I am a progressive United Methodist
with a strong theology of Biblical authority. I have been asked by a friend to
share the content below regarding our misuse of the Bible and exclusion of the
LGBTQIA+ community. I should have shared what follows more boldly prior to now.
I do not have a Ph.D. in Biblical studies, but I do have an M.Div., which I
earned with a select emphasis in Bible. I have studied the Biblical languages. What
follows is the fruit of an honest search across Scripture, language, and
history. I confess to those who read this that for the first many years of my
Christian journey I held a theological position that would lead to an exclusionary
stance towards the LGBTQIA+ community. I repent of this, and now hold a
position of full inclusion, while retaining the belief that the Bible is authoritative
for life and practice.
Our problem lies not in the
authority of Scripture, but in failing to address human error in the
translation and interpretation of Scripture. An incorrect translation or
interpretation is not true just because it has been held by a large number of
Christians for a long period of human history.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the
Abrahamic Covenant sees the Jewish relationship with God through the tri-fold
lenses of land, progeny, and identity (“you shall be my people, I shall be your
God”). The Mosaic/Levitical covenant rests upon the establishment of laws that
preserve the three dimensions in which that covenant was understood. Within
this theological understanding of covenant, homosexuality is prohibited because
it cannot fulfill the covenantal promise of progeny.
Under the new covenant established
by Jesus Christ, and anticipated by prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah and Ezekiel,
land and progeny are no longer key ingredients to the fulfillment of our
relationship with God. Therefore, prohibitions of homosexuality in the Old
Testament should not be viewed as binding for Christians. A parallel and
Biblical example of this would be Isaiah’s inclusion of eunuchs (Isaiah 56),
who previously were excluded under the law (Deuteronomy 23), for the same
progeny-related reason.
In terms of the New Testament,
most (not all, but most) of the Biblical argument for articulating that
“homosexual practice is incompatible with Christian teaching” comes from the
use of 2 key Greek words in Pauline and deutero-pauline texts: malakoi and arsenokoites.
Malakoi (with a, perhaps, best literal translation as “squishy”) often
receives the dubious translation of “effeminate,” and has a history of being
interpreted as “the submissive male” (or something along those lines). This
mistranslation stems from our Augustinian hang-ups concerning human sexuality.
Outside of the Biblical context malakoi
usually carries the connotation and translation of “cowardice.” Conscientious
translation must look to as wide a historical context as possible to ensure
accurate work. Within the Biblical context, malakoi
carries its other connotation of “vanity” or “affluence” (Matt. 11:8 &
Luke 7:25 “soft robes”). We mistranslate
Paul by skewing the connotation in the direction of sexuality because we have
been overly preoccupied with sexuality since the days of Augustine. We avoid
the translation that would be in keeping with the Bible’s own internal usage of
the word because seeing Paul condemn “vanity” or “affluence” means that,
suddenly, those texts are no longer addressing 10% of the population but,
instead, are addressing those who… donate…?
Arsenokoites
is a compound word with little or no context prior to or during the time of
Paul. It literally means “man-bed.” We should confess that our use of “bed” to
refer to “sexual activity” is an anachronistic reading of Scripture. After the
time of Paul, until the 16th century within the translation of
Scripture, and continuing in translation circles outside of canonical Scripture
(for example, in modern translations of the occurrence of the word in the Didache), the word carried the meaning
of pedophilia (it is often translated as “corrupters of boys,” referring to
Greco-Roman practices of pederasty among the affluent… and notice above that
the word joined to it, malakoi, can
carry a connotation of affluence). Sexualizing Paul’s meaning at all is a
matter of interpretation, and, I would argue, is based once again more on
Augustine than the Bible itself. It would be just as easy to argue that Paul’s
meaning may be more in line with a modern term like “lay-a-bed,” which is meant
to evoke laziness rather than depict sexual activity. I realize how far-fetched
this will sound to some. The reason for this reaction is based on the history
of human translation and interpretation. Biblically, the word simply does not
carry the clarity we for far too long have assumed. We dare not, as those who
value Scripture as God’s word to us and for us, base so much on one word that,
if we are honest, lacks clarity as to its original meaning. In addition, as a
student of the Desert Mothers and Fathers in early Christianity, I find their
emphasis on sloth (and a later word, acedia)
an interesting insight that suggests this was much more important to early
Christians than sex. Perhaps the Desert Mothers and Fathers preserve for us an
earlier historic continuity than the history of our mistranslation, which we
can finally recognize and claim.
The other passage that I would comment on is Romans 1, which contains a
few pertinent verses (26 and 27). The problem with appealing to Romans 1 is the
argument being built towards by Paul, which is disclosed in the opening verses
of the second chapter:
1Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are,
when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself,
because you, the judge, are doing the very same things. 2 You
say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in
accordance with truth.” 3 Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when
you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape
the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of his
kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God’s kindness
is meant to lead you to repentance? 5 But by your hard and impenitent heart
you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath, when God’s righteous
judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will repay according to each
one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good
seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 while
for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there
will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be anguish and distress for
everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but
glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also
the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
(Romans 2:1-11, NRSV)
To this day, every time I read the
opening of Romans 2, I feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, heavy upon my
heart. I repent anew, for I am the
one who is guilty of the practice that
is incompatible with Christian teaching, which receives condemnation in the
opening chapters of Romans. It is not homosexuality. We have no excuse, for
when we judge others, we condemn ourselves.
My brothers and sisters in
Christ, a high and humble view of Biblical authority ought to lead us to the
faithful and full inclusion of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Comments
Post a Comment