Thought Quotient

The following article appeared in the The Age.com:

Just what does the Bible say about gays? (The entire article - as cited November 2nd - is included at the end of this response)

We can cherry-pick biblical references to homosexuality, ignoring the message of love, writes Nicholas Kristof.
So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof? That seems implicit in US legislative efforts to oppose gay marriage.

So, when God made people who think homosexuality is desperately, nauseatingly immoral and wrong, did he goof? By Kristof’s logic, I could argue that serial killers who are deeply satisfied with violating and dismembering their victims should have every right to - “because God made them that way”. But we know better. God didn’t make us this way. Humanity’s rebellion through Adam and Eve in original sin made us this way.

Over the past few months, I’ve been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided.
I think it’s presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But I also think it’s stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.

Social liberals are uncomfortable because they have no Scriptural ground to stand on! Honest, legitimate scholars have no choice but to admit that the Bible clearly and prominently speaks against homosexuality. Kristof would be wise to follow their example instead of taking shoddy scholarship and masquerading it as legitimate to argue his point.

Some scholars, such as Daniel Helminiak, author of What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don’t really buy that.

This is the most honest and intelligent statement in the whole article.

It’s true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.

And which scholars might these be? Apparently Kristof has followed suit with the vast majority of media - find a few scholars who say what he wants to hear and proclaim their view as generally accepted. Which could not be farther from the truth!! In addition, he has either ignorantly or intentionally taken Scripture hideously out of context. Ezekiel - in the text referred to be Kristof (Ezekiel 16) - is speaking of Jerusalem and compares her (it) to her “sister” Sodom. Ezekiel says of Jerusalem in comparison with Sodom (16:47): “Not only did you walk in their ways and do according to their abominations; within a very little time you were more corrupt than they in all your ways.” Ezekiel just spent a most of chapter 16 leading up to this verse speaking of God’s condemnation of Jerusalem as an unfaithful and prostitute wife!!! How does Kristof justify this as an issue of hospitality!?!

As regards the statement: “it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.” It is - at best - misleading. Paul condemns homosexuality in Romans 1. And the book of Romans is well accepted as being written in the 1st century. Just because the more modern phrase “sodomy” is not used - does not deny the obvious teaching against homosexuality.

The reason for the destruction of Sodom is abundantly clear when we read the entire account instead of singling out a couple of verses and trying to read into them what we want to hear:

Gen 18:20-12
Then the LORD said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave, I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry that has come to me. And if not, I will know.” (ESV)

The issue with Sodom had nothing to do with “hospitality”. It had everything to do with their sinful behavior. And if there is any doubt about what sinful behavior that was… let me refer you to the New Testament (which Mr. Kristof would have us believe is generally silent on the issue of sexual immorality):

2Pe 2:6-9
…if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment… (ESV)

And lest you think I’m taking liberties with use of the word sensual - the Greek word is aselgeia - translated “licentiousness.” And as “licentiousness” is no longer a commonly used word, feel free to look it up at Dictionary.com:

Lacking moral discipline or ignoring legal restraint, especially in sexual conduct.
- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

But if you still think that’s a little vague, try this out:

Jud 1:7
…just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

There is no arguing that Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of being “inhospitable”. They were sexually immoral and pursued unnatural desire. The word “unnatural” (heteros) means “different”. It is the same root as that of heterosexual - sexual orientation to the “different/other” sex. In the same way the desire of those at Sodom and Gomorrah was “different” from the normal desire - and appears to be a desire different even from the “sexual immorality” just mentioned. While not conclusive, we can fairly say that the writer probably intended homosexuality.

In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you’re attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters.

Another proof that Kristof has no concept of interpreting ideas within their proper context. By his logic, I could argue that the obvious lesson from the Old Testament sacrificial system is: “if you want to be holy, go out and kill stuff” … or from the New Testament, “if you want to be holy, go out and get yourself crucified.”

The Bible does not condone Lot’s attempt to sacrifice his daughters. As a matter of fact, it states no judgment regarding the act at all explicitly in the text - surely assuming the reader’s gut reaction to be horror and disgust at Lot’s actions.

Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). A plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).

A plain reading of the entire Book of Leviticus would tell the reader that God is serious about His people remaining holy and separate from the pagan people around them and that His laws (both moral and ceremonial - the distinction between which Kristof neglects to mention) were given to remind the Israelites of this. The purpose of the ceremonial law in Leviticus 19:19 was to drive home that “separateness”. There is no indication - explicit or implied - that all these regulations were of the same force or importance.

Actually, it seems Kristof is willfully deceptive. Leviticus 18:22 says:

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

The emphasis explicitly indicated here by the added phrase “it is an abomination” is clear evidence that this sin was more serious and disturbing than those surrounding it. Verse 23 - regarding bestiality - also includes and emphasis like this: “it is perversion”. None of the other verses contain these emphases. The word here translated “abomination” means “detestable thing” - “anything that must not be brought before God because it arouses his wrath.” (A Greek English Lexion of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer, Gingrich and Danker). This is indeed a more serious issue than trimming your beard wrong or wearing clothing with mixed material according to the text.

As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts (”do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth”). Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration.

Ahem, more stretching of the truth and text. I would challenge Kristof to provide the Scripture in which he claims that Jesus supports truly making oneself a “eunuch for the Kingdom of Heaven.” Jesus indeed used hyperbole often: “And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away…” Matthew 5:30. However, I don’t recall any mention of maimed and crippled disciples running around. Apparently, at least his own students realized the device was hyperbole.

(Added 11/3/04)
The verse Kristof here references is apparently Matthew 19:12. The word translated “eunuch” here refers to one of several different meanings:

1. a castrated male
2. those who, without a physical operation, are by nature incapable of marrying and begetting children
3. those who abstain from marriage without being impotent

(Bauer, Gingrich, Danker)

Clearly, in light of the fact that Jesus just finished responding to the Pharisees’ question about divorce and “remarriage” - the context appears to require a different translation than just “a castrated male”. How could one be born castrated? Actually, it seems all three of these definitions are contained in this one passage of Scripture.

Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan.

“A Tale of Two Cities” could just as easily be read as a recipe for making cheesecake and would make just about as much sense. There is zero indication of a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan when read in context and in understanding of the male social relationships of the day. It can only be read that way when “scholars” (in name only) intentionally disregard the historical meaning of the text and read their own opinions into the account. Besides, Kristof provides no reference for us to review and verify.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn’t blanch.

Again, no references. I’m beginning to wonder about Kristof’s definition of the word “scholar”. No reputable scholar of which I am aware holds this opinion - and it is only by intentional skewing of the text that one could assume such a position.

The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus’ words, but in Paul’s. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn’t marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.

And Kristof has yet to point out one single instance of Scripture that “clearly condones” homosexuality!! Yet we have seen that the Old and New Testaments both clearly condemn it. By Kristof’s own admission!

A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in “unnatural” sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it’s also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.

Yet again, Kristof seems intentional in his deception. He neglects to mention that the verse in Romans 1 which speaks of “unnatural” sex is the verse *directly preceding* the one he just mentioned condemning male homosexuality:

Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
Rom 1:27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

The use of the phrase “likewise” explicitly connects the two and inarguably asserts that the relations that were “contrary to nature” were homosexual relations. It is impossible for Kristof to support his argument from the text!

In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul’s instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don’t you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then bar gay marriages.)

Well, we certainly don’t mind making Paul our “grace-giver” through his message about Jesus Christ as our salvation “by grace through faith”. With only the Gospels and the Old Testament, it would be significantly more difficult to sustain a belief in grace through faith apart from works. And if we’re going to toss away Paul’s words, we shall have to toss them all away - else Kristof is guilty of the same “cherrypicking” he condemns.

Even in Paul’s writing we find a difference between moral absolutes and social teachings. Even the passage to which Kristof refers gives us an indication that this “veiling of women” was a social custom and not a law. For Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 11:16, “If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.” Implying that there was argument and that Paul’s final force of argument was to the tradition (see 11:2) and practice of Paul and the surrounding Jewish church. Paul himself mentions of having female co-workers in his ministry. I think Kristof’s tongue-in-cheek remarks should be based on a little more solid foundation.

Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasise the sentiment in Genesis that “it is not good for the human to be alone”, and allow gay lovers to marry.

Is it too obvious? Apparently not. It was not good for man to be alone. So God made… a woman! Not another man! Kristof refutes himself with his own argument.

Or there’s another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best “to remain unmarried as I am”.

Paul absolutely *does not* disapprove of marriage. See 1Corinthians 7:38: “So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.” Paul explains his suggestion to remain unmarried as encouraging deeper devotion to the Lord and in order to spare believers from worldly troubles. This very possibly due to the upheaval of the day and persecution of believers. It is a hard thing to see wives and children suffer in such terrible times.

Not only that, but please refer to 1 Timothy 4:1-3:

Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (ESV)

So if we’re going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage?

First of all, his solution regarding banning marriage is unfounded as it is based on the faulty assumption that Paul was against marriage. Second, no one denies the message of love that God spoke through Jesus Christ - who was the Word of God. However, neither can we ignore the central theme of human repentance. Nor can we ignore the message that Christ is not only our savior and friend, but also our Lord - and therefore we are expected to live by his commands:

John 14:21
Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.

In conclusion, it is apparent that the “research” Mr. Kristof claims to have conducted is sorely lacking in depth, scholarship and legitimacy. The Bible is abundantly clear that homosexuality is sinful and wrong - but certainly not beyond redemption. Homosexuals are sinners just like the rest of us. And God calls them to admission of their sin and repenting (turning) from it. To justify homosexuality as anything other than sinful seems to be flying in the face of the righteousness of God. God’s grace is infinite. He simply calls us to receive it through belief and repentance. But how can we be repentant if we refuse to admit to the sin?

Article citation - in full, unedited:

Just what does the Bible say about gays?
November 1, 2004

We can cherry-pick biblical references to homosexuality, ignoring the message of love, writes Nicholas Kristof.

So when God made homosexuals who fall deeply, achingly in love with each other, did he goof? That seems implicit in US legislative efforts to oppose gay marriage.

Over the past few months, I’ve been researching the question of how the Bible regards homosexuality. Social liberals tend to be uncomfortable with religious arguments, but that is the ground on which political battles are often decided.

I think it’s presumptuous of conservatives to assume that God is on their side. But I also think it’s stupid of liberals to forfeit the religious field.

Some scholars, such as Daniel Helminiak, author of What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality, argue that the Bible is not anti-gay. I don’t really buy that.

It’s true that the story of Sodom is treated by both modern scholars and by ancient Ezekiel as about hospitality, rather than homosexuality. In Sodom, Lot puts up two male strangers for the night. When a lustful mob demands they be handed over, Lot offers his two virgin daughters instead. After some further unpleasantness, God destroys Sodom. As Mark Jordan notes in The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology, it was only in the 11th century that theologians began to condemn homosexuality as sodomy.

In fact, the most obvious lesson from Sodom is that when you’re attacked by an angry mob, the holy thing to do is to offer up your virgin daughters.

Still, the traditionalists seem to me basically correct that the Old Testament does condemn at least male anal sex (scholars disagree about whether the Hebrew phrasing encompasses other sexual contact). A plain reading of the Book of Leviticus is that male anal sex is every bit as bad as other practices that the text condemns, like wearing a polyester-and-cotton shirt (Leviticus 19:19).

As for the New Testament, Jesus never said a word about gays, while he explicitly advised a wealthy man to give away all his assets and arguably warned against bank accounts (”do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth”). Likewise, Jesus praises those who make themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, but conservative Christians rarely lead the way with self-castration.

Theologians point out that that the Bible is big enough to encompass gay relationships and tolerance - as well as episodic condemnations of gays. For example, 1 Samuel can be read as describing gay affairs between David and Jonathan.

In the New Testament, Matthew and Luke describe how Jesus cured the beloved servant of a centurion - and some scholars argue that the wording suggests that the pair were lovers, yet Jesus didn’t blanch.

The religious right cites one part of the New Testament that clearly does condemn male homosexuality - not in Jesus’ words, but in Paul’s. The right has a tougher time explaining why lesbians shouldn’t marry because the Bible has no unequivocal condemnation of lesbian sex.

A passage in Romans 1 objects to women engaging in “unnatural” sex, and this probably does mean lesbian sex, according to Bernadette Brooten, the author of a fascinating study of early Christian attitudes toward lesbians. But it’s also possible that Paul was referring to sex during menstruation or to women who are aggressive during sex.

In any case, do we really want to make Paul our lawgiver? Will we enforce Paul’s instruction that women veil themselves and keep their hair long? (Note to President Bush: If you want to obey Paul, why don’t you start by veiling Laura and keeping her hair long, and only then bar gay marriages.)

Given these ambiguities, is there any solution? One would be to emphasise the sentiment in Genesis that “it is not good for the human to be alone”, and allow gay lovers to marry.

Or there’s another solution. Paul disapproves of marriage except for the sex-obsessed, saying that it is best “to remain unmarried as I am”.

So if we’re going to cherry-pick biblical phrases and ignore the central message of love, then perhaps we should just ban marriage?

Pulitzer Prize-winner Nicholas Kristof is a columnist with The New York Times.

Tags: News and Media, Politics, Theology

This entry was posted by Scott on Tuesday, November 2nd, 2004 at 7:38 pm and is filed under General, News and Media, Politics, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.