Exploring the Connections

How biblical literalism took root

The Bible doesn't state that it should be read literally – yet an all-or-nothing approach is the core of many Christians' faith

by Stephen Tomkins
The Guardian, February 21, 2011

Where does Biblical literalism come from? What is the genesis, if you will, of the habit of mind that  makes many Christians read the Bible with a different brain to the one they'd use with any other writing?

It is by no means an essential Christian tenet. No creed says anything about how to read the scriptures.  The highest claim the Bible makes for itself is when the writer of Paul's letter to Timothy says the Hebrew scriptures were "God-breathed", which is wonderfully suggestive but hardly precise or dogmatic. I mean, Adam was God-breathed, and look what happened to him

The Bible is the word of God, Christians believe, but why should the fact it's God's mean it has to be read with naive absolutism? Many Christians call the church "the body of Christ" without considering it anything like infallible, or refusing to see its rites as symbolic.

Part of the problem is historical. The deification of the Bible is a result of the Protestant reformation. Before then, the finl authority, the ultimate arbiter and source of information in religious matters was the church, with its ancient traditions and living experts. When Luther and friends opposed the teaching of the Catholic hierarchy, they needed a superior authority to appeal to, which was provided by the Bible.

Fair enough. But in defending or reclaiming the Bible from papists and then liberals, evangelical Protestants made it the very heart of the faith. Hence the ludicrous situation where many evangelical organizations, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, have statements of faith where th first point is the Bible, before any mention of, for example, God. Hence the celebrated idolatrous aphorism of William Chillingworth: "The BIBLE, I say, the BIBLE only, is the religion of Protestants!".

One practical problem of this text mania is that the Bible, unlike the church, can't answer questions, clarify earlier statements, arbitrate disagreements or deal with new developments. So those in search of religious certainty have to find it all in the text: if it says the earth was created in six days, or that gay sex is an abomination, them's the facts, end of story. And if it forbids charging interest, well there's always wriggle room.

The other practical problem is that for more moderate Christians, Christ is the heart of the faith, and the Bible offers information and ideas about him and is one of the things that point us in his direction. But if the Bible itself is the heart, then to read it is to enter the Holy of Holies, making it that much harder to accept any normal human ambiguity or inaccuracy in its words.

This effect is magnified by a more recent historical development: the charismatic movement. Even among evangelicals who don't speak in tongues or put their hands in the air when the sing Shine Jesus Shine, the movement has had profound effects, one of which is that they don't read the Bible just to be reminded and shaped by its teaching, but to hear what God has to say to them today.

If you read the Bible asking: "What was St Paul saying to the Galatians?" all kinds of critical questions arise: How would first-century Asia Minor have understood these words? Would Paul have phrased it differently to a church he was less pissed off with? Would other witnesses have recalled the events he describes differently? But if you read the Bible asking: "What is God saying to me today?" it seems less appropriate to do anything but accept it at face value.

One last factor in biblical all-or-nothingism is the part that biblical criticism plays in evangelical conversion, which is none at all.

People who convert to evangelical Christianity, including those who grow up with it, are persuaded by the experience of a religious community, and by finding that evangelical theology seems to hold water. All this is totally underpinned by the Bible – it's the foundation and guarantee. But the only test of its reliability that inquirers are invited to make is to read it and ask "Is this something that I can accept wholesale and entrust my life to?"

It's generally much later that a convert will have to consider concrete evidence that biblical writers were human beings, capable of being one-sided, of writing myth, of exaggerating, of guessing, of having opinions it's impossible to agree with.

Some of us, faced with this evidence, shape our faith in the light of it, making the Bible a far more fascinating, revealing and diverse record of human religious experience. But it's not surprising if for others the evidence comes as an attack that threatens to undermine the foundation of their faith, and has to be beaten off blindfold.

Stories From the Pews: The Long Journey Home

b

by Marti Shelly
Member, St. Andrews Episcopal Church
Birmingham, Alabama 

I was adopted at 6 months old by parents that were Cumberland Presbyterian. They took me to church at least every Easter until I was old enough to walk to church by myself at about 6 years old. I didn't go to church, I was sent to church. I was told that if I didn't attend at least Sunday School or church, I couldn't go outside to play later.

There were about 3 churches within 4 blocks of our house. I attended all of them at one time or another. One was almost literally in our backyard. It was a 'Christian Alliance' church. On the corner of my street was a Church of God and two blocks beyond that was a Baptist church.

I didn't understand why my parents didn't attend church except for Easter, yet insisted I go. When I finally got the nerve to ask my Dad about it he said, "I don't want to go somewhere where they shake your hand on Sunday and don't know you the rest of the week!" He also said when I was older, I could decide whether or not to go. It didn't take me long to find a way around it. I learned how to play and entertain myself in my room on Sundays. It didn't take him long to catch on! Unless it was raining...off I went.

There was one Sunday when my Dad said he didn't want me to go to church. It was September 15, 1963, the day of the tragic 16th Street Baptist Church bombing in which four little black girls lost their lives. I didn't really understand what was going on at the time as I was only 8, but I had a terrible feeling inside. How could Jesus let that happen? I thought Jesus loved the little children...red and yellow, black and white.That church bombing made me scared to go to church, but because I was more afraid of my Father's temper, I went.

Most often, I would make a brief appearance long enough for a neighbor or two to see me there, grab a church program and out the door to the Jitney Junior for candy and sodas with my offering money. I was convinced I was already going to do 'hell time' for that!

By 7th grade, my parents sent me to a Catholic school for my last two years of grammar school. That was the year the schools were desegregated and my Dad wasn't having any part of that! Again, what happened to red and yellow, black and white, I wondered. I grew to like it. We were all required to attend Mass each Wednesday morning before class. I was fascinated and though I was not an Honor Roll student, I made straight A's in religion. I decided I wanted to be Catholic...but Dad said NO!

By high school, I chose to attend United Methodist churches because that's where most of my friends went and because it wasn't as stuffy as Baptist or as formal as Catholic. Halfway through high school, I came out and was subjected to six months of psychiatric abuse...drugs, shock treatments, etc. Eventually, my parents and I worked things out and I was free to be myself......what was left of me. I wasn't really thinking much about religion during those years.

In 1974, I heard of a church on Birmingham's Southside that openly accepted gays and lesbians and didn't require us to take one of those infamous "I ain't a homo no mo courses". It was a small Episcopal church called St. Andrews. I knew nothing about the Episcopal faith and didn't think about trying it then. It would be 36 more years before I did.

In the meantime, I attended some of the "gay churches" like MCC, but something was always missing for me. After years of alcohol abuse and the subsequent sobering up one more time, I decided to visit some other churches. I went to about 2 or 3 and found them to be 'nice', but I was hungry for something more than 'nice'. I wanted spiritual fulfillment.One Sunday, out of the blue, I decided to go to that little Episcopal church I remembered hearing about in the 70s. I walked in the big red doors of St. Andrews and sat down in the very back. Within about 15 minutes I had a feeling wash over and through me that I had never experienced before. It would be 3 more weeks before I learned that it was the Holy Spirit making its presence known for the first time in my life.

That was four months ago and in that short amount of time, my life has been transformed from spiritual starvation to spiritually fulfilled. I have never felt quite so blessed and am so looking forward to the Catechumenate classes that start this Sunday and my official Confirmation in April. At last I know I am home...with a family...red and yellow, black and white! ~Peace~

This post first appeared in the blog WALKING WITH INTEGRITY on February 23, 2011

Stories from the Pews: You Can’t Take Love Away From...

A response to Rhode Island Bishop Geralyn Wolf's stance against same-sex marriage

by Dante Tavolaro
A response to an email from the Rev'd Susan Russell, past president of Integrity USA, on February 9, 2011

There are many aspects to who I am. I am a partner, little brother, friend, student, musician, cradle Episcopalian and I identify as gay and transgender. Out of all of these things, being an active member of The Episcopal Church is closest to the core of who I am. Since elementary school I have become increasingly involved in my parish, my diocese, and the wider church. When I’ve had nowhere else to go, it has always been – and continues to be – my Church that I can turn to. It is this passion and love that led me to have the response I did to an email I received from the Rev. Susan Russell, past president of Integrity USA on February 9, 2011. 

Russell's email went to the House of Bishops/Deputies listserve. The subject was “Teachable Moment on Holy Matrimony vs. Civil Marriage.” Since I was headed to the annual Marriage Equality Rhode Island (MERI) Rally at the Statehouse I thought what better time to read this email. The moment I began to read the email my stomach was in knots and I had a huge lump in my throat. These intense feelings were brought about by reading the words,  "As the Episcopal Bishop of the Diocese of Rhode Island, I firmly support the traditional definition of marriage as the union between one male and one female. I believe that Holy Matrimony is a sacred religious rite, whose definition should not be re-interpreted by legislation or civil courts." I paused, took a deep breath, and with great trepidation read the Bishop's entire statement in The Rhode Island Catholic and Russell’s response on her blog: An Inch At A Time.

Within the hour I began getting phone calls, emails, and texts asking what I thought about the Bishop’s support for “traditional” marriage. It was not a surprise that Bishop Wolf is against same-sex marriage: she has made that clear both in personal conversation and in broader contexts. What was shocking and – in my opinion – slightly insulting was that she released these comments to The Rhode Island Catholic (a publication of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence). Nowhere on the Episcopal Diocesan website or blog was a copy of the statement. I have the utmost respect for Bishop Wolf and the office she holds. However, as Bishop, she should be honest with her own diocese before going to other denominations. I would have had much more respect for her actions if she first had posted these comments on our diocesan blog. I do not think that I am being irrational in asking for transparency and honesty from my Bishop. 

As I stood in front of the Statehouse that afternoon waiting to get in, I looked down the hill and there right in front of me were the diocesan offices and Cathedral for the Episcopal Diocese of Rhode Island. As I waited to go into the Statehouse, to say that I am a citizen and taxpayer of Rhode Island and deserve all the rights and privileges thereof, I felt as if I was doing the same for my diocese. It was as if the Statehouse and the diocesan offices were a reminder that as current law and policy stands I am not equal, that despite my contributions to my community – both religious and secular – I am something less than, that I am not good enough simply by the virtue of who I am. 

In the days following the rally, I continued to have conversations, emails, texts, and even facebook messages from laity and clergy of the Diocese of Rhode Island. It was – and is – these messages that reminded me why I am so committed to my ministry here in Rhode Island. Message after message of love and support came through. One priest even asked when the next rally was, because she was working on her sign that says, “I’m an Episcopal Priest and I Support Marriage Equality.”

Time and history have proven that the majority of people, both lay and ordained, in this diocese do not agree with the positions of Bishop Wolf on this matter. It is with this knowledge that I can carry on: That no matter what I can still go to my parish church day in and day out and be loved and supported for exactly who I am. There is nothing Bishop Wolf can say or do to take that love away from me. 

 

Marriage Equality Roundup: Save Marriage from Bigotry; Support Marriage Equality

And back to the Supremes we go …

by Susan Russell
An Inch At A Time (blog), February 16, 2011

So here's what happened today in California:

The California Supreme Court decided Wednesday to determine whether the sponsors of Proposition 8 have special authority to defend the anti-gay marriage initiative in court. The state high court, meeting in closed session, agreed to a request by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to determine the status California law gives initiative sponsors.

The court was unanimous in deciding to accept the case. The court's order set an expedited briefing schedule to permit a hearing by "as early as September." The court must rule on a case 90 days after oral argument.

And here's what one of my (attorney) Facebook Friends says that means:

This is kind of a win/win for us. If the Court finds they don't have standing, Judge Walker's opinion becomes law in CA and Prop 8 is dead. If they do have standing, we continue with the 9th Circuit with a strong case articulated in Judge Walker's opinion. If the U. S. Supreme Court hears an appeal from the 9th Circuit (whatever the opinion), we've still got a strong case.

Meanwhile, the poll numbers show majority support for marriage equality in California for the first time:

Just a few years after Californians went to the polls to pass Proposition 8, a majority of the Golden State’s voters now support equal marriage rights. 51% think same-sex marriage should be legal, and only 40% think it should be illegal. When [pollsters] last asked the question in September 2010, a 46% plurality was in support, but an almost equal 44% opposed these rights.

Finally, this news from Hawaii:

HONOLULU (AP) — The Hawaii Legislature approved a bill on Wednesday allowing civil unions for same-sex couples, sending the measure to the state's Democratic governor, who has said he will sign it into law.

Democratic Gov. Neil Abercrombie's office said he intends to sign the bill within 10 days, and civil unions would begin Jan. 1, 2012.

That'll do it for today. Stay tuned for news as it breaks ... and yes, I do believe a little chorus of "Praise God, from whom all blessings flow" is in order!

A Valentine's Day present for ME supporters in New Hampshire

Walking With Integrity Blog, February 12, 2011 

A WMUR-TV Granite State Poll showed 62 percent of survey respondents oppose repeal of the 2009 law that legalized same-sex marriage in New Hampshire

                            

DURHAM, N.H. -- A new poll shows strong opposition to a bill that would repeal the law allowing same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

The Republican takeover of the Legislature in November raised questions about whether lawmakers would tackle social issues such as gay marriage and abortion.

But House leaders have asked that the fight to repeal gay marriage be postponed until next year, and the latest WMUR Granite State Poll shows only 29 percent of New Hampshire adults support repealing the law, compared to 62 who want to leave it in place.

The telephone poll of 520 adults was conducted Jan. 27 through Feb. 6 by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center and had a sampling margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Posted by Louise Brooks

 

Gay wedding ban in church may be lifted [in the U.K.]

by Karen McVeigh
The Guardian, January 13, 2011

 
Same-sex couples may soon be given the same right to marry as heterosexuals, government ministers suggest. Photograph: Robert Galbraith/Reuters 

Ministers are expected to announce plans allowing same-sex couples to register civil partnerships in church, removing a key legal distinction between the ceremony and marriage.

The move, likely to be announced by Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, would lift the ban on civil partnerships taking place in religious settings in England and Wales. Same-sex couples are currently not allowed to use hymns or Bible readings in civil ceremonies, but it is unclear whether this would change or whether civil partnership ceremonies in places of worship could formally be described as marriages.

The Home Office said: "The government is currently considering what the next stage should be for civil partnerships, including how some religious organisations can allow same-sex couples to register their relationship in a religious setting if they wish to do so."

The move, likely to come as early as next year, would mean historic reforms of marriage laws, according to newspaper reports over the weekend. However, it will cause ructions among churches strongly opposed to formal gay unions.

Critics of the current system argue that existing law is discriminatory. Gay rights campaigners have urged the government to go further and allow homosexual couples to marry and heterosexual couples to enter into civil partnerships. Such partnerships, granting similar rights to same-sex couples as marriage does, have been legal in Britain for six years.

Michael Hutchinson, acting recording clerk for Quakers in Britain, said: "We look forward to examining the proposals to give effect to the provision of the Equality Act."

"We ourselves see no distinction between heterosexual or homosexual in terms of commitment and wish to move further to allow legal marriage for same-sex couples, but this is a welcome step along the way to full equality."

The government's reported proposals follow an amendment to the Equalities Act by Lord Alli, a Labour peer, passed by the House of Lords before the general election last year. But his amendment, which would not force religious venues to accept same-sex couples, would require a further ruling from ministers to be implemented.

The human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell said: "It's outrageous that the government is delaying the implementation of a law that was passed almost a year ago. Parliament voted to allow civil partnerships in places of worship.

"It's great if the government is planning to end discrimination against heterosexual couples by allowing them to have a civil partnership. It follows that the government should allow gay couples civil marriages."

The Church of England, which has said it will not allow any of its churches to be used for civil partnerships, said the reported proposals could lead to "inconsistencies" and "confusion".

A spokesman said the church had yet to see the plans, but added: "The proposal as reported could also lead to inconsistencies with civil marriage, have unexplored impacts, and lead to confusion, with a number of difficult and unintended consequences for churches and faiths. Any change could, therefore, only be brought after proper and careful consideration of all the issues involved, to ensure that the intended freedom for all denominations over these matters is genuinely secured."

However, the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, gave the news a guarded welcome. He told the BBC1's Andrew Marr Show that he "believes in a liberal democracy, and actually wants equality with everybody", but he did not want churches to be told what to do.

The Catholic church and Islam sanction marriage only as a union between a man and a woman.

Earlier this month, eight couples, four gay and four heterosexual, filed a joint application in the European court of human rights asking to overturn the prohibition on gay civil marriages and on heterosexual civil partnerships.

 

What the Bible Really Says About Sex

by Lisa Miller
Newsweek, February 6, 2011

[Thanks to Bob Baker for his 'heads-up' to this article]

New scholarship on the Good Book’s naughty bits and how it deals with adultery, divorce, and same-sex love.

The poem describes two young lovers aching with desire. The obsession is mutual, carnal, complete. The man lingers over his lover’s eyes and hair, on her teeth, lips, temples, neck, and breasts, until he arrives at “the mount of myrrh.” He rhapsodizes. “All of you is beautiful, my love,” he says. “There is no flaw in you.”

The girl returns his lust with lust. “My lover thrust his hand through the hole,” she says, “and my insides groaned because of him.”

This ode to sexual consummation can be found in—of all places—the Bible. It is the Song of Solomon, a poem whose origins likely reach back to the pagan love songs of Egypt more than 1,200 years before the birth of Jesus. Biblical interpreters have endeavored through the millennia to temper its heat by arguing that it means more than it appears to mean. It’s about God’s love for Israel, they have said; or, it’s about Jesus’ love for the church. But whatever other layers it may contain, the Song is on its face an ancient piece of erotica, a celebration of the fulfillment of sexual desire.

What does the Bible really say about sex? Two new books written by university scholars for a popular audience try to answer this question. Infuriated by the dominance in the public sphere of conservative Christians who insist that the Bible incontrovertibly supports sex within the constraints of “traditional marriage,” these authors attempt to prove otherwise. Jennifer Wright Knust and Michael Coogan mine the Bible for its earthiest and most inexplicable tales about sex—Jephthah, who sacrifices his virgin daughter to God; Naomi and Ruth, who vow to love one another until death—to show that the Bible’s teachings on sex are not as coherent as the religious right would have people believe. In Knust’s reading, the Song of Solomon is a paean to unmarried sex, outside the conventions of family and community. “I’m tired,” writes Knust in Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire, “of watching those who are supposed to care about the Bible reduce its stories and teachings to slogans.” Her book comes out this month. Coogan’s book God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says was released last fall.

Conservative critics say that coherence is precisely what the Bible offers on sex. Reading it in the context of the Christian tradition, and with an awareness that the text is “divinely inspired”—that is, given to people directly by God—a believer can come to only one conclusion on questions of sex and marriage. “Sexual intimacy outside of a public, lifelong commitment between a man and woman is not in accordance with God’s creating or redeeming purposes,” explains Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. Liberals may wish the Bible were more permissive on sex, conservative religious scholars say, but it’s not.

These battles over the “right” interpretation are, of course, as old as the Bible itself. In today’s culture wars, the Bible—specifically a “one man, one woman” argument from the Book of Genesis—is employed by the Christian right to oppose gay marriage. This fight, as well as those over the efficacy of abstinence-education schools and intra-denominational squabbles over the proper role of women in church-leadership roles, have led many Americans (two thirds of whom rarely read the Bible) to believe that the Good Book doesn’t speak for them. Knust, a religion professor at Boston University, is also an ordained minister in the American Baptist denomination. Coogan, director of publications at Harvard University’s Semitic Museum, once trained as a Jesuit priest. With their books, they hope to steal the conversation about sex and the Bible back from the religious right. “The Bible doesn’t have to be an invader, conquering bodies and wills with its pronouncements and demands,” Knust writes. “It can also be a partner in the complicated dance of figuring out what it means to live in bodies that are filled with longing.” Here, in summary, are the arguments:

The Bible is an ancient text, inapplicable in its particulars to the modern world.
 

In the Bible, “traditional marriage” doesn’t exist. Abraham fathers children with Sarah and his servant Hagar. Jacob marries Rachel and her sister Leah, as well as their servants Bilhah and Zilpah. Jesus was celibate, as was Paul.

