Shades of things to come

At some point, I'd like to be able to dedicate a series of posts to the issues of homosexuality and same-sex marriage and the Church's response. As it is now, I simply don't have the time to give it the attention it deserves. I did want to share this article however. Regardless of your opinions on this opinion piece, this is a great example of how the debate is currently being framed. There is an unblinking equivocation - fair or unfair (I believe unfair) - between the issues of race and sexual orientation. Christians who believe that homosexual sex is a sinful behavior (as I do) should not be surprised when they are labelled as a bigot. "I love gays. I just don't endorse the lifestyle and I don't think that they should be allowed to marry. I'm not a bigot though. I love gay people!" But when the argument is being framed in already long established civil rights lines, you will be perceived as a bigot - regardless of your attitude. A nice racist is still a racist.


Opinion: Bigotry drags marriage back to Supreme Court - CNN.com

Fiorenza's Hermeneutical Authority

Schussler Fiorenza approaches the biblical text with a "hermeneutics of suspicion rather than with a hermeneutics of consent and affirmation." According to her feminist theory, "all texts are products of an androcentric patriarchal culture and history." Males not only wrote them but also have dominated their interpretation. Consequently, one must engage in a two-tier demythologization and "reclaim the Bible and early Christian history as women's beginnings and power." Because the text is the word of men, it is not authoritative and "cannot claim to be the revelatory Word of God." The Bible itself must be liberated from its "perpetuation and legitimization of such patriarchal oppression and forgetfulness of, silence about, or eradication of the memory of women's suffering."

Rather than appeal to a "canon within the canon"...Schussler Fiorenza calls for a "canon outside the canon." She proposes "that the revelatory canon for theological evaluation of biblical androcentric traditions and their subsequent interpretations cannot be derived from the Bible itself but can only be formulated in and through women's struggle for liberation from all patriarchal oppression." The New Testament is not the archetype--an ideal, unchanging, timeless pattern--but a prototype, an original, to be sure, but "critically open to the possibility of its own transformation." The text itself is no longer the interpretive authority; rather, the "personally and politically reflected experience of oppression and liberation must become the criterion of appropriateness for biblical interpretation and evaluation of biblical authority claims." The Bible "no longer functions as authoritative but as a resource for women's struggle for liberation."

In sum, "a feminist paradigm of critical interpretation is not based on a faithful adherence to biblical texts or obedient submission to biblical authority but on solidarity with women of the past and present whose life and struggles are touched by the role of the Bible in Western culture." Women's experience in their contemporary struggle against racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression is the standard by which to approach and interpret Scripture. Thus only those portions of Scripture "that transcend critically their patriarchal frameworks and allow for a vision of Christian women as historical and theological subjects and actors" are worthy to be considered divine revelation and truth.

from David Kling, The Bible in History (New York: Oxford, 2004), 302-303.

Is America Israel or Egypt?

Well, it depends. I suppose understanding the origins on this nation in biblical terms was a temptation too strong to resist. When you consider 1) the alien nature of the land for European settlers and 2) the deeply religious worldview of those settlers, it is not surprising in the slightest that they would interpret their settlement in a new and alien continent in religious terms. It would be more surprising if they didn't understand their discovery and settlement of this new world in religious terms. Consider the nature of the land.  This was an altogether new land--full of resources and danger--that seemed to miraculously appear on their map at just the right time for their "salvation." Then consider the first European settlers. These settlers worshipped a God of Providence who was in control of every part of life and society. And they had fled religious tryanny in England in search of a more authentic experience of religion. It would have been more surprising if they did not make sense of their experience using biblical imagery and language. This is what Bible people have always done.

The story that they gravitated toward more than any other was the story of the Exodus of God's people from Egypt. They interpreted the story typologically - the story of the Exodus provided a pattern that was being repeated among God's people in their own generation. Of course, now England was Egypt and the New World was Canaan.

Consider the following quotes from David Kling...

John Winthrop, governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, announced to his fellow voyagers on the deck of the flagship Arabella in 1630, "The Lord will surely break out in wrath against us...and make us know the price of the breach of such a covenant." He closed his sermon by quoting Moses: if we follow the Lord and keep his commandments, we will be blessed; if our hearts turn away in disobedience, we will surely perish (Deut. 30:15-17).

In their poem, "On the Rising Glory of America" (1771), Philip Freneau and Hugh Henry Brackenridge...described America as the site where "another Canaan shall excel the old."

When war broke out between England and the colonies, Nicholas Street uplifted the parallels between the biblical exodus and America's condition in his sermon "The American States Acting over the Part of the Children of Israel in the Wilderness and Thereby Impeding Their Entrance into Canaan's Rest" (1777). He identified the wilderness as a condition in which the British (Egyptians) and the British tyrant (Pharaoh) were "endeavoring to oppress, enslave and destroy these American States."

Benjamin Franklin suggested the scene of Moses with his upraised staff parting the Red Sea while Pharaoh and his army drowned as the collapsed wall of water engulfed them. The motto: "Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God." Thomas Jefferson proposed the less violent episode of the Israelites being providentially guided out of Egypt by a cloud during the day and a pillar of fire at night. In the end, the eagle--the classical sign of ancient republics--was chosen for the seal, though it alluded as well to the biblical eagle of Exodus 19:4, where God informs Moses, "I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself."

In "The United States Elevated to Glory and Honor" (1783), Yale's president Ezra Stiles hailed the new nation as God's American Israel" and exuded with optimism over the "future prosperity and splendour of the United States."

In his "Conquest of Canaan" (1785), Timothy Dwight, Stiles' successor at Yale, envisioned American "by heaven design'd, The last retreat for poor, oppress'd mankind."

The Reverend Samuel Langdon, in "The Republic of the Israelites an Example to the American States" (1788), expressed the widely accepted view that George Washington was America's Moses.

In his Thanksgiving Day sermon, "Traits of Resemblance in the People of the United States of America to Ancient Israel" (1799), the Reverend Abiel Abbot observed, "It has been often remarked that the people of the United States come nearer to a parallel with Ancient Israel, than any other nation upon the globe."

The story of this country does not just include white European settlers, however. It also includes the experience of African slaves. Kling points out "As blacks knew only too well, there was a tragic irony to Americans' claim to be the new Israel--the reality of an enslaved old Israel in their midst. America had become a New Canaan for whites, but at what cost to blacks?" As these slaves learned about the God of their masters and came eventually to even worship that same God, it became clear to many that the story of the Exodus was really their own story. In an incredibly bold and subversive move, slaves began singing spiritual songs about crossin' over into Canaan land. They would sing lyrics like...

Gwine to write Massa Jesus,To send some Valiant soldier, To turn back Pharoah's army, Hallelu!

America, at least the Southern states, was their Egypt. And they were eagerly awaiting liberation (There is a little debate about exactly what kind of liberation black slaves were groaning for - physical/spiritual/both?) from their white Pharoahs. Thus began a long tradition in the African American community that continues today of reappropriating the story of the Exodus as a story of suffering, heartbreak, and eventually liberation for the black community.

David W. Kling, The Bible in History: How the Texts Have Shaped the Times (New York: Oxford, 2004), 206-207.

Racial liberation and the gay marriage debate

One of the interesting side-plots in the whole gay marriage debate - especially since President Obama publicly announced his support - involves the disposition of the black church towards the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in general. James Cone announced his feelings loud and clear here. Of course this position comes as no surprise. Many within liberationist (both racial and gender) circles have been associating the causes of racial justice, gender justice, and sexual justice for years. Desmond Tutu, for instance, has said, “We struggled against apartheid because we were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about. It is the same with homosexuality. The orientation is a given, not a matter of choice. It would be crazy for someone to choose to be gay, given the homophobia that is present.” The reasoning is this: The Gospel is a message of liberation. The Kingdom is upside down - humbling the powerful while giving power to the powerless, chastizing the elite while comforting the marginalized. This is the guiding principle of liberation theology. And, despite the many flaws (and there are many) of liberation theology, it must be granted that the kingdom IS truly upside down and counter-cultural. We can (and will) argue and debate about how to best implement or practice this kingdom principle - but the principle itself is biblical and powerful.


