 |
|
|
|
March 3rd, 2011
01:25 PM ET
My Take: The Bible really does condemn homosexualityBy Robert A. J. Gagnon, Special to CNN
In her recent CNN Belief Blog post “The Bible’s surprisingly mixed messages on sexuality,” Jennifer Wright Knust claims that Christians can’t appeal to the Bible to justify opposition to homosexual practice because the Bible provides no clear witness on the subject and is too flawed to serve as a moral guide. As a scholar who has written books and articles on the Bible and homosexual practice, I can say that the reality is the opposite of her claim. It’s shocking that in her editorial and even her book, "Unprotected Texts," Knust ignores a mountain of evidence against her positions. It raises a serious question: does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-gay interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them? Owing to space limitations I will focus on her two key arguments: the ideal of gender-neutral humanity and slavery arguments. Knust's lead argument is that sexual differentiation in Genesis, Jesus and Paul is nothing more than an "afterthought" because "God's original intention for humanity was androgyny." It’s true that Genesis presents the first human (Hebrew adam, from adamah, ground: “earthling”) as originally sexually undifferentiated. But what Knust misses is that once something is “taken from” the human to form a woman, the human, now differentiated as a man, finds his sexual other half in that missing element, a woman. That’s why Genesis speaks of the woman as a “counterpart” or “complement,” using a Hebrew expression neged, which means both “corresponding to” and “opposite.” She is similar as regards humanity but different in terms of gender. If sexual relations are to be had, they are to be had with a sexual counterpart or complement. Knust cites the apostle Paul’s remark about “no ‘male and female’” in Galatians. Yet Paul applies this dictum to establishing the equal worth of men and women before God, not to eliminating a male-female prerequisite for sex. Applied to sexual relations, the phrase means “no sex,” not “acceptance of homosexual practice,” as is evident both from the consensus of the earliest interpreters of this phrase and from Jesus' own sayings about marriage in this age and the next. All the earliest interpreters agreed that "no 'male and female,'" applied to sexual relations, meant "no sex." That included Paul and the ascetic believers at Corinth in the mid-first century; and the church fathers and gnostics of the second to fourth centuries. Where they disagreed is over whether to postpone mandatory celibacy until the resurrection (the orthodox view) or to begin insisting on it now (the heretical view). Jesus’ view According to Jesus, “when (people) rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like the angels” (Mark 12:25). Sexual relations and differentiation had only penultimate significance. The unmediated access to God that resurrection bodies bring would make sex look dull by comparison. At the same time Jesus regarded the male-female paradigm as essential if sexual relations were to be had in this present age. In rejecting a revolving door of divorce-and-remarriage and, implicitly, polygamy Jesus cited Genesis: “From the beginning of creation, ‘male and female he made them.’ ‘For this reason a man …will be joined to his woman and the two shall become one flesh’” (Mark 10:2-12; Matthew 19:3-12). Jesus’ point was that God’s limiting of persons in a sexual union to two is evident in his creation of two (and only two) primary sexes: male and female, man and woman. The union of male and female completes the sexual spectrum, rendering a third partner both unnecessary and undesirable. The sectarian Jewish group known as the Essenes similarly rejected polygamy on the grounds that God made us “male and female,” two sexual complements designed for a union consisting only of two. Knust insinuates that Jesus wouldn’t have opposed homosexual relationships. Yet Jesus’ interpretation of Genesis demonstrates that he regarded a male-female prerequisite for marriage as the foundation on which other sexual standards could be predicated, including monogamy. Obviously the foundation is more important than anything predicated on it. Jesus developed a principle of interpretation that Knust ignores: God’s “from the beginning” creation of “male and female” trumps some sexual behaviors permitted in the Old Testament. So there’s nothing unorthodox about recognizing change in Scripture’s sexual ethics. But note the direction of the change: toward less sexual license and greater conformity to the logic of the male-female requirement in Genesis. Knust is traveling in the opposite direction. Knust’s slavery analogy and avoidance of closer analogies Knust argues that an appeal to the Bible for opposing homosexual practice is as morally unjustifiable as pre-Civil War appeals to the Bible for supporting slavery. The analogy is a bad one. The best analogy will be the comparison that shares the most points of substantive correspondence with the item being compared. How much does the Bible’s treatment of slavery resemble its treatment of homosexual practice? Very little. Scripture shows no vested interest in preserving the institution of slavery but it does show a strong vested interest from Genesis to Revelation in preserving a male-female prerequisite. Unlike its treatment of the institution of slavery, Scripture treats a male-female prerequisite for sex as a pre-Fall structure. The Bible accommodates to social systems where sometimes the only alternative to starvation is enslavement. But it clearly shows a critical edge by specifying mandatory release dates and the right of kinship buyback; requiring that Israelites not be treated as slaves; and reminding Israelites that God had redeemed them from slavery in Egypt. Paul urged enslaved believers to use an opportunity for freedom to maximize service to God and encouraged a Christian master (Philemon) to free his slave (Onesimus). How can changing up on the Bible’s male-female prerequisite for sex be analogous to the church’s revision of the slavery issue if the Bible encourages critique of slavery but discourages critique of a male-female paradigm for sex? Much closer analogies to the Bible’s rejection of homosexual practice are the Bible’s rejection of incest and the New Testament’s rejection of polyamory (polygamy). Homosexual practice, incest, and polyamory are all (1) forms of sexual behavior (2) able to be conducted as adult-committed relationships but (3) strongly proscribed because (4) they violate creation structures or natural law. Like same-sex intercourse, incest is sex between persons too much structurally alike, here as regards kinship rather than gender. Polyamory is a violation of the foundational “twoness” of the sexes. The fact that Knust chooses a distant analogue (slavery) over more proximate analogues (incest, polyamory) shows that her analogical reasoning is driven more by ideological biases than by fair use of analogies. Knust’s other arguments are riddled with holes. In claiming that David and Jonathan had a homosexual relationship she confuses kinship affection with erotic love. Her claim that “from the perspective of the New Testament” the Sodom story was about “the near rape of angels, not sex between men” makes an "either-or" out of Jude 7’s "both-and." Her canard that only a few Bible texts reject homosexual practice overlooks other relevant texts and the fact that infrequent mention is often a sign of significance. It is disturbing to read what passes nowadays for expert “liberal” reflections on what the Bible says about homosexual practice. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Robert A. J. Gagnon. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor’s Note: 
The bible wasn't even started to be written until 37 years after Jesus died. It was written by men. It was written by men who had an agenda against Mary Magdalene. It was only Mary that understood what Jesus was saying. The Apostles just couldn't grasp it and ran when the landscape got very dangerous. Only SHE stayed. There were HUNDREDS of bibles that were then condensed by Constantine. How can any thinking person put any belief in the new testament? People are being killed over this book that has zero basis in fact.
The liberal mind will tolerate no authority other than it's own. Yet it will argue to no end against the Bible. Isn't that an implicit recognition of the Scriptures' authority?
When the liberal claims to "think for herself", is she thinking in a shallow way, or in depth? Thinking is a discipline, after all. The liberal mind tends to be like the Canadian river: a mile broad and a foot deep.
No, it is not an implicit recognition of authority. It is an implicit recognition of our fellow man's idiocy.
go buy some good pot or scotch or something ~ u r loosing it.
Prove it.
Reading is merely a surrogate for thinking for yourself; it means letting someone else direct your thoughts. Many books merely show how many ways there are of being wrong, and how far astray you yourself would go if you followed their guidance. You should read only when your own thoughts dry up, which will of course happen frequently enough even to the best heads; but to banish your own thoughts so as to take up a book is a sin against the holy ghost. LOL!
