other. This is well demonstrated in our history and by the evidence presented in ancient religious scriptures themselves like the Bible.
We should learn from history's mistakes and not treat them as precedent. Ancient sacred writings require deep understanding as opposed to trite literal applications so that the cause of human decency, dignity and respect of each person is advanced. To do otherwise is to portray and court ignorance as intelligence.
My friend, the apostle Paul had the courage to accept what couldn't be changed and the courage to change what he could as found in one of his most interesting comments about himself: "
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations , there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure." 2 Corinthians 12:7
I don't know what Paul's flesh-thorn was, but it was bad enough for him to attribute it to Satan; meaning he had no personal control of it. I'm glad he didn't tell us because we can fill in the blanks of whatever it is we can't change in ourselves and in our world. Paul' recognized that his only option was to accept what could not be changed in himself or to despair.
Most of us have experienced situations in our lives that we cannot change; that we must accept. Have you ever observed what happens to people who can't accept what cannot be changed? Have you noticed how life becomes miserable for them? How they entertain fear? How they become bitter and/or hostile?
In accepting what cannot be changed, most us have found the ability to move on with life. This is one of meanings we can extract from the resurrection story of Jesus. [See my last post on Getting Real With Easter]
There's a line in the Gospel of John, that offers a broader application than its context. It says, "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free."
We know the truth that some people are gay.
We know the truth that there have always been LGBT individuals and will always be LGBT individuals.
We know the truth that sexual orientation cannot be scared or converted out of someone.
We know that the courage to be true to one's self is opening many closet doors.
We know the truth that world peace is dependent on accepting the things that cannot be changed and changing the things that can.
Homosexuality is not a disorder or a disease, whereas homophobia is a mental disorder and a social disease that can spread.
We need wise leadership in our nations and in churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other organizations.
We need wise leaders who have the courage to help us to accept the things that cannot be changed, and the courage to help us change what we can.
We need wise leaders who can tell the difference.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment