Part 1
With the recent Supreme Court ruling which legalized gay marriage in all fifty states, Facebook blew up with people citing the Bible to support their views on the issue. What's weird is that both Christians who support AND Christians who oppose gay marriage quoted the same Bible. Why? How can two groups use the same text to argue two opposing positions? To better understand the nature of religious arguments such as this, we first need to explore the concepts of canon and exegesis.
Canon—not to be mistaken for "cannon," the massive guns pirates use to sink other ships—is a term that has come to mean a list of legitimate or divinely inspired scriptures. For instance, the canon for Christians is the Bible. While most Christians agree that the Bible is their canon, there is still disagreement among different communities within Christianity as to what exactly ought to be included in that Bible. In reality, there are different Bibles for different groups of Christians. In America, where our culture has been heavily influenced by Protestant Christianity, we generally know the Bible to be a compilation of 66 books, divided between an Old Testament and a New Testament. Here are just a few groups of Christians that have canons that differ from the Protestant Bible:
1. The early Church: 52 books, no New Testament and 13 books not found in the Protestant Bible[1]
2. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church: 81 books, 15 books not found in the Protestant Bible
3. The Roman Catholic Church: 73 books, 7 books not found in the Protestant Bible
4. The Latter-day Saint Church: 81 books, an additional Testament and 15 books not found in the Protestant Bible[2]Canon is certainly not as straightforward as many seem to think, and this can obviously result in arguments over what scripture says when not all Christians share the same canon. However, for the purposes of this article, the Facebook debaters are more than likely using the same ol' 66 books of the Protestant Bible. So once again, we must ask "If Christians are using the same canon, why are they arguing about what it says?"
The answer to this question lies in exegesis. Exegesis comes from a Greek word which means "pulling out," but not in the less-than-foolproof contraceptive sense. In context, it means what one pulls out from reading a text. Or, in other words, one's interpretation of the canon. What these Christians are arguing over is not what the Bible says, but what they interpret the text to mean for the situation at hand.
But if Christians are arguing over their interpretation of the Bible in regards to gay marriage, doesn't that imply that the Bible isn't clear on gay marriage? And the answer to this is a resounding "YES!" In fact, the Bible says NOTHING about gay marriage. That would be like expecting the Bible to comment on the Second Amendment or internet censorship. Gay marriage is a new concept in the West, and the writers of the Bible had not encountered gay marriage to write for or against it. That leaves the debate up to modern Christians, who are desperately trying to show how ancient authors who had no concept of gay marriage were really saying that God was for/against it, just as they are. What a pickle!
Of course, many Christians believe the words in the Bible were inspired by God, and as such are relevant for all times, ancient or modern. However, no Christians today actually think that all parts of the Bible are relevant for all times. In fact, many books of the Bible were written to change or correct older parts in the Bible.[3] That is why Christians no longer feel bound by the parts of the Bible that they view are outdated.
For our study, the key issue is homosexual intercourse. As I stated above, homosexual marriage is not mentioned in the Bible, but homosexual intercourse is. Generally speaking, there are two views on the issue:
Position A: the parts of the Bible forbidding homosexual intercourse are still relevant, regardless of if it is within marriage or not
Position B: the parts of the Bible forbidding homosexual intercourse are outdated, since homosexual marriage was not around back thenIn this blog series I will analyze the biblical passages that are typically used in debates between Christians of both positions on gay marriage. I will pair these passages with their historical context to see if there is indeed a consistent attitude in the Bible towards homosexuality in general.
Along the way, I will present a hypothetical reader in my articles to voice arguments that many Christians have used to argue against the points that I present. These quotes will be signified by [[double brackets]]. While these arguments are hypothetical, they are based on real-life conversations with Christians and blogs I have read. I want to make it clear that I am NOT saying these are the best arguments out there, nor that they represent Christianity as a whole.
Obviously, as is the case with any writer, I have my own biases. To put my position out on the table, I support the Supreme Court decision. I believe that being gay in no way hinders one's love and commitment for another human being, a healthy marriage, one's ability to raise children, or one's devotion to God. That being said, I will do my best to not project my opinions back onto history, but instead give a fair analysis of the historical contexts which produced the hotly debated Bible verses which are used to argue both for and against gay marriage today.[4]
Notes
[1] The earliest members of the Jesus Movement that would one day become "Christianity" seemed to use the Septuagint (the Hebrew scriptures translated into Greek). At least some of the other early members used other texts as well. For instance, in Part 3 we will see Jude using the Book of Enoch as prophecy. It's unclear when the New Testament was formed as we have it, but it appears to have been widely accepted by the 4th century CE. However, there were still minor variations in canons at this time as well.
[2] Many Christians don't consider Latter-day Saint Christianity legitimate, often times on the basis that their leader, Joseph Smith, is thought of as being a deceiver, and that they added scripture to the traditional Christian canon. While I do not agree with much of the Latter-day Saint doctrine, I consider it a legitimate expression of Christianity. It's worth noting that Jesus was also accused of being a deceiver, and that early Christians had no problem adding on to traditional Jewish scripture. In 2,000 years who knows which form of Christianity will be considered "legitimate"?
[3] For instance, as will be mentioned in Part 4, many Christians see the Old Testament as a whole as outdated in light of the New Testament. We will also see in Part 5 that Matthew is likely a highly-edited version of Mark, often correcting Mark in various respects, "updating" it, so to speak.
[4] This blog series has been edited from its original publication. Articles have been reformatted, reworded in parts for clarification, given endnotes for additional information, and in some cases changed due to factual error. I would like to thank those who have commented on my articles and those who have read and discussed them with me in person; these changes would not be as fruitful without your input. In the cases where I was factually wrong, I will acknowledge my error in an endnote.
I am very happy you are writing this and will encourage others to read it!
ReplyDeleteThanks! :)
DeleteGood on you for bringing up a real hotly debated issue that should be discussed within an atmosphere of respect and love. I prefer to make my comments here where easy reference can be made to your statements instead of FB which can end up leading to much more heat than light. I have several questions about the assumptions:
ReplyDelete1) Do you take the Scriptures as authoritative? You state that there are several Canons. Which one do you take as Canon? If they are all spurious why bother with this discussion at all? If we cannot trust the Canon (the one you choose) on this issue, can it be trusted in any issue?
2) If you take the Scriptures as authoritative, which ones and why? What is your methodology?
3) Do you approach the text as a Christian? If you do, how does this affect the way you approach the OT? You state your bias in the issue but you do not state whether you are taking a Christian approach to the text. This is important because in reading the other parts of this blog, there does not seem to be the inclusion of Jesus' commentary or the NT on the passages you treat in the OT, especially Part 2.
3) For my part: "For God so loved the "kosmon" (which I take to mean the whole of creation including every person born or ever to be born - the good and the evil) is paramount. I am not against LGBT... people. I am critiquing an interpretation of scripture represented in this blog from my point of view.
b ausbury
Great questions Brad!
DeleteTo clear up multiple points you addressed and to avoid being repetitive, no, I am not trying to approach the texts as a traditional Christian. My method is to analyze scripture as a naturalistic phenomenon to shed light on the context of these passages. I do not buy into the idea that there is a canon out their that is uniquely divinely inspired. I have found many instances where the Bible disagrees with itself, which makes the idea of inspiration incredibly odd to me. Instead, I view scriptures as the product of human authors who were attempting to answer life's big questions, cope with life's circumstances, and experience God, just like I do. With such an approach, it would be irrelevant to quote Jesus or the New Testament in relation to Old Testament verses. After all, Jesus lived hundreds of years after they were written, and I am not treating him as inherently authoritative in interpreting the texts.
It should also be said that while I am treating the texts of the Bible in a naturalistic way, I'm not concluding bigger points than my method allows for. So far, I have concluded what the authors of the Bible thought about their own passages, not what God thinks. I often pair this with what many Christians think today, and this is drawn from real-life conversations as well as other Christians' blog posts I have read on the matter.
In the end, my method may be considered awkward because I am applying a naturalistic method to scripture in a theological debate. Many Christians are open to this nowadays, many are not. And while I don't expect my readers to agree with everything I say, I think it sheds light on passages in a way traditional Christians are not used to seeing, and that is the best way for learning to happen. I encourage anyone to read my blog posts, but keep in mind I never indicated that they were written for traditional Christians specifically (and those who read my "About Me" and "What I Do" pages are well aware of this). My perspective may be awkward to many people, but it's the one I have at this time in my life.
Thanks for the explanations. We all have a biases and I am glad that the post-modern movement is forcing people to admit to that. The modernist illusion of objectivity is exactly that.
ReplyDeleteAs knowledge must always follow metaphysics (we believe in order to know – it cannot be the other way around), on what do you base you naturalistic beliefs and methodology?
As metaphysics is beyond the realm of "objective" testing hence the "meta" part, I would like to know what it is that informs your worldview: Where are humans from? Who or what do you look to for determining right and wrong? What is the value of human life? Where will humanity eventually end up? How does naturalism provide you with answers concerning these important questions?
It is very easy to deconstruct - or put someone else's faith-based views under the microscope and laugh at how absurd they are (not saying you do this). It is easy to mock others but that's pretty cowardly. What earns my respect is the one who constructs a worldview and gives reasons for the constructs. As for me, the Bible informs all of those questions. I take the written Word as being similar to the living Word: a mixture of human (including human weakness) and divine. "scriptura humane loquitur" or "God speaks in human language" reflects the idea that there is an interplay between the divine and the human instrument in the production of scripture. It is mysterious and received by faith. But faith unlocks the door to knowledge – it provides a sure foundation.
I agree about biases, we all have our lenses we wear to see history that have unique smudges on them.
DeleteI have yet to engage in discussion on metaphysics. I have not discussed how God feels about homosexuality, or how it fits into his plan for salvation. I am agnostic on the metaphysical questions you asked about where humans come from, where humanity is going, etc. As for my morals, they are shaped by culture and my own reasoning, just like everyone else. Being raised a Christian myself, I tend to pull my morals from the Bible. I pick and choose the passages I find to be reasonable, but I wouldn't say I do this much more than other Christians do.
To your last question, naturalism does not provide me with answers in regards to helping me find meaning in my life. Science and naturalistic method answer "how does this work?" not "why is it that way?" But, science and naturalistic method have done wonders for our understanding of the world around us, as can be seen by our rapid rise of technology and effectiveness of medicine in the last 200 years.
I do not find deconstructing others' beliefs and mocking them without constructing a worldview to replace it cowardly. I do find it in poor taste though, and have not intended any of my articles to be of a mocking tone.
I know you were hoping for my metaphysical worldview, but I have found they are rarely worth sharing. After all, what evidence can I use to demonstrate their credibility? You use the Bible, but as I've said, I don't view it as uniquely inspired like you. I used to, but there were far too many questions that Evangelicals couldn't make proper sense of (in my opinion) that academics could (using a naturalistic perspective of the Bible). I think it is important to speculate and reflect on the metaphysical universe, but we can't let that blind us from the physical universe we can actually see and understand. In other words, I would call for a down-to-up method of understanding than a up-to-down. Our discussions should start with what we can figure out from the world around us, and let that inform our ideas about God and morals, not the other way around.