Husbands, in essence, owned their wives, and fathers owned their daughters, too. A girl’s virginity was her father’s to protect—and to relinquish at any whim. Thus Lot offers his two virgin daughters to the angry mob that surrounds his house in Sodom. Deuteronomy proposes death for female adulterers, and Paul suggests “women should be silent in churches” (a rationale among some conservative denominations for barring women from the pulpit).

The Bible contains a “pervasive patriarchal bias,” Coogan writes. Better to elide the specifics and read the Bible for its teachings on love, compassion, and forgiveness. Taken as a whole, “the Bible can be understood as the record of the beginning of a continuous movement toward the goal of full freedom and equality for all persons.”

Sex in the Bible is sometimes hidden.

Those who follow the gay-marriage debate are likely familiar with certain bits of Scripture. Two verses, from Leviticus, describe sex between men as “an abomination” (in the King James translation). Another, from Romans, condemns men who are “inflamed with lust for one another.” But as Coogan quips, “there is sex in the Bible on every page, if you just know where to look.” A full understanding of biblical teachings on sex requires a trained eye.

When biblical authors wanted to talk about genitals, they sometimes talked about “hands,” as in the Song of Solomon, and sometimes about “feet.” Coogan cites one passage in which a baby is born “between a mother’s feet”; and another, in which the prophet Isaiah promises that a punitive God will shave the hair from the Israelites’ heads, chins, and “feet.” When, in the Old Testament, Ruth anoints herself and lies down after dark next to Boaz—the man she hopes to make her husband—she “uncovers his feet.” A startled Boaz awakes. “Who are you?” he asks. Ruth identifies herself and spends the night “at his feet.”

From this, Coogan makes a rather sensationalistic exegetical move. When he is teaching to college students, he writes, someone inevitably asks about the scene in Luke, in which a woman kisses and washes Jesus’ feet—and then dries them with her hair. Is that author speaking about “feet”? Or feet? “As both modern and ancient elaborations suggest,” Coogan writes, “sexual innuendo may be present.” Scholars agree that in this case, a foot was probably just a foot.

That which is forbidden is also allowed.

The Bible is stern and judgmental on sex. It forbids prostitution, adultery, premarital sex for women, and homosexuality. But exceptions exist in every case, Knust points out. Tamar, a widow without children, poses as a whore and solicits her own father-in-law—so that he could “come into” her. Her desire to ameliorate her childlessness trumps the prohibition against prostitution. Knust also argues—provocatively—that King David “enjoyed sexual satisfaction” with his soulmate, Jonathan. “Your love to me was wonderful,” laments David at Jonathan’s death, “passing the love of women.”

Divorce is permitted in the Old Testament—but it’s forbidden in the Gospels. Jesus didn’t like it: that much is clear. “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery,” he says in the Gospel of Mark. But in Matthew’s telling, Jesus softens his position slightly and leaves a loophole for the husbands of unfaithful wives. “When it comes to sex, the Bible is often divided against itself,” writes Knust.

Accepted interpretations are sometimes wrong.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is, as everyone knows, a story of God’s judgment against homosexuality, promiscuity, and other kinds of illicit sex. Except, Knust argues, it’s not. It’s a story about the danger of having sex with angels. In the biblical world, people believed in angels, and they feared them, for sex with angels led inevitably to death and destruction. In the Noah story, God sends the flood to exterminate the offspring of “the daughters of man” (human women) and “the sons of God” (angels, in some interpretations). Non-canonical Jewish texts tell of angels, called Watchers, who descend to earth and impregnate human women, who produce monstrous children—thus inciting God’s terrible vengeance. God razes Sodom not because its male inhabitants are having sex with each other, as so many contemporary ministers preach, Knust argues, but in part because the men of the town intended to rape angels of God who were sheltered in Lot’s house. And when the Apostle Paul tells women to keep their heads covered in church, he’s issuing a warning against inciting angelic lust: “The angels might be watching,” Knust writes.

Coogan and Knust are hardly the first scholars to offer alternative readings of the Bible’s teachings on sex. What sets them apart is their populism. With provocative titles and mainstream publishing houses, they obviously hope to sell books. But their greater cause is a fight against “official” interpretations. Knust, who was raised in a conservative Christian home, recalls with intensity reading the Bible on the couch with her mother, and—with a mixture of faith and skepticism—talking aloud about what it might mean. With her book, she encourages readers to do the same.

