What does the Bible really (really!) say...?

In the on-line magazine “Charisma”, Michael L. Brown writes an article called What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality (27.10.14). He makes five points, but they are wrong, all of them. Let’s look at them one by one.

1) The testimony of Scripture remains unchanged: The Bible forbids homosexual practice.
…no new textual, archeological, sociological, anthropological or philological discoveries have been made in the last 50 years that would cause us to read any of these biblical texts differently.
Put another way, it is not that we have gained some new insights into what the biblical text means based on the study of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Well, in a way that’s true. We have, however, gained insights into what kind of authority different biblical passages have on us Christians. For instance, the passages in Leviticus that speak about “not lying with a man as with a woman” are part of a larger whole that forbid many practices that the Israelites’ heathen neighbours had – the idea being that God’s people should remain faithful to God, instead of being lured into worshiping their neighbours’ gods.

2) The Bible is a heterosexual book.
There are a few, very strong, very clear, references to homosexual practice—every one of them decidedly negative—and then not a single reference to homosexual practice throughout the rest of the Bible. It is not part of God's "recipe" for humanity.

This is not so. There are several biblical examples of love between people of the same sex – David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi and (arguably) Martha and Mary. They are soft-pedalled, since the Bible is largely a heteronormative book, reflecting the standards of the societies in which it came into being – but they are there. The Bible is not an exclusively heterosexual book!

3) Gender complementarity is of foundational importance.
Despite recent attempts to downplay this truth, male-female complementarity is part of God's foundational design.

Of course it is. Biologically. And the majority of humanity is heterosexual, so there is no question about the human race becoming extinct.
However, when God created Man (the species), He created us with a wish for “twosomeness” as opposed to lonesomeness. Most people find that “twosomeness” in a heterosexual relationship, as Adam and Eve did in Genesis, but many find it in same-sex relations. The Genesis passage does not specifically state that heterosexuality is the only option, only that it is the usual option, for human beings to find “twosomeness”.

4) Jesus knew exactly what was inside people, including their "sexual orientation."
“Are gay theologians willing to say that the Lord Himself didn't understand modern-day, still-evolving concepts like "sexual orientation"?
And are they willing to say that the Lord Jesus, who literally looked into the hearts and souls of human beings—John 2:25 says that He knew what was in man—didn't understand that certain people were "gay"? We're not talking about the writers of Scripture understanding modern science. We're talking about them—including Jesus Himself—understanding human nature.”

I have no problem affirming that Jesus knew that some people were homosexual. I don’t see him mentioning that fact anywhere in the Gospels, however, and I certainly don’t see him condemning it!

5) The gospel brings good news to homosexual men and women.

It certainly does. Jesus died for our sins, and in Him we can all – gay and straight, man and woman, young and old, black and white, rich and poor – find forgiveness, peace, hope, and purpose.
Is the gospel of Jesus hard to follow? Yes. Love for God and for our fellow humans is not something that comes easily to us. We need to change and grow to be more like Jesus. But that regards us all, not only homosexuals. In fact, one of the first things we need to change is our tendency to judge others by our own standards. Especially if we imagine them to be God’s standards.
We must open ourselves to God and let Him teach us the standards He expects us to stand up to. We must NOT let ourselves be deluded into thinking that our own interpretation of God, His will, or His Word is the correct one.
I am never sure that my interpretation is correct. If I find that I’m wrong, I will change my opinion. There is only one interpretation that I KNOW is incorrect, and that is the literal one.

If you are interested in more
of my biblical interpretations,
and can read Swedish,
please visit Hbt-bibeln!

Ten things about Church and LGBT

A list from Child of Illusion:

Merton on the comforts of the Bible

There is, in a word, nothing comfortable about the Bible - until we manage to get so used to it that we make it comfortable for ourselves. But then we are perhaps too used to it and too at home in it. Let us not be too sure we know the Bible ... just because we have learned not to have problems with it. Have we perhaps learned ... not to really pay attention to it? Have we ceased to question the book and be questioned by it?

- Thomas Merton
from his book Opening the Bible
as quoted on God's Politics

Agnusday on eating His flesh

See more here. 

RF: Speedy

RF: Quick Part

Thought provoking or just provoking?

I read an interesting article on the net the other day. It was called Christians Who Are Against LGBT Misuse The Bible, written by Greg Carey (Professor of New Testament at Lancaster Theological Seminary) and published on the Huffington Post 11.8.12.

Hiding behind the Bible doesn't exempt us from responsibility for our beliefs and behaviors. The Bible is a complicated book. Using the Bible to condemn sexual minorities requires that people make a series of choices and assumptions,

Carey writes, and the goes on to analyze some of those assumptions. It all comes down to your interpretation. And whenever you read something - anything - you automatically interpret it. You just can't avoid it. Saying you read something the way it is written means you close your eyes to the fact of your own interpretation. And then you will go astray more surely than if you acknowledge your interpretation and take it into account. Professor Carey writes:

There's no avoiding the problem of interpretation - or the responsibility that goes with it.
Julius Caesar said, "People believe what they want to believe." Modern psychology has confirmed his wisdom: Our moral choices tend to reflect our biases and passions more than an unbiased process of moral reflection. Let's be honest: if you're anti-gay, you're anti-gay. Just don't blame the Bible for your bigotry.

Please read the whole thing - it isn't all that long. Perhaps it will provoke you - which is healthy enough - but hopefully it will also be thought provoking.

RF: Love on the Run

Biblical morning coffee

A couple argued about who should brew the morning coffee. The wife gets really annoyed and says: "Men HAVE to make the coffee. It says so in the Bible!"
Her husband demanded that she show him. She fetched the Bible and showed it to him. At the top of the page, it said "HEBREWS". 

Found it on Facebook.

RF: Bulk Arrangements

Christianity or Biblicanity?

I found an interesting article on the net some time ago. The article - Christianity or Biblianity, published on the Gay Christian Fellowship by the pseudonymous Jakeywolf - makes an important point, that I, too, have tried to put forward. An excerpt: 

It is important for us, as Christians, to identify these divisions in the church [pride, gluttony, laziness, inhospitality, idolatry, and sexual immorality], not to condemn those who do such, but to realize the dangers of turning the Bible into an idol, because it is in the name of God that fellow christians perform these detestable actions against their human brethren.
We realize that those who become "biblicans", instead of Christians, will inevitably abandon the sound doctrine of love for God and one's neighbor, as demonstrated by Christ, and they will try to argue and justify their hate and unfriendliness using the very Word of God that they claim to follow.
[...] by realizing that scripture is, in fact, not a god, but a tool in which God uses to communicate to man, we free ourselves to the ruling hand of grace set up for us through Jesus Christ so that we can, too, share the same love with others and, most important, God Himself.
Do not become one who departs from the faith seeking permission or teaching to condemn and abuse others, but remain enduring as one who is an advocate for peace and love. Be an advocate for a peace and love that distinguishes itself apart from others by recognizing both friend and foe within it, regardless of circumstances.
Be a Christian, not a Biblican. 

Amen to that! 

2Tim 3.16 as argument for the authority of the Bible

"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3.16; NRSV).
This Bible passage has the same numbers for chapter and verse as e.g. John 3.16, that can be said to be a kind of abstract of the Bible's Christian message. Since the numbers happen to coincide, this verse also gets a hightened glow for some Bible teachers. Be that as it may - 2Tim 3.16 is used in ways that often become problematic.
In claiming that this verse teaches the authority of the Bible, two errors are made, one logical and the other chronological.

A. Circular reasoning
"The Bible claims that the Bible is authoritative. We can believe this, since the Bible is authoritative, which we know since the Bible claims it."
This seems to be an (often unspoken) line of thought with many who quote the verse we are inspecting. When this line of thought is written down in this way, it is easy to see that it is an example of circular reasoning, i.e. that the conclusions are used to prove the postulates. But since it is seldom written down, it is easy to hide this logical somersault.
In most cases, this is probably not done with ill will, but rather through thoughtlessness, based on poor Bible teaching. It is, however, surprising how many otherwise intelligent people fall in this trap.

B. The meaning of the word, "Scripture" 
When Paul wrote to Timothy, the anthology we know as the Bible didn't yet exist. Parts of it weren't even written, and the very idea of a "New Testament" hadn't been broached. The books of the Old Testament had been written, but the final table of contents hadn't been decided on as yet.
So, when Paul uses the terms, "the sacred writings" and "scripture", in vv. 15 and 16 respectively, we must look to the context to see what he means. It cannot be The Holy Writ in today's meaning of the expression. Through his mother and grandmother, both of whom were of Jewish descent, Timothy had been taught the Scriptures since childhood. Isn't it obvious that Paul is referring to the Jewish Scriptures, that a few decades later were crystallized into our OT?

In my opinion, therefore, 2Tim 3.16 cannot be used to prove that the Bible is divinely inspired. Such a use of the verse would twist it into a shape that violates its actual message.
This is not to say, however, that the Bible isn't divinely inspired, just that other arguments are needed to prove the idea.

***

I wish to make an additional comment:
Paul writes in the previous verse that point of Scripture is "to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus." Scripture - whether a proto-OT, as here, or the present-day Bible - is not meant as a school book in science, law, history or sociology, just to mention some examples, but its point is, rather, to help us to Christ. Nor is it the knowledge gained from the Bible that saves, but faith in Christ.
I wanted to say this, because I've seen too many examples of Bible abuse and bibliolatry, i.e. Bible worship. It could even be claimed that the Bible is the Christians' most common idol - a trap that we by all means possible must try to avoid!