Tags
The phrase “Bible believing Christians,” has always seemed either tautological or an attempt at oneupmanship. All Christians “believe” the Bible. But of course, those who self-identify with that description tend to use it to emphasise their orthodoxy. It is perhaps at that last constituency that Steve Chalke aimed when he wrote:
We were once told the Bible is very clear; the earth is flat, slavery is legitimate, leadership is male, divorce equals exclusion, the earth is only 6,000yrs old etc. Now those immature readings of scripture have been dumped. So why do some still use it to exclude LGBT+ people?
Twitter 14/04/23
But as many have pointed out, this is not quite the case. In the first place, the Bible nowhere states that the earth is flat, neither does it endorse slavery, and there are examples of female leadership in Scripture. In response, Chalke attempted to clarify that: “I’m talking about the immature understanding of the Bible by sections of the church.” In fact, what he is really talking about is the understanding of the Bible held at the time according to the conventional wisdom of the age. One can see why he might not have wanted to go that far, as what he is actually arguing is that we should update our understanding of the Bible to bring it in line with the conventional wisdom of our own time. That would, however, raise the question of why should be believe that contemporary understandings are any more valid that those he thinks were the product of “immature” readings? Is it really the case that we are wiser than our forbears? More knowledgeable, perhaps, but wiser?
Leviticus 18:22 is the “clobber” passage par excellence, the one clear example in the Old Testament: “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.” A recent article in the Journal of Theological Studies (to be found, alas, behind a pay wall unless you have access via your college or university) Jan Joosten suggests, after a close analysis of the Hebrew, that:
The blanket condemnation of male–male intercourse is a Fremdkörper [lit. “a foreign body” i.e. an addition] in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East. In contrast, the ‘protection’ of the union of man and wife as the paradigmatic form of human relationships is ubiquitous in the Hebrew Bible. The prohibition of adultery is reiterated many times and in many forms. On the new interpretation, Lev. 18:22 participates in this protection. One could say it comes to close a legal loophole. The law is formulated in a male-centred perspective: sex with a married woman is forbidden. But what about sex with a married man? This is not covered by the prohibition of adultery. But it is covered in our verses
JTS April 2020
As Joosten adds:
The law still stands at some distance from modern mentalities. The effect of Lev. 18:22, on the new reading, is to strengthen the value of the heterosexual couple as a paradigm for human relationships in general: the rights of a woman to her man’s sexuality are given precedence over occasional sexual encounters between men. Homosexual relations are relegated to the realm beyond marriage. This view of human sexuality falls short of contemporary demands for equal rights for same-sex relationships.
JTS April 2020
But of course, that would say nothing about male homosexual intercourse with a non-married man, and it has nothing to say at all about lesbian relationships. In short, a close and scholarly reading does not close down the argument in the way that “Bible-believing Christians,” think it does.
And that is before one gets to the context, where arguments rage over whether the ancient world knew close, loving, same sex relationships. But what is clear is that many legal systems regarded such relationships with disfavour, and used codes of law based on a particular reading of the dominant religious texts to justify it. We are back to the inescapable fact that we cannot interpret some parts of the Bible out of context. Modern progressives think the old readings were wrong; one suspects that the successors of the moderns will find some of their readings equally wrong.
That is why the teachings of the Church and of tradition matter. We can attempt to read these things by ourselves, and of course in very many areas there are consensus readings. But we should, perhaps, at least be aware that when we subject the Bible to whatever our needs in the culture war might be, we are doing just that – searching for a justification for a position we already hold.
All Along the Watchtower 
I do not stand in need of a scholarly exposition on such matters. Whether the story of Adam and Eve is believed as an actual event or a story to quickly show that God is the Creator of all, it certainly points out that women were made for men, as man cannot be happy without having a soulmate.
Likewise when the Bible states ‘be fruitful and multiply’ it surely isn’t speaking of sexual acts that are variations of masturbatory practices which are sterile and are not following even the natural law of creatures both male and female which reproduce and are therefore heterosexual by nature.
That in essence is a simple observable fact and given, that if it were not so, then the world could
not be filled with these creatures, man included.
Also, participation in God’s Creation by having offspring seems to have been seen as a duty even to carry on our name . . . to carry on the creation sequence begun by God. Anything which deviates from that cannot remotely be viewed as a participation in the Life of God and the importance of family that we have seen written into the genome of much older civilizations predating the coming of Christ.
God made us male and female and he made us to join and become one and to be fruitful and multiply. It seems rather obvious to me and to those I lived among until the great ‘awakening’ of this new woke generation.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t disagree at all, Dave. But what of those whom God made who are same-sex attracted?
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s a disability, John. We all know things go wrong in conception. There are physical, mental and spiritual diseases which afflict men and women. We deal with them as compassionately as we can without encouraging them to act out in ways that will not make things better but may actually make things worse. Among those folks we all know that the suicide rate is much higher. Trying to normalize it and/or make it look attractive as an alternative lifestyle is not helpful to anyone and it is now being done to our children in schools without the parent’s knowledge.
LikeLike
I do wonder then why the RC Church denies men what God offers them – the soulmate of a woman. It is, of course a discipline and not a dogma, but it seems rather unbiblical.
On the issue of same sex attraction, I suspect your views don’t align with modern research. But of course, you know that.
I am entirely with you on marriage amd procreation, but do wonder about whether the Church is really being Christ to those who do not feel called to it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Chastity, it seems to me is a response to John’s words that if you come to Christ as an unmarried man then it is best to remain so . . . in order, as it implies, that all of one’s energy and love can be focused on the Groom.
Not sure if modern research on same sex attraction is driven by science or an attempt to normalize much of their own behavior. I guess we will never know that in our lifetimes but I certainly have my doubts about their scholarship.
Seems that xy chromosomed individuals have a natural attraction to those with an xx pair of chromosomes. I suspect that the deviations are related more to dopamine problems from anxiety and/or other problems and also by upbringing; parents, peers, teachers etc. The other known driver is a persons first sexual experience (even if by abuse) might actually create a “set point” for all future sexual drives. I think environment is a huge factor.
As to the Church, what are they to do? Say the wrong is right even though we know that the actions lead to worse problems than do inaction. If I am a diabetic (which I am) then my abstaining from sweets, alcohol, pizza, bagels and other yummy things that I desire constantly are to be on the list my Doctor tells me are OK. We all have genetic predispositions toward one thing or another. And not all of them are healthy for us. Some crosses are harder to bear than others but then all the more grace is bestowed on those who “deny themselves, take up their cross and follow” Him. Married people who are still sexually active oftentimes give up sexuality because of health reasons or because the “fix” is unhealthy for one of the partners. Their drive is not lessened. But they do abstain. You can count me as one who knows first hand that this can be done.
LikeLike
In the end, I come to the same conclusion I do with the US Constitution, It says what it says, and in the absence of overwhelming proof of a change in humanity, it remains valid.
So Leviticus 18:22 was added. When, by whom, and for what purpose? Obviously, the Bible has been amended, otherwise, it would still be the five books of Moses.
Without clear and obvious error, I see no reason it should be ignored, if there is such error, then it should be repealed, not simply ignored. The fact that, as far as I know, all translations have it would indicate that it is an early addition. Say maybe after Sodom and Gomorrah?
It’s like Chesterton’s gate, one doesn’t remove it until one understands why it was placed there in the first place. Until that time, ink on papyrus is the standard, any deviation carries the weight of proof.
And the fact that systems based on the Bible work better than those not so based, means the proof must be pretty conclusive.
LikeLike
The maximalist versus minimalist debates occur over certain contested verses. However, my own views are actually influenced by a passage from the NT that is not often discussed in this context, not Romans, not Corinthians, but Jude. I need to do some research as I can’t remember whether there is much if any patristic commentary on Jude – another item to add to my list.
LikeLiked by 1 person