I could say the same for the Radical Raging Right Bradley. They will argue their point to the death and must therefore rely on an old book of fables to support their lack of logic. Those who need scripture to lead them in their daily lives are truely the ignorant sheep in the flock who for some reason can't determine right from wrong or use their own god-given logic. Baaah...where did you shepard go? Careful you don't get lead off a cliff.
What if I'm just reading the articles in Playboy...is that ok?
"mile broad and a foot deep" river is still far better than one that is completely dammed up.
who cares what bible says? just like who cares what quran says about killing non-muslims? who cares? radicals care! duh!
I am certain that the author of this piece is so enamored of the Scriptures that he does not eat Pork, Shellfish, or any animal that does not chew it's cud. And certainly he would not wear clothes of mixed fabric, eat without washing, or toleate a women at her period to be within his house. And of course should any Doctor assist in an abortion, he would dmand financial remuneration for the loss from said Doctor.
The problem with living from Scripture as Jesus did, is that as a Jew he obeyed Levitticus and Exodus. It was only later when Saul was trying to convert the unclean that Saul of Tarsus enabled the blasphemy of a lesser God.
CNN, http://captionsearch.com/pix/t1gb4klq3.jpg
How does a 21st century Ph. D buy into "God's from the beginning creation of male and female" and expect to retain any credibility? He asks, "does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-gay interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them? No! They have chosen to evolve past putting any real significance on the Scriptures that you are making a good living interpreting for us ignorant and sinful "Lefties". Evolve Mr. Gagnon!
"It raises a serious question: does the Left read significant works that disagree with pro-gay interpretations of Scripture and choose to simply ignore them?"
Huh? Where does liberal vs conservative enter into religion? Can you support your claim that they correlate at all? Do I believe the Bible is either "pro" or "anti" gay? Well of course not. How ridiculous! I do believe God loves us all. Don't you? Or are you a Westboro kind of guy?
baby jesus had immaculate p00p ~ it did not smell
Agreed...Jesus was a gay. Ran around and slept with 12 men, who all had male companions. Now do I get a Phd., too?
I wish people would quit using the bible to support their own biases. If God didn't approve of gay people why did he make them? I'm sure he did not make them to be hated, locked up or discriminated against. The day they actually prove the "gay gene" theory once and for all will be a great day for all gays. Finally they will shut up about there old book of fables and just live their own life for a change.
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."–Isaac Asimov.
Resounding applause.
who even cares its all b.s. anyway why don't you just get any other book written thousands of years ago and start worshiping whatever that says. seriously this whole article along with religion is a waste of time who cares if people are gay and who cares what some dude in the sky says about them
Obviously Jennifer Wright Knust has not read the Bible. It specifically reads: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination". Leviticus 18:21-23
Leviticus also says: (20:9) “If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death;”
So what was your point?
Now use your brain and put it into context. That is describing a pagan ritual using s3x and has nothing to do with how we now understand gays and lesbians. A panel of experts have proven that being gay is not a mental disorder, it's not a choice and can't be voluntarily changed. It has also been proven that the reports and writings about this subject in the past were done by prejudice and bigoted people. That's the truth Christians can't deal with.
The entire book of Leviticus is an abomination and should have been left out of the current "Bible" as rewritten in the 1400's by Pope Gregory. It's all 2000 to 5000 year old hearsay written by man and certainly not "God's word". Get a life of your own...
Motherpucker! Oops, now I am going to be stoned to death. . .wait nothing happened.
Do you not realize what other things Leviticus teaches? Old Testament law was brutal to put it mildly, and virtually all of it short of the Ten Commandments were laws of MAN and not of God. Jesus overruled much of OT law, charging his followers to love each other and to follow his Father's commandments. If you can manage those two things, then you're pretty much qualified yourself as Christian and can now safely stop stoning or skinning people alive in order to "please God."
abomination means uncustomary or non traditional not sinful.
I'm a practiciing Christian who came out of the closet after years of pain and torment – and guess what? I found out that God still loves me the same (if not more, for finally being honest and loving myself) and the only judgment I got – WHICH WAS MASSIVE – was from the pentecostal church I went to! God is love. Love does not condemn.
God loves everybody but Jesus didn't say to the adulteress, go and keep on sinning. He loved her but because of that love he told her to go and sin no more. To love someone you don't have to approve of everything they do.
i love you. I am not God and you don't need Christians to validate you. If you want to believe in a god and that makes you feel better, go ahead. But know that there is nothing wrong with you. People who hide behind a god while they point and judge disgust me. I am so sorry you had to deal with that.
How does anyone know that God loves them?
CNN, what is the point of publishing this crap other than to foster anger and division? There's nothing insightful here, nothing constructive, just more fuel to throw on the Hate fire. Nothing like selling out integrity for online ad revenues. I'll make an explicit point to NOT click on any ads to help drive down the value of your placements. Get back to news please!
Good point! This article was useless and shouldn't have been published.
I don't want to read religious defense articles on a news website.
it's a religion blog – he can write whatever he wants. We don't have to like it.
The bible really does condone a lot of disturbing things. When you realize that, you will abandon the 5000 year old book of nomad "morality" in a heartbeat.
Such as? Love it when people make a statement but can't / won't back it up...
Yes it does condone alot of weird things. But the old and new testamite are night and day. Its all about perspective. In the old testamite the world was a very different place. Much different then it is now. Change happens and the old testamite is just a prelude to the new. Its meant to be taken for what it is. The nice thing about the bible, its different for everyone. Two people might read the same verse and each of them get something completly different from it. Thats the way its supposed to be. I think god has much different views then we do "or understand". To him/her the only thing that matters is eternal salvation. I am christian by the way. But I dont buy into "its the one and only way to heaven" because that in itself is condradictive in what the book is about. I always kringe when I hear pastors say that. You cant and wont know what gods will is. Its impossable.
Slavery, patriarchy, the killing of those who insult the followers of God, the treatment of women as chatel... and on and on and on.
The great thing about the Bible, Jesus, and religion, is that it IS a choice! You can choose to believe, or not to believe. Whichever side you come down will determine how you interpret what the Bible actually means.
If nothing else, it's interesting to see two sides spelled out from the same basic text. Which is correct?? I bet one day we'll all find out....
No. One day your body will decay. You will remember nothing. Death is finite. The book was written so long ago and translated so many times none of us will KNOW.
A book written by men, in some cases hundreds of years after the death of Jesus Christ – supposedly. Wow. What ever happened to the golden rule, or God loves all of his children? Those don't count?
Hundreds. Wow – your research skills are amazing.The Old Testament consists of a collection of writings believed to have been composed at various times from the twelfth to the 2nd century BC. Yeah. . .hundreds of years. LOL It's is still crap but there you go – some real research.
Who cares what the Bible says?
everyone will care....
Not me. I care about my fellow man, my family and all that is good in the world. The bible is a stupid book people put too much into.
That Is What The Matter With The American Today.People Don't Care What The Bible Say!
You care or you wouldn't have reafd the article.
Its interesting that no is questing the interpurtation of original bibical text. Many scholars found that the original text make not mention to same s-x relationship outside of other sins like adultry. Also, there is evidence suggested bias translations. Also, why is lying, murder and other sins mentioned hundreds of time and this particular sin of debate SUPPOSEDLY six times maybe? In fact Christians were the first to make this an issue, it was common in that culture before
The bible has been copied from original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and then translated to various languages from those originals. So it's really hard to say what it really contained originally. Even then, it was written by MEN – many men in fact. There are so many discrepancies I can not believe any group of people would use it as a base for ANY belief. It's all a myth anyway. Believe in humanity, in decency, in morals because you are HUMAN not because you are waiting for some divine intervention.