A person alone on her couch with Scripture can also come to some dangerous conclusions: the Bible has, at certain times in history, been read to support slavery, wife-beating, kidnapping, child abuse, racism, and polygamy. That’s why Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, that citadel of Christian conservatism, concludes that one’s Bible reading must be overseen by the proper authorities. Just because everyone should read the Bible “doesn’t mean that everyone’s equally qualified to read it, and it doesn’t mean that the text is just to be used as a mirror for ourselves,” he says. “All kinds of heresies come from people who read the Bible and recklessly believe that they’ve understood it correctly.” As the word of God, he adds, the Bible isn’t open to the same level of interpretation as The Odyssey or The Iliad.

Yet in a democracy, even those who speak “heresies” are allowed a voice. And whether readers accept Coogan’s and Knust’s interpretations, the authors are justified in their insistence that a population so divided over questions of sex and sexual morality cannot—should not—cede the field without exploring first what the Bible actually says. The eminent Bible historian Elaine Pagels agrees. To read the Bible and reflect on it “is to realize that we have not a series of answers, but a lot of questions.

 

'Simply a Marriage'

by Cynthia B. Astle
The Progressive Christian Blog, January 19, 2011

Here's hoping that one day, gay and lesbian marriages will be so commonplace that they'll no longer make news.

The New Year's Day marriage of two Episcopal women priests in Massachusetts is gaining notice among members of other denominations as an example they hope they churches will follow in the near future.

The Rev. Mally Lloyd, canon to the ordinary (chief operating officer) of the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts married the Rev. Katherine Ragsdale, dean and president of the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA, on Jan. 1. Episcopal Bishop M. Thomas Shaw officiated at their wedding ceremony at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul in Boston, with about 400 guests in attendance.

In an interview with WBUR, a National Public Radio affiliate in Cambridge, Rev. Lloyd said she hopes people will see her and Rev. Ragsdale's marriage not as a "gay ceremony," but simply as “a commitment and marriage like any other.” She told writer Lane Lambert of the Cambridge Ledger: “We are asking God’s blessing, and asking the community and our friends to bless our marriage.”

Same-sex marriage has been legal in Massachusetts since 2004, but it wasn't until 2009 that the Episcopal Church voted to allow what its legislation calls a "generous pastoral response to meet the needs of members of this church." A longtime supporter of gay marriage, Bishop Shaw gave Massachusetts priests permission to "solemnize," or officiate at, such unions in 2009 after the Episcopal Church's General Convention voted.

A press release from the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge said the two women were introduced by a mutual friend in the summer of 2008, a few months before each was named to the high ecclesiastical offices they now hold.

The status of LGBT people remains a point of serious contention in several U.S. and global denominations, including the Anglican Communion of which the Episcopal Church (USA) is a part. Legislation concerning the rights of LGBT people, including marriage and ordination, has been fought over for nearly 40 years among Presbyterians, United Methodists, Lutherans and other denominations.

My thanks to faithful reader Anne C. Ewing of Germantown, PA, for bringing this happy event to my attention.

 

Gay adults on how they were "born this way"

by Mary Elizabeth Williams
Salon, February 4, 2011

Memories of LGBT childhood and a moving speech from the son of lesbian parents remind us what really makes a family

Not every little girl grows up wanting to marry the prince. Not every adolescent boy wants "only one thing" from girls. You think that'd be obvious by now. Yet we have near-daily reminders that the world is full of small-minded bigots ever at the ready to condemn "the gay lifestyle" – bigots who sit on advisory boards, religious leaders who agonize over their "belief systems" and "boundaries," and political candidates who think being gay is "an option" that is neither "valid" nor "successful." Because they view homosexuality as something one does rather than something one is, it's easy for them to believe that if gay people just tried a little harder, they wouldn't keep bugging everybody with their pesky demands for basic civil rights. And they think that those boys and girls who seem somehow "different" just need a team sports or Barbie intervention and they can fixed before it's too late.

How inspiring, then, on the heels of the It gets better project, to find another refuge of tolerance and sanity on the Internet: the funny, occasionally heartbreaking "Born This Way." Sharing its name with Lady Gaga's forthcoming album, Los Angeles DJ Paul V.'s month-old blog has become an addictive compendium of childhood photos and stories "that capture …. OUR nature, our TRUTH!" And in Paul's own kickoff post -- with a preschool image of a friend with a hands-on-hips pose that would make Tyra proud -- he clearly explains that being born this way doesn't mean being born effeminate or butch. "Some of the pix here feature gay boys with feminine traits, and some gay girls with masculine traits," he writes. "And even more gay kids with NONE of those traits. And just like real life, these gay kids come in all shades and layers of masculine and feminine. And the sooner we teach all children that being gay is as normal (and biological) as being straight, then maybe it really WILL get better."

The images are as flat-out adorable – and brilliantly awkward -- any childhood project, and the inclusion of each contributor's "first same-sex crush" should solidify Erik Estrada's place in the gay icon hall of fame. There are stories of being made fun of, and stories of simply having fun, and the legendary drag queen Jackie Beat's enthusiastic macking on a bust of Caesar makes it pretty clear that for some boys, the ladies never had a chance.

Taken together, the images of carefree children, looking as artless and unguarded as children are, pack a wallop. "I think I looked damn good in a Jon Benet Ramsey meets Anita Bryant kind of way," writes one man, adding, "The homophobic bullying started soon after." That's the power in the blog -- the way it potently illustrates that when you bash or bully or deny equal protection to a gay man or women, you're really hurting that little tomboy in the "Born to Boogie" tee. As one man writes, "I look at this pic now & think that boy is still inside me." "When did I feel 'different'?" writes another contributor. "Oh…always?" Yet despite its occasionally painful tales, it's encouraging to note how often, among the stories of bullying and harassment,  are fond, silly memories -- a reminder that growing up gay isn't always some sad Lifetime movie. "My parents encouraged my brother and I to always be creative and accept ourselves and others," writes one user, a statement that's as simple as it is, in many corners, utterly revolutionary.

And if you need any further evidence of the supreme value of an accepting family, try the words of 19-year-old Zach Wahls, who spoke before the Iowa House of Representatives this week during its constitutional hearings to ban same-sex marriage. Wahls, the son of a lesbian couple, is an Eagle Scout and engineering student who scored in the 99th percentile on the ACT college aptitude test. He's also as proud of his parents as many of the parents on Born This Way are of their kids. "We go to church together. We eat dinner. We go on vacations," he says, thereby effectively destroying traditional marriage as we know it. Whew, thank God you voted to repeal gay marriage, Iowa!

Even though Wahls acknowledges that "what you’re voting here isn’t to change us. It’s not to change our families," he adds, movingly, "We just hope for equal and fair treatment from our government. " It's a magnificent testimony to good parenting, and further evidence that who you love matters so, so much less than how much you love. And as Lady Gaga sings, there's nothing wrong, either, with loving who you are.

 

 

 

 

After controversy, Christian university changes gay policy

by Adele Banks
The Christian Century, January 28, 2011

(RNS) A Christian university in Nashville, Tenn., has amended its nondiscrimination policy to include sexual orientation after a recent controversy involving a lesbian former soccer coach.

"We are a Christian community that is welcoming, loving and inclusive of everyone," said Belmont University President Bob Fisher in a Wednesday (Jan. 26) statement.

The change comes a month after the university's soccer coach, Lisa Howe, left her position after revealing that she and her lesbian partner were expecting a child.

In his announcement, Fisher said that sexual orientation was not a consideration in "hiring, promotion, salary or dismissal decisions" during the 11 years he has been president.

Howe hailed the policy change in a statement reported by The Tennessean.

"Significant change does not happen without sacrifice and without some people getting hurt along the way," she wrote. "However, in my opinion, everyone is a winner today."

The executive director of the Tennessee Baptist Convention, however, said he was "saddened" by the school's decision, the Nashville newspaper reported.

"It sounds very much like a compromise of a traditional biblical worldview and the mores of the day," said the Rev. Randy Davis, whose Southern Baptist state convention severed ties with Belmont in 2007.

 Adelle M. Banks writes for Religion News Service.