The Biblical Roots of LGBT Oppression
Saturday, December 15, 2007 at 12:36 pm
- 24 Comments
How do Minnesota’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people of faith reconcile their beliefs when their own sacred texts seem to condemn them? It’s an important question for both LGBT people and people of faith as the conversation in recent months regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality has shifted from one of political equality to one of spiritual equality.
Just a month ago, the Twin Cities’ new Archbishop used theology to accuse not only LGBT people but also their families and friends of participating in “mortal sin.” In contrast, an increasing number of Minnesota churches are finding an open and affirming place for LGBT people within their congregations. Wednesday night, more than 100 people gathered at Pi Bar and Restaurant to gain an in-depth understanding of the content and context of some of the most often quoted verses from the Bible in regard to homosexuality.
The root of opposition to equal rights most often lies in deeply held religious beliefs. But biblical mentions of same-gender sexual activity are rare, and mentions of same-sex relationships as we know them today are non-existent. Only a handful of verses deal directly with the issue, including Genesis and Leviticus in the Old Testament and Romans in the New Testament.The Rev. Laurie Crelly of the Faith, Family, Fairness Alliance said that context is important to understanding what the Bible says about various issues. “The basic ways of approaching the text, even if you’ve never cracked a Bible before, just ask the simple questions of: who wrote it, why did they write it, what is the main subject and then how does that apply to me? These are very helpful things to start with.”
Interpretations of the Bible have been the source of disagreement and even war throughout history. Below, I provide very brief interpretations as presented at a Bible Self-Defense Course organized by OutFront Minnesota; the Faith, Family, Fairness Alliance; and Soulforce, as well as information from progressive religious websites. These are not the only interpretations, and are simply my understanding of the progressive arguments presented.
Genesis, Creation and Sodom
The story of creation in Genesis is often used by people of faith to argue against relationship rights for same-sex couples. God made Adam and Eve, and they had children and began the human race, the argument goes. But just because God’s plan included a heterosexual couple at the beginning doesn’t mean he didn’t plan for other types of loving relationships, critics argue. Nothing of the creation story speaks positively or negatively of homosexuality.
Also in Genesis is the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, often seen as the first condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. The inhabitants of both cities attempt to rape male angels who were staying with a man named Lot. The villagers said, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” Lot replied, “Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
Without context, the lesson of the story could easily be about offering your virgin daughters to angry villagers when they appear on your doorstep intent on raping your guests.
Many Biblical scholars have said the story is about the morality of rape or even an admonishment of being inhospitable. Later books of the Bible say that God destroyed the cities because of greed and gluttony. For example, the book of Ezekiel says, “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.”
Leviticus: the Holiness Code
Leviticus contains two verses with direct admonishments to homosexual sex, both virtually identical: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” These are part of the Holiness Codes of Leviticus for use by the Jewish priests back then, and the Hebrew word to describe “abomination” is “toevah.” The word means culturally forbidden, which is distinguished from morally forbidden. That’s why the verse is sandwiched between prohibitions against eating shellfish, trimming beards, and wearing clothes made from more than one material. The Holiness Codes were created to distinguish the Jewish people from the pagan peoples surrounding them, and most theologians interpret them in that context.
Romans: Paul’s Polemic
In Romans, Paul writes, “Because of this [idolatry], God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
In Romans, Paul is speaking to Jewish Christians about Gentile Christians. The Jewish Christians held the Gentiles in contempt because they thought that Gentiles should convert to Judaism before becoming true Christians. Paul appeals to the negative views that Jewish Christian held against Gentile Christians, and then slams themb saying that the judgment expressed by Jewish Christians is sinful. He does the same with the Gentiles, appealing to their views and then chastising them for not coming together as Christians.
Paul’s message is that God is the judge, not the people, and that all Christians are on a level playing field.
Paul’s admonishment of homosexuality stems from Jewