St.Paul wrote more about homosexuality than any of the Bibles other authors. But he actually wrote very little on the subject. In Romans 1:26-27 he writes that "God gave the unrighteous up to vile afflictions, that women did change the natural use into that which is against nature. Also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust one towards another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."6 This is interpreted by many to mean that not only is it unnatural for women and especially men to lust for the same sex but that it is a vile affliction. Later in Romans 1:32 Paul writes that "they which commit such things are worthy of death."7 This speaks for itself. Of course Paul was referring to a long list of things including lieing, boasting, envy, pride, inventors of evil things, and disobedience to your parents as being worthy of death. But the list begins with references to what are believed to have been gay men and women who are just like modern gays. And so modern Christians take these verses to heart in reference to modern gay people. In order for Bette Green to write her book The Drowning of Steven Jones, she interviewed about 400 inmates who had been imprisoned for gay bashing crimes. Most of them said they saw nothing morally wrong with killing a gay person because "...homosexuality is wrong and against the Bible."8
Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 provide the most direct proscriptions against homosexuality. 18:22 says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination." 20:13 is even clearer saying "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."9 There again these verses are taken literally by most Christians. Many believe that Leviticus is referring to any and every gay person. It is understandable why Christianity would feel no guilt with total rejection of gays.
While these verses do seem to be addressing homosexuality as we know it today there are some Christians who don*t believe so. These people have always been a minority within the Christian faith. Yet they represent an alternative interpretation of the Bibles comments on gays. In The Good Book author Peter Gomez, Preacher to Harvard, writes "...no credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice agaisnt homosexuality and homosexuals."10 Helmut Thielicke wrote in Theological Ethics about doctrinaire prejudices which he describes as value-judgements like "homosexuality is sinful" which "...is not isolated from an objective assessment of the phenomenon but is rather projected into it,...".11 There are other Christians who believe that the Sodomites were punished for their over all wickedness and that God had decided to do so prior to the angels being nearly attacked by the men of Sodom. Some interpret Pauls wirtings to be discussing the downfall of human nature and it*s unrighteousness as opposed to being specifically about homosexuality. It is also suggested that Paul was talking about a heterosexual man aho performs a homosexual act as being unnatural because he was going against his hetero nature as Paul was not aware of a homo nature.Leviticus has been iterpreted to speak to male prostitution not consensual gay relationships. But like I said these are minority views.
Another factor in the Christian view of homosexuality has been the rise of fundamentalism over the past 70 years. Beginning in the 1920s various denominations began uniting behind fudamentalism in opposition to the teaching of evolutionary theory. Churches were united "by their strict opposition to attempts to bring Christianity into line with modern thought."12 This opposition culminated in the famous Scopes "monkey" trial. The trial came about as the result of a lawsuit by the ACLU which challenged a Tennessee law prohibiting the teaching of evolution in the classroom.On the one hand was William Jennings Bryan who argued against the teaching of evolution in schools. On the other hand was Clarence Darrow who, representing the ACLU, humiliated Bryan as a know-nothing Bible-thumper.13 After the loss of the case by Bryan many evengelicals withdrew from political activism, but a few remained active believeing that they had a duty to make this a God fearing country. But the sour nature of the trial and the bitterness it left set the tone for future conflicts between fundamentalism and liberalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment