 |
|
|
|
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: 
Let's point out some unspoken assumptions by the author: That a text, 2000 years old, should serve - without modification or question - is a valid basis for defining moral and ethical conduct.
And that it is perfectly fine to pick and choose precisely which of the bibilical prohibitions should and should not be applied in a modern setting, and that this does not invalidate their position (ie, equally strong wording against eating shellfish, no women can be teachers, no one is allowed to work on the sabbath, toucing the skin of a dead pig is punishable by death, men can't shave, no one can get a tattoo, etc etc). Say, the author looks like he has shaved his face. Can we stone him to death now?
"But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. " Romans 7:6
Since, the bible is fiction what's your point.
you sure do like to read the Belief blogs.
If the Bible were fiction, why do you care to comment on it? Do you go around battling the ravings of people in an insane asylum, too? Consider that this author was responding to a Belief Blog post about the Bible in the first place. If everyone in the mainstream considers the Bible to be pure fiction, why waste time trying to find support for one's agenda within its text? People who say they want to live their lives without judgment are rather hypocritical. They are not seeking to avoid judgment as much as they want to FORCE acceptance. If you are free to disagree with other lifestyles or beliefs, shouldn't Christians have that same right?
@Glen and yet the fool argues with some who calls someone a fool for not buying in to this crap. You must be proud of you ignorance.
@Glen not when those beliefs are blocking the rights of others.
I wish all Christians would follow the Bible's advice to be celibate. Then we can be rid of their nonsense within a generation.
Who cares what the bible says?
The bible is just the Harry Potter/Twilight/Lord of the Rings of ancient times.
Quit letting a really old fantasy novel run your lives people.
I cant believe anyone lives their lives by this pathetic book of mythology. Grow up!!!
Who cares? Maybe not NOW but you WILL.
Polyamory is wrong! It is multiamory or polyphilia, but mixing Greek and Latin roots is wrong!
Quote "The Bible accommodates to social systems where sometimes the only alternative to starvation is enslavement."
How can there be a case where the only alternative to starvation is slavery? A slave does not require less food to survive than a free person. Maybe if my wife and I are trapped on an island without food, we can each enslave the other and survive longer! You talk about holes in logic. This is perhaps the silliest thing I've heard in a long time.
PhD? Bah.
I am pretty sure it's meant as a "I will be your slave if you feed me" kind of thing.
If you had tried to read the Bible, you would find a perfect example of enslavement to avoid (or prevent starvation). The telling of it is even a part of Andrew Lloyd Weber's "Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat". The People of God (Israelites) submitted themselves to slavery under the Egyptians because the Egyptians had warehoused food in preparation for the drought and famine that was upon the land and the Israelites had not.
Yes, a slave probably needs to consume more energy than a free man, but when you have no food, submitting yourself to slavery under one who has food is what the author of the article was referring to.
In ancient times people groups were decimated by wars on a rather consistent basis. Check the Old Testament and most history books for accurate accounts of ancient wars between various tribes and peoples.
When an entire city was wiped out and all their resources taken, they were left with 3 options (wander to another place in hopes of starting over, dieing or slavery) and often times slavery was the best of the 3.
Plus, if a victorious group of people captured a city and its peoples, they would often force the conquered people into slavery. Slavery is mentioned in the Bible because it was a common practice of the times. The Bible never PROMOTES slavery, as far as I know.
What a waste of time to continue to churn over these issues, one side never convincing the other.
It's all irrelevant, really. Anyone basing their world view around mellinia-old moral and social code should have their head examined.
What a different and beautiful place this world would be if we could rise above this discussion and learn to love and care for one another.
Why love one another? Why even have laws? We need something to govern us by. We can't be lawless..it doesn't work.
The laws of the Bible make sense to me. I have read the Bible and it makes sense. The fact that it was written so long ago and still works is wonderful and true. The Bible doesn't prove to me that God is real...the Bible is true because I already know that God is real.
What a better place the world would be if we simply followed the Truth written in the Bible. Loving and caring for other people is the CENTRAL focus of the book. It is not about control, it is not about manipulation and it is not about power. It is about love.
Matthew 22: 34-40 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the Law, tested him with this question: 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
Romans 12: 9-21 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with the Lord’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
You left out the part where slavery is acceptable, and the part where slaves need to be beaten so they will stay in line, as they are property. Yep, nothing but love in that book.........
As with most supporters of the bible, this was a very convoluted interpretation to confuse almost anyone reading it. Knust's article on the other hand was clear and easy to understand primarily because it made sense. But, then, trying for over two thousand years to live by what is essentially an interesting novel is convoluted and confusing as well.
Repeating the truth:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. " 2 Timothy 3:16-17
I see it's been a very long time since you've read the Bible. If you would only open it up and spend 5 minutes a day on it, it wouldn't take long to see how the truth is the exact reverse of what you just wrote.
Helper: I could write a book and put a passage in it saying that it is inspired by God and that is is the perfect truth. Would you then not be able to refute that?
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight." Isaiah 5:20-21
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." I Corinthians 3:19-20
To Jonathan
Yes you could write a book and make any claims you wish. However, ...
"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19
I have a ban on anyone who seriously believes the Bible is the word of God.
Spoken like a true "open-minded" progressive.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. " 2 Timothy 3:16-17
So you know the bible is true because the bible says it's true. And you know it's valid because the bible says it is. Don't you ever get dizzy with that circular logic?
To Alverant:
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight." Isaiah 5:20-21
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." I Corinthians 3:19-20
I cant even presume to know how to defend God's Word, He will do it on His own. -Helper
Truth Hurts.... If you don't believe the Bible then why do you worry about what it says? Because you are battling your conscience and you will never have peace.
That's moronic. People battle the bible because of people like you who use the bible as your final word for your self-righteous thinking.
The problem is these type of articles continues to fuel hatred and bigotry toward a minority group by blocking their civil rights. Science and psychology have proven that being gay is not a mental disorder, it's not a choice and can't be voluntarily changed. It has be 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.
I know the bible is a plagurized book that stole from other religions. If that's what people want to believe, that's fine. The problem is when those people try to make those views law. I hear christians whine about the idea of muslim law being imposed on America. Well what about christian law being imposed on America? I guess anything goes if you're a conservative christian. God forgives everything save for being different.
Valarie and JJ,
Again such hate comes from you and that is not God speaking it is your teaching of a God that is to be feared and not one of love.
I follow no one put the God that is in my soul and he speaks to me through that and only that. Try it one day and just open your heart to him for real and stop hating others.
I will pray for all people that feel like this tonight!
"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?"
The "LEFT"??? I count at least 5 "righters" on my residential block who do not share this "expert's" reading of the Bible, no matter how many books he has authored.
Who cares what this mythological book says? It's still being re-written and interpreted however the reader (or pastor, minister, priest, father, pope, bishop, cardinal, or other church pedophile) construes it.
Basing your ideas, point of view, and beliefs on a book translated over and over by thousands of hands for more than a thousand years, is outdated and frankly difficult to comprehend.
Do you wear a cross? Bow before the virgin mary statue in the church? You are violating one of the 10 commandments. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
All hypocrites!
Later all, I have a date with the tooth fairy to attend a party hosted by Mother Nature
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. " 2 Timothy 3:16-17
Thank you Helper for replying with scripture and not an angry or hateful or argumentative response. The only way to combat confusion and corruption is with the Truth.
Why even respond then? You won't listen to someone of faith, why should someone of faith listen to you? Just looking for an opportunity to interrupt and tell everyone your personal view of the truth?
"Helper" you're using the bible to prove it was divinely inspired. That's circular logic and, therefore invalid.
"This message was inspiried by God and to doubt it is to doubt Him."
That claim is just as valid is your quote.
Uh...using the same book to argue a point that the original author made about being written by man isn't exactly effective.
The majority of our beliefs, relgious and otherwise, are based upon ancient texts and civilizations. All language is based upon an elder language that came before it – does that make language invalid? Of course not! Science itself is based upon discoveries made thousands of years ago, many of which remain true today – is science invalid? Of course not.
Just because something is old, that does not mean it is wrong. I'm more inclined to trust something that has stood the test of time (we are still talking about it, we are still studying it, it's core values are still followed – such as do not kill, do not steal, do not lie) rather than some new and untested doctrine.
As for your idol example, Christians do not worship the cross, they worship the one that hung on the cross. An idol is something you worship, or focus upon more than God. If someone worshiped the cross and not Jesus, then I would agree with you.
I am not Catholic so I will not say anything about a statue of Mary, I don't know anything about that. Read Romans, the 4 gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) and Hebrews for a full explination of the Laws (10 commandments) place amongst the teachings of Jesus. Jesus knew the Law inside and out, Paul did too. There is too much to quote here.
As it is written...
"Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter, Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight." Isaiah 5:20-21
"For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." I Corinthians 3:19-20
It's amazing to me that both the original writer and the rebuttal writer above miss the scripture where Paul said: "Don't be led astray: ....men who lie with men witll not inherit the kingdom of the LORD." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and the scripture where Paul says "men with men, doing obscene things. Also women left the females natural use and became engorged with lust toward each other."
It doesn't matter. It's like taking a fairy tale seriously. It's all made up, and doesn't do mankind any good.
The Bible also says to stone your children if they are rebellious...........among other rediculous things.
Sorry, that's a typo. It should say "get stoned WITH your children if they are rebellious..."
sources?
Me =)
yeah the bible also says anyone who grows more than one crop or does not have a well trimmed beard should be executed. so whats your point? this book is cr-p
Well, did you even bother reading the Bible? It surely does not say that AT ALL. Dude, you're way off.
The bible says we should enslave the darkies!
I think the argument is about what the Bible really says, not whether or not you should accept what it says. That's a whole different discussion.
At any rate, I think Gagnon is certainly more correct on the matter. Knust is misquoting, and I doubt her editorial would have been published if CNN were going for academic merit instead of page views.
Her claims are like publishing the editorial of a global warming skeptic; the arguments aren't considered strong and the views are in the vast minority, but it riles up emotion and validates those who want to start an argument over the matter, generating publicity and thus being good for ratings.
Who wrote the Bible? Man or God? There you go.
That, and all the other 'silly' rules people use to try to debunk the Bible, are in the Old Testament, and thus the law of the Jews. Christians are not bound to these laws. When people try to debunk Christianity with these Old Testament rules, they are, ignorantly, holding Christians to unChristian rules.
not to mention countless revisions over the centuries and no definitive date of authorship. In religion, if version 1.0 is wrong then it means that God is wrong since it was from his mouth or that the true passages have been lost to corruption of the church; so every revision is completely false. In science, version 1.0 is suspected to be wrong and every revision is an improvement due to more observational evidence because it's not coming from any supernatural all-knowing source.
I'm a noob, my response was to "gophatesamerica"
Why is the old testament part of the christian bible? If Christians don't go by the old testament and it's just there for laughs or because it's part of the judeo-christian tree, then why isn't the Koran also in the bible? My point is that you can't start back peddling now.
no worries
Just because Christians aren't bound to the law (Romans 7:6) does not mean it's existence is/was unimportant. It's like ignoring a large portion of history because it no longer applies. Jesus' death and our "death" in Jesus (submission/giving up our will for His) is a divider in both time and practices. Ignoring the former isn't necessary to believing the latter. It does confuse people who don't fully "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you" and is often use to justify derision and one-sided lectures when there isn't any real intention of actual debate.
damon. why don't you Christians rename the old testament "Rules We Don't have to Follow" or simply take all those chapters out. You certainly have enough silly stuff in the New Testament to make up for the loss.
In response...
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. " 2 Timothy 3:16-17