Here is the question however: Does scripture regard issues of race and gender in the same way that it regards issues of sexuality? Because homosexuals are relatively powerless. They are certainly marginalized. Should the arguments applied to racial or gender liberation be applied to sexual liberation as well? The answer from scripture is clearly "no." William Webb's redemptive movement hermeneutic illustrates this point pretty well. This is why most who associate sexuality with race and gender will choose to make arguments based on the fallibility, ignorance, or outright homophobia of ancient people especially Paul. Paul was just mistaken or perhaps he was closeted himself. If he would have been as enlightened as we certainly are, he would not have said those nasty things about homosexuality (or the dozens of other sins that we energetically try to justify in our own lives). Of course no one wants to be labeled a bigot or closed-minded. And this is unfortunately becoming the popular assumption. If you are against gay marriage, you are against civil rights, you are closed-minded, hateful, and probably dangerous. You might as well be one of those rednecks from the deep south spraying water hoses at black teenagers during the civil rights protests in the 60's. Classic straw man - falsely associating a person's beliefs with those of another, more despicable person for the purpose of dismissing or underminding their arguments. Clearly we are called to love and reconciliation. And clearly, we shouldn't treat homosexuality as some sort of "unforgiveable" sin (1 Cor. 6:9-11)! But if we are interested at all in taking scripture seriously on this topic, we must acknowledge that it does in fact call this "sin." It is just not regarded in the same way as race or gender. And to attempt to bully black churches (or anyone) into this position just because of their race (and their politics) is, frankly, insulting.

Tribal Metanarrative

I include this video not for political reasons. I am no fan of Harry Belafonte - his music or his politics. I think that his viewpoint is caustic, dismissive, and laughable if it wasn't so racist.  I am also no fan of Henry Cain. I do typically vote conservative in most elections, but I simply don't know enough about Cain to have an informed opinion on him. I also don't believe that Belafonte represents the thoughts of most or even many African-Americans. His views are on the extreme fringe. The reason why I linked to this video is because of what it demonstrates. It demonstrates the dangers of the type of tribalistic thinking that often accompanies liberationist theologies. Tribalistic thinking allows us to handily separate people into "good blacks" and "bad blacks," "good women" and "bad women," "good evangelicals" and "bad evangelicals," etc. based on how faithful an individual is to the accepted narrative of their tribe. If you occupy a certain tribe (or rather, as is most often the case, if I have placed you into a certain tribe independant of your personal feelings), then you must think, act, and talk in a certain way in order to be "good." In this case, it turns blackness into nothing more than an ideology or dogma.

http://youtu.be/5fxjQ5h6Ri4

Chomsky on Liberation Theology

Phyllis Trible on Feminist Hermeneutics

Here is a link to an article by Trible helpfully explaining and demonstrating a feminist hermeneutic.

Presbyterians Revisit Traditional Trinitarian Language

A feminist rendering of trinitarian language...

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060321/presbyterians-consider-triune-mother-child-and-womb/index.html

Homosexuality and Religion

A (mostly balanced) discussion of the issues related to homosexuality and religion including biblical interpretation.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/homosexu3.htm

A short example of homosexual hermeneutics...

Anti-gays hide their bias behind the Bible - CNN.com

Meaning and Authority in Interpretation

Liberationist/Advocacy Summary

Meaning: In praxis
Authority: Praxis
Question: Does this interpretation encourage social change and brotherly love?

Feminist Hermeneutics

Fiorenza makes it clear that the point of departure is not the bible as normative authority. Rather, women’s experience and their struggle for liberation becomes the locus of authority. The canon is not the Bible but the struggle. The Bible becomes a prototype, or what she calls a formative root model, from which examples and insights are taken that explain one’s struggle to find one’s place and to find solidarity with those women that are recounted in the biblical religion. Fiorenza stresses with power and pointedness the fact that all interpretation of the Bible has come from an advocacy point of view, whether that advocacy happens to be patriarchal or feminist or, I might add, black, Asian, Reformed, Wesleyan, liberal or evangelical. Fiorenza wants to argue in reconstructing her feminist hermeneutic that everyone has an advocacy position in the interpretation of the Bible. She wants to make clear what hers is and challenges all others to do the same.

David M. Scholer, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Evangelical Biblical Interpretation,” Evangelical Review of Theology 1 (January 1991): 309.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. There is no biblical sex ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand year span of biblical history. Mores are unreflective customs accepted by a given community. Many of the practices that the Bible prohibits, we allow, and many that it allows, we prohibit. The Bible knows only a love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominant in any given country, or culture, or period…Our moral task, then, is to apply Jesus’ love ethic to whatever sexual mores are prevalent in a given culture. This doesn’t mean everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus’ love commandment…Approached from the point of view of the Spirit rather than the letter, the question ceases to be “What does Scripture command?” and becomes “What is the Word that the Spirit speaks to the churches now, in the light of Scripture, tradition, theology, and, yes, psychology, genetics, anthropology, and biology?” We can’t continue to build ethics on the basis of bad science.

Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink, 9-10.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

No doubt Paul was unaware of the distinction between sexual orientation, over which one has apparently very little choice, and sexual behavior, over which one does. He seemed to assume that those whom he condemned were heterosexuals who were acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up,” or “exchanging” their regular sexual orientation for that which was foreign to them. Paul knew nothing of the modern psychosexual understanding of homosexuals as persons whose orientation is fixed early in life, or perhaps even genetically in some cases. For such persons, having heterosexual relations would be acting contrary to nature, “leaving,” “giving up” or “exchanging” their natural sexual orientation for one that was unnatural to them…And Paul believes that homosexual behavior is contrary to nature, whereas we have learned that it is manifested by a wide variety of species, especially (but not solely) under the pressure of overpopulation. It would appear then to be a quite natural mechanism for preserving species. We cannot, of course, decide human ethical conduct solely on the basis of animal behavior or the human sciences, but Paul here is arguing from nature, as he himself says, and new knowledge of what is “natural” is therefore relevant to the case.

Walter Wink, “Homosexuality and the Bible,” www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-walter-wink, 3.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

When we refer to “homosexual persons” we do not mean situational homosexuality. This refers to homosexual practices under certain conditions, for example when people are isolated for long times in prison or at sea, or to experiment sex, or to practices that derive from a traumatic experience or physical disorder. “True” homosexuality is characterized by an emotional and physico-sexual propensity towards others of the same sex. It refers not only to the sexual act, but also to a way of thinking, feeling and behavior as an expression of love. Therefore, homosexual persons find expression in specific sexual acts. The biblical documents did not know of this homosexuality and its specific problems, but were concerned only with the commission of homosexual acts.

Lilly Nortje-Meyer, “The Homosexual Body without Apology: A Positive Link between the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Homosexual Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Religion and Theology 9/1&2 (2002), 118-119.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

A homosexual reading of biblical texts involves the rereading and reexamining of those passages that condemn homosexuals. It questions traditional interpretations identify the heterosexism and homophobia of biblical scholars. Homosexual are searching for positive links between the Bible and homosexuality. They are looking for a neglected word or fact that would reverse the traditional interpretations that condemned homosexuals and accept them into the Christian community without any preconditions. Homosexual persons are looking for their own identity, purpose and meaning in life and they are looking to the Bible to help them finding meaning in life.

Lilly Nortje-Meyer, “The Homosexual Body without Apology: A Positive Link between the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Homosexual Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Religion and Theology 9/1&2 (2002), 119-120.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

Centre to liberation theology is the understanding that sin is not a metaphysical reality but rather consists in injustices that are perpetuated by people. Therefore, contemplation is at heart of liberation theology, not only by identifying injustice in society, but also by suggesting solutions that enable people to end it. Being homosexual and having a homosexual relationship is not a sin, but the injustice imposed on homosexual persons, that is sin.

Lilly Nortje-Meyer, “The Homosexual Body without Apology: A Positive Link between the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Homosexual Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Religion and Theology 9/1&2 (2002), 124-125.

Homosexual Hermeneutics

Christianity is an incarnational religion. It started off as a religion and theology from below. The Holy Spirit worked in the first place through the body of Jesus. He was bodily conceived by the Holy Spirit and was bodily filled with the Spirit. Therefore, incarnational theology should challenge metaphysic and dualistic thought. The bodies of women and homosexual persons should be taken as sites of revelation in the creation of theology. Those Bible passages that jeopardize homosexual persons and women should either be removed or should be identified as unacceptable to the Christian faith. The homosexual person should be able to celebrate the homosexual body without apology.

Lilly Nortje-Meyer, “The Homosexual Body without Apology: A Positive Link between the Canaanite Woman in Matthew 15:21-28 and Homosexual Interpretation of Biblical Texts,” Religion and Theology 9/1&2 (2002), 119-133.

The Rules for Talking about Homosexuality

No one should be allowed to talk about the gay issue unless they have enough points. This is how you get your points...

10 if you have considered and studied the relevant biblical passages
10 if you have actually read the six passages about homosexuality in the Bible
20 if you have read other passages that might affect the way you read those six passages
5 if you have read one or more books that reinforce the position you already hold
25 if you have read one or more books arguing the opposite position
10 if you have spent three hours reading websites showing a variety of views
50 for every friend you have who's been through an ex-gay ministry
50 for every friend who's been through an ex-gay ministry that didn't work
50 for every friend who's gay and in a long-term committed relationship
50 for every friend who's gay and not in a committed relationship
50 for every parent you've listened to whose child is gay

When you have 3,000 points, you can speak on the issue.

(An unnamed friend on Facebook)