 |
|
|
|
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: 
Who cares what the bible says. Xinu is the one true God and Tom Cruise is his only prophet.
Remember folks, if your wife cheats on you, you are allowed to kill her. Ditto for any girl who is not married and whose virginity has been taken – she's worthless! Just stone her. Women are property, it is against God's will for you to talk to them while they are menstruating (UNCLEAN!!!!!!), so you should all probably have a section of your house that is set away solely a a jail for your lady while she is having her monthly visitor.
Remember, this is in the Bible. This is truth!! Your progressive notions of gender equality mean nothing before God. I hope that you will learn the error of your ways when you stand before God to be judged, before being cast into the lake of fire. The audacity of women, to think that they could live as men do. RIDICULOUS!!
yeah, the wife/sister/neice person moves to the barn during her periods.
I don't think you have ever read the Bible for the purpose of gaining the proper context of the few words you bandy about in discussion. Otherwise you wouldn't have missed that whole section called the "New Testament" and the concepts of "grace" and "mercy."
They always leave out the part about the bible being mostly fictional.
Anyhow, I'm late for class at Hogwarts and I misplaced my broom. 🙁
All due respect, there is a wealth of evidence supporting the historical accuracy of much of the Bible. While you may not believe in the theological implications, please show respect for those who do.
@Kevin – I'm sorry but that's the second time you've said that "historical accuracy" really? thats your counter-argument? There are some historical accuracies so the whole thing MUST be the truth! The bible was revised repeatedly by monks throughout the bronze age and dark ages, by virtue of coincidence if nothing else they were bound to get a few facts right.
I'm sure there are multiple Kevin's on here, that's the only time I've mentioned it (that I remember).
I wasn't using that as an argument, I'm just requesting respectful dialogue about a book that is considered sacred to many.
On a side note, there is no evidence that the Bible has been significantly altered. Original manuscripts found within 50-75 years of the original text match later texts with an extremely high degree of accuracy. If you have any evidence to the contrary, I would be genuinely interested in seeing it.
There is some real scholarship in this article, but one thing has been overlooked – cultural bias. This has to do with a society's belief that a male may not take a passive role, which has more to do with patriarchy than anything that is being mandated by the Creator.
Beyond that, the argument depends upon the second 'Creation Story', the Yahwist version (Gen 2:2-4:1), while ignoring the first (Gen 1:1-2-4).
Do we really let ancient tribal nomads decide for us? Isn't there a progressive enlightenment going on over time or are we fixed in an 'us and them' mentality that seeks to say that our choices are superior to those of persons outside of our little tribe?
I think you're applying the feminist mask of equality to gloss over gender roles. The biblical standard for gender roles and the treatment of women by men is timeless and is not subject to post-modern culturalism. God established women as equal partners –a help mate to men– and at the same time established the lead role of men and the friction that it would cause. God reiterated this in the curse when he said, "Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." The first example of this lead role being applied immediately followed the curse: Adam named the woman "Eve," just as he had done to the animals in the garden. Now, none of this means that women can't have jobs, make decisions, etc. The Bible is silent on that and it would be foolish for anyone to assert such rubbish. It simply means that God did establish men as having the lead gender role. That doesn't mean that women aren't supposed to be treated fairly and equaly. In fact, in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit leads Paul to establish a godly standard for the relationship between men and women. In Ephesians 5:25, Paul said, "Husbands are supposed to "love their wives as Christ loved the church." It's a wonderful passage about how men should treat women.
The bible says it's not ok to practice witchcraft, magic and the like, but then what is a MIRACLE when "god" does it? Is that not also "sinful" wizardry? Double-standard garbage made by men who have double-standards.
The difference is the Spirit or don't you believe in evil vs good spirits either?
The bible is also vehement about the evils of eating shrimp and pork, and has some wonderful guidelines on how should treat our slaves and sell off our daughters. Enough of these "cafeteria christians!" Either buy the whole fairy tale or recognize that the race has evolved beyond all this. Basing our beliefs for the 20th century in 2,000 – 5,000 year old folk tales is ludicrous.
You are so right! Thou shall not kill. Thou shall not lie. Thou shall not steal. What fairly tales!
Well said. I find it pathetic how people pick and choose certain verses from the bible while lecturing people should interpret it literally, while completely ignoring other parts of the bible which are downright nuts. To be fair, there are some great moral lessons portrayed in the bible, but there are also some wacky things as well!
@Brian61 – yes because christians follow those rules explicitly
THOU SHALL KEEEP THY RELIGION TO THYSELF. The most important commandment.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Phelps family. Today, "professor" Gagnon publishes this hurtful and useless article.
Don't these people realize that the right to free speech does not mean you can say hurtful things to other people? What purpose would that serve. People are still unemployed. Sick people are still living without medical care. Children are still being born into broken homes. Shouldn't we focus on these problems?
It's quite a stretch to compare this author to Phelps. The author of this article is telling us what the Bible says. He's not preaching or telling us that God hates gays. Free speech means respectfully sharing your beliefs, which this author has done. While you are free to compare him to a church that preaches hate, I don't think that is respectful.
What is hurtful about his article. He's simply giving his take on an age old question. Don't be gay and you'll be alright... end of story.
Kevin and Chris, you both sound angry. Not good for your health. Count to 10 before you utter another syllable.
Oh, what is so hurtful about what this guy wrote? Equating gays with incest? You both choose to read what you want to read and ignore the rest. Idiots.
Brian, I'm not angry with anyone. I'm not calling names and I'm not even saying that what he wrote isn't hurtful. What I'm saying is that he honestly and respectfully shared what the Bible says about a particular topic.
I also think that the Christian church places too much emphasis on this particular sin when there are so many bigger issues. As Jesus said, we should "first take the plank out of [our] own eye".
While I appreciate your comment, if you could please avoid personal insults (idiots) I believe it would contribute to a more respectful dialogue all around.
To Observer
The only reason I limited the scope of my answer is because that is the topic. You are correct the bible is clear on adultery. It is a sin. There is no such thing as a no fault divorce in God's eyes. When a marriage ends in divorce there is at a minimum one sin. In the case of adultery and remarriage the adulterer must remain unmarried or be reconciled back to the non guilty party unless the non adulterer has remarried. They are free to do so. A little known or preached part is that if one party withholds themselves from the other without mutual consent or for fasting and prayer they have a part in the adultery if their partner goes off and finds another to satisfy themselves.
I think you are referring to 1 Corinthians 7:5- " Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
If one partner commits adulterly, it is not the fault of the other. Yes, the other may be in the wrong for depriving them, but that does not excuse or mitigate the adultery of the first.
The bible is not relevant to my interests. I'm sure glad I don't care, either way, if a God or Gods exist. = )
abstinence is clearly an unnatural act. we are only here because of billions of years of things climbing on top of each other. why does Jesus get off the hook for his clearly unnatural life style?
haha things climbing on top of each other. thats tragically erotically hilarious and true. 🙂
LOL good point!
The Author looks kind of gay to me.
roger that
LOL, good one jb. I am sure he has had some gay expreiences in the past. All the religous people do. Specially the anti gay ones.
Who cares what a collection of fairy tales says!
You may not, but millions of others consider it sacred. Although I don't believe in the Quran, I don't mock it or any other holy book. Please show respect to the beliefs of others.
The last I checked we are not a theocratic government, so who cares what the bible says about it. BTW, the bible also says you can't touch the skin of a pig, you can't eat shellfish, and you can't wear cloth of mixed fabrics. Should all that be illegal, too?
Then why are you on a blog that talks about nothing by religion? and those items, for the time periods that they were written, made sense. for example, could they cook the shellfish properly? no they couldn't – therefore, they were told not to eat it. Bible is not a book to be taken at the literal term. This is why you cannot explain it away while looking down your nose at it. You will look more the fool then I who believe.
If you think the Bible is fiction as many of you claim and your right.. you have nothing to lose. But if you think the Bible is fiction and your wrong, then your spending your eternity in Hell. Is that worth the few years of pleasure (if that's what you call it) here on earth? It's about time someone posts something on CNN that goes back to Biblical beliefs, morals and values. Our country is falling away from it fast. And we wonder what's happening to the world.....
You're. your. There is a difference. Thank you
Chris – the problem with this debate is not about the bible, it's about one group of people trying to force their beliefs upon another group of people. Ironically, religions have done this throughout history – all claiming to be 'peaceful', as long as you believe exactly what they do. Every religion thinks they're right. Bottom line – if you want to be religious, fine – goahead, but don't be arrogant enough to push your beliefs on others assuming your lifestyle is the correct one and everybody should follow it.
If it is fiction and I believe it to be true then I waste my entire existence following a set rules designed to make me behave in away that is to the advantage of people like you.
I think I will take my chances.
IRONY. Look it up. The root of all the evils going on in the world is religion.
The real point of the Bible is to help people connect with God. God loves each and everyone of us. Even those who claim He doesn't exist. God still loves you. When you see the big picture of the Bible, that's the most important thing you'll see is an unfailing, unending love for mankind. With that, we have to understand that God is holy. He is pure, righteous, and just. We are not. Yet because of God's unending love for you and I, He made a way that we all could reconnect with Him, through the sacrifice of His son Jesus. God loved the world so much that He gave up his only son, so that whoever believes in him will not die, but have eternal life, with God. God has done everything He can to reconnect with you. All He's asking you and I is to believe in his son and the work His son has done for us. When Jesus was asked what to do to inherit eternal life, his response was "Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. And Love your neighbor as yourself." We don't focus on what we SHOULDN'T do, but focus on what Jesus' has asked us to do.
So you say that if I don't believe in bible, god still loves me. But he will condemn me to hell for not believing in it. I am getting mixed messages from these posts.
Hell will ultimately be your choice. God does love you. But God can't ignore who he is, and he is holy. Those who's sins aren't forgiven through Jesus can't spend eternity with God who is holy. We're all made holy through our relationship with Jesus. It's amazing to me how people reject such a loving gift. God's asking you to connect with him, build a relationship with him.
God does not condemn people for not believing in the Bible, but for not believing in him. Even the Bible says that the world itself testifies of God; that even a person who never hears of God from humans' lips would know of him.
The bible is a made up book about a bunch of made up people that was cobbled together by people who had the modern day equivalent of a second grade education. The world would be much better off if it was given the lack of respect that it deserves.
You should at least take the time to study it for yourself, instead of assuming that they had a second grade education. How can one make idiotic claims as such? An argument is won by revealing it to be true or false.... with facts and not by the statement you made. Good job on sounding like a second grader
All historians, regardless of beliefs, agree that the biblical characters were real people. As for "modern equivalent of a secong grade education", many of the people were royalty or other members of high society, a physician, and a Pharisee (which means at least a Masters level worth of knowledge). So, who are you referring to again? What makes you think that level of education matters? There are naturals and self-taught people out there that contribute a lot of knowledge, inventions, etc.
Gotta love the computer with the dirty mind – attempt to post #3
I found this to be an excellent reply to Jennifer Wright Knust.
She was so off base as to be embarras-sing.
What is not addressed is the biblically misguided people that think their purpose in life is to point out the sins of others.
The idea of focusing on individual sins was never the message of Christ.
The Good News (Gospel) was deliverance from sin. Both the penalty of eternal death and the grip of sin in life.
The bible does define hom-ose-xuality as a sin. The bible also says we come out of the womb sinning (Psalms 58:3). In other words some are born with that nature.
The bible also defines adultery as a sin to be punished by death.
The bible says if you look upon a woman with lust you have committed adultery (Matthew 5:28). I am guilty many times over.
Few Christians, that oppose hom-ose-xuality, will call marrying someone that is divorced a sin. Many of the pastors protesting hom-os-exuality are themselves remarried or perform marriage ceremonies for previously divorced people. Supposedly putting Gods blessing on their union.
Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adu-ltery against her.
Mark 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adu-ltery.
It is the focusing on individual sins instead of the salvation from sin in general that has lead the church of today away from Christ. These churches that focus on hom-os-exuality are very much antichrist (against Christ).
And with your well written response I need not write a thing as this has been my belief for as long as I was old enough to read and figure it all out for myself. Thanks.
When we see how mean-spirited, emotion and ego driven the athiests can be, it begs the question: is your disbelief really so fragile?
'When we see how mean-spirited, emotion and ego driven the athiests can be'
as compared to believers you mean? lol.
Interesting comment, but 100% flawed – simply because religious folks infringe upon others by preaching their lifestyle is wrong and trying to get them to change. If you want to be religious, fine – goahead, but don't try to force your beliefs onto others.
No...my disbelief of fiction is 100% secure. I also don't believe in Narnia or Hogwarts. Oh if your god is so omnipotent why does he need people defending him? Can't he you perform a REAL Miracle...booming voice, burning bush, SOMETHING to tell us none believers we are wrong? Something that isn't just a statistical anomaly that religious nuts go run off and proclaim a miracle.
mean-spirited, emotion and ego driven – I don't believe i'm any of those things. Why must I meekly standby, while being subjugated to your dogmatic religious drivel, without being able to provide any counter-point?
I don't see believers or non believers as being more or less mean spirited than the other.
"Mean spirited"? I am an athiest. I am not proud of it, nor am I ashamed. I just am. I believe that I am a good person. I would beg you to find anyone who knows me to say otherwise. I believe that I have found the meaning of life. I teach my child to be a better person than I am and to make this world a better place to live. Rule #1 in my house and in life is to treat everyone with respect. Rule #2 is no lying. (My son is 9). I admire all religions, even the ones that are not so popular. I especially like the ones that preach love and tolerance. I have never wished harm or pain on another in all of the 40 years that I have been on this Earth. So when you call someone "mean spirited", you might want to look in the mirror.
You are misusing the phrase "beg the question". Typical religious illiterate.
Any book, sacred or not, which says that God condemns me for WHO he made me to be is not worth the paper it is printed on.
God didnt make you gay buddy – it was your choice!
Umm... God didn't make you that way. You chose to be that way. Thanks for coming out.
AJ. You could not be more mistaken. Why would anyone choose a lifestyle where others love to condemn you?
God made us all as we are. Get over it.
Sorry Anglican... show me the proof that people are born gay. There is none. It's a choice... a wrong choice.
Steve there is a LOT of proof hom-os-exuality is natural, something beings are born to be. Your denial of the proof doesn't make it not so. It even occurs in the rest or the animal world.
Awesome piece.
The Bible is the word of God and Jesus died for our salvation. He loves all of us unconditionally. For everybody on here who's angry and upset about what the Bible has to say about the types of lives we're living, whoever is angry towards God, I pray that Jesus Christ will bless your heart with His grace and that you will come to have an intimate relationship with the Father. In Jesus' name, amen!
The bible was written my attention seeking men and is entirely a work of fiction based loosely off of possible real life events. Hmmm... does that mean all of those made for television movies are really the truth as well?
I've had people tell me I need to invite Jesus into my heart...Why the heart? He's more than welcome to come into my living room and chat. Have him show me a single miracle that isn't just a statistical anomaly and then we can talk about believing.
Captain Kirk wants to legalize marijuana?....cool man. 😀