Monday, December 8, 2008

On gay marriage and the Bible

Sometimes I don't agree with Newsweek editor, Jon Meacham, at all.

But he's right on in his editorial in this weeks issue.

Meacham describes the schism in the Episcopal Church noting that it roots in the "conservative forces of reaction to the ecclesiastical and cultural acceptance of homosexuality" who claim "their opposition to the ordination and the marriage of gays ...[is] irrevocably rooted in the Bible--which they regard as the 'final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.'"

Aha! Meacham will have none of that! Whatever one's position on gay rights, he says, "this conservative resort to biblical authority is the worst kind of fundamentalism."

"Given the history of the making of the Scriptures and the millennia of critical attention scholars and others have given to the stories and injunctions that come to us in the Hebrew Bible and the Christian New Testament, to argue that something is so because it is in the Bible is more than intellectually bankrupt--it is unserious, and unworthy of the great Judeo-Christian tradition."


I've argued time and again that fundamentalists who want to pretend that the Bible is literally true and inerrant, fail to take that collection of material seriously, but rather use it as a magical talisman to justify whatever it is they want to hate at the moment.

Bishop Krister Stendahl, of Sweden, once said that the Bible is a very dangerous book, especially in the hands of the ignorant, for every evil cause on the face of the earth has been and is defended on the basis of the Bible.


Meacham notes first of all that sexual orientation is not something one chooses, "but is as intrinsic to a person's makeup as skin color."

Then, even more to the point: "The analogy with race is apt, for Christians in particular long cited scriptural authority to justify and perpetuate slavery with the same certitude that some now use to point to certain passages in the Bible to condemn homosexuality and to deny the sacrament of marriage to homosexuals."

Leaving the word, "sacrament," out of the argument, for that is a specifically religious term which many would not understand, Meacham is again right on when he says "This argument from Scripture is difficult to take seriously ... since the passages in question are part and parcel of texts that, with equal ferocity, forbid particular haircuts."

Agreeing with Dr. Stendahl, Meacham points out that biblical texts "have been ready sources for those seeking to promote anti-Semitism and limit the human rights of women ... "

And all sorts of other evils...


But it is hard to see the light when you're bound between the covers of ancient darkness.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I posted a response to someone in a thread in the Religion Forum at the Democratic Underground that says essentially what he is saying here:

"My point is that these same Anglican "separators' like all their predecessors have also been ignoring all those other precepts and verses found in the same chapters they are now using to justify what they're doing. Who decides what's to be taken as literal and what is to be considered only a metaphor? Can we all do it? All Christians do indeed cherry-pick their verses and thus their beliefs, in addition to a healthy yet constant does of cognitive dissonance is necessary in order to create a sense of seamlessness and believability in their religious belief systems."

I have make this comment to religionists on numerous occasions. I have yet to get a rejoinder or response of any kind.

Lowell said...

Hey DeSwiss!

Nah, you won't get a rejoinder for the simple reason there is none that makes sense. Fundy chritianists do not "take the Bible literally" no matter what they say. They "interpret" the Bible based upon their theological presuppositions, which allows them to do the "cherry-picking" necessary to back up their beliefs.

Generally, fundys are ignorant of the Bible because they've never had opportunity to look at the massive studies done over the past 300 plus years. I'd guess most of them have never even heard of the "real" Biblical scholars and their conclusions, or if they have, it would have been in a passing reference as to how these people are really "of the Devil."

Speaking of cognitive dissonance: Bart Ehrman, a famous Biblical scholar started out as a fundy Christian at Wheaton College. Then he went to either Columbia or Princeton - I can't remember. Before long, as he was treated to real Biblical scholarship, he had to give up his fundamentalist leanings for he learned quickly that we can't even be certain in many cases what the Bible said originally and we haven't a clue what many passages mean. Ehrman has gone on to write numerous excellent books, as you probably are aware.

Anyway, thanks for your comment! Much appreciated!

Jacob

Anonymous said...

Your readers can see www.GaysAndSlaves.com for why the Biblical condemnation of homosexual practice does not apply today.

opinions powered by SendLove.to