Showing posts with label gay christians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay christians. Show all posts

Quoting Scripture to One's Purpose

A loyal reader passed along this link to a funny protest sign, headed "Gay People Can Quote the Bible Too." Why, sure we can; I'm fairly good at it myself. And many gay people are Christians, a detail as often forgotten by Barack Obama as by the Religious Right, so of course they quote the Bible. And it's good to remind Christians of all sexualities and denominations that there are parts of the Bible they'd rather forget, which I guess is the point of this sign.

But why do gay Christians so often pick on the Hebrew Bible, their "Old Testament"? It's not as if there aren't plenty of embarrassing passages in the New Testament, including the Gospels. This had occurred to me before, when I was writing a column in the student paper, and it might still be relevant today. It was originally printed on April 6, 2001.
"Dr." Laura Schlessinger's television show has ceased production, to the jubilation of many gay people. I'm not going to go into the free speech issues involved in the "Stop Dr. Laura" campaign, nor the misogyny in so many gay men's hostility to her.

I've noticed that many of the same gay men who railed against Schlessinger are now discovering that Marshall "Eminem" Mathers' antigay rhymes are really brilliant satire and are invoking the First Amendment to attack anti-defamation groups for criticizing him. I guess it's the rough-trade factor: a dirty-talking tough boy makes many gay men go all trembly. But I digress.

What I want to address is the severe selectivity with which Schlessinger's gay critics poked fun at her use of the Bible to prop up her bigotry. A widely-circulated bit of netlore, "A Letter to Dr. Laura," sarcastically asked Schlessinger's advice on application of certain Torah passages to matters such as animal sacrifice, slavery, sexual intercourse with a menstruating woman, the eating of shellfish and so on -- familiar topics from gay Christian theology. I suspect that the writer of this "letter" is a Christian, not a Jew; but even if I'm wrong, this sort of polemic, when circulated among Christians, has overtones that are absent when one Jew disputes with another.

Gay Christians generally attack either Judaism (identified with the Torah) or the Apostle Paul, a wicked Pharisee who supposedly sold out Jesus' simple and beautiful teachings by making Christianity conform to Judaism. They treat Jesus either as if he were not a Jew at all, or at least completely emancipated from supposed Jewish legalism and superstition. They stress that Jesus never directly spoke about homosexuality (true, in a narrow literal sense), and that he taught "love" -- unlike his fellow Jews, who presumably thought hatred was a good thing. Evidently they're unaware that when Jesus said to love one's neighbor, he was quoting the Torah in the book of Leviticus.

Gay Christians often say they follow Jesus' teachings rather than those of Paul or "the Old Testament." Fair enough. I submit here my own letter to gay Christians, asking for their help in following some of Jesus' commandments.

How, for example, am I to obey Jesus' command (Matthew 5:29) to pluck out my eye if it leads me to sin? Am I allowed to use anesthetics? What sort of tool should I use? And what if my remaining eye leads me to sin?

Similar questions arise from his order to lop off one's hand (Matthew 5:30) or his endorsement of those who make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 19:12). Ouch. But what shall it profit a man if he keep his testicles, yet lose his soul?

According to Mark, Jesus refused to meet his mother and brothers, saying that his followers and disciples were his mother and brothers. Jesus forbade one of his disciples to return home for his father's funeral, ordering him to leave the dead to bury the dead (Matthew 8:22). He declared that he had come to cause strife among family members (Matthew 10:35-36); that anyone who came to him but did not hate his family could not be his disciple (Luke 14:26). Isn't this the sort of cultlike teaching that got the Moonies in trouble?

On several occasions Jesus said unkind things about the rich (Luke 6:24): that it is virtually impossible for them to go to heaven (Mark 10:25) and that, to become his disciple, they must sell all their possessions and give the money to the poor (Mark 10:21). He told his disciples not to bother providing for their futures (Luke 12:32): what they would eat, where they would sleep and so on. I don't see too many Christians obeying these commands. At most they let a few religious professionals live simple lives, but this has no basis I can find in Jesus' teachings. So, gay Christians, how about it?

Finally, Jesus taught that marriage was forever -- or at least, for a lifetime. A divorced person who remarried, he said, committed adultery against his or her former spouse (Mark 10:11-12). I haven't heard gay Christians say much about this in their quest for same-sex marriage: Are they ready to renounce divorce?

Some will protest that I'm taking these verses out of context. Perhaps, but so did the author of "A Letter to Dr. Laura," which many gay Christians considered a devastating and hilarious rebuttal. Or perhaps I'm taking these passages too literally? Dear gay Christians, I'm not taking them any way. I'm challenging you to live up to all of Jesus' teachings, as you challenged Laura Schlessinger to live up to the Torah.

Quoting Scripture to One's Purpose

A loyal reader passed along this link to a funny protest sign, headed "Gay People Can Quote the Bible Too." Why, sure we can; I'm fairly good at it myself. And many gay people are Christians, a detail as often forgotten by Barack Obama as by the Religious Right, so of course they quote the Bible. And it's good to remind Christians of all sexualities and denominations that there are parts of

Quoting Scripture to One's Purpose

A loyal reader passed along this link to a funny protest sign, headed "Gay People Can Quote the Bible Too." Why, sure we can; I'm fairly good at it myself. And many gay people are Christians, a detail as often forgotten by Barack Obama as by the Religious Right, so of course they quote the Bible. And it's good to remind Christians of all sexualities and denominations that there are parts of

Gay Christians Still Say the Darnedest Things!

Rather than expand my original post (it's long enough already), I think I'll just add individual examples of the misinformation gay Christians like to dispense so lightly. I found this one in Peter Hennen's Faeries, Bears and Leathermen: men in the community queering the masculine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), a study of alternate constructions of masculinity among gay men. Early on, he describes a conversation he observed at a leathermen's retreat (page 7):
Rob and his new friend Lance are having an animated discussion. Somehow, their free-ranging exchange settles on arcane points of Christian dogma and biblical interpretation. Both of them demonstrate an amazing knowledge, not only of specific passages from the Bible but also its various editions. They are especially familiar with the subtle differences between the King James and Catholic Bibles, including the deletion of the books of Ruth, Timothy, and Apocrypha from the former. … Astonished, I ask them how they each know so much about this subject. I learn that Lance is a former seminarian, and Rob tells me that his interest stems from his current religious pursuits.
It's hard to tell who gets the credit for the mistakes, since we must read the conversation filtered through the observer, who is evidently not very knowledgeable himself. (Dammit, Duncan, I'm a sociologist, not a biblical scholar!) But it was published in an academic book, and though the errors don't affect Hennen's main subject, they're representative of the ignorance displayed by those who possess "amazing knowledge."

I don't know how "amazing" it is to know something about the "various editions" of the Bible, a phrase that's hard to make sense of to start with. "The Catholic Bible" isn't just one edition; the Catholic Church has primarily used a fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, for most of its history, but (especially after the Vatican II ecumenical council of 1962-1965, which affirmed the Church's mission to provide biblical texts in the "mother tongues" of Catholics) there have been many new translations for Catholics, some from the Vulgate and others from the original languages. (I'm partial to the first edition of the Jerusalem Bible myself, though I'm not a Catholic.) The King James (or Authorized) Version is not an edition either; it has gone through many, some of which update the 17th century spelling and some of which correct typographical and other errors. The text was standardized in 1769.

But it appears that by "editions" our amazingly knowledgeable leathermen had in mind different decisions as to the books each "edition" includes. This, known technically as the canon, is a very different matter. The Catholic Bible includes in the Old Testament books and parts of books, the Apocrypha, that are not included in the Jewish canon. So did most early English Protestant translations and the first editions of the King James Version. Eventually, though, the Apocrypha were removed from later printings of the King James Version, and they're not found in most Protestant translations today. I have seen study Bibles which include the Apocrypha, partly because those editions are meant to be used by all Christians, and partly because the Apocrypha are important for the understanding of early Christianity. You can still get the King James Version translation of the Apocrypha if you want it, usually published as a separate small volume.

It's possible that Peter Hennen's new acquaintances were discussing just these minutiae, which went over Hennen's head. But Ruth? Timothy? I can't find any indication that Ruth or the two Epistles to Timothy (not usually called "books") were ever excluded from the Authorized Version, or why they might have been. Even Martin Luther, who wanted to exclude Esther, Hebrews, James, Jude, and the Revelation from the Bible, left Timothy alone. (If anyone can point me to information to the contrary, please send e-mail.) Leaving First and Second Timothy out of the New Testament in particular would make more than a "subtle" difference; they've been immensely influential on Christian doctrine, and one verse, 2 Timothy 3:16, is a mainstay of evangelical apologetic.

So, who gets the credit/blame here? I don't know, but I can't help wondering why the fact checkers and academic readers who vet the texts of university press books didn't notice this strange digression, and point it out to the author or editors.

(image credit)

Gay Christians Still Say the Darnedest Things!

Rather than expand my original post (it's long enough already), I think I'll just add individual examples of the misinformation gay Christians like to dispense so lightly. I found this one in Peter Hennen's Faeries, Bears and Leathermen: men in the community queering the masculine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), a study of alternate constructions of masculinity among gay men.

Gay Christians Still Say the Darnedest Things!

Rather than expand my original post (it's long enough already), I think I'll just add individual examples of the misinformation gay Christians like to dispense so lightly. I found this one in Peter Hennen's Faeries, Bears and Leathermen: men in the community queering the masculine (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), a study of alternate constructions of masculinity among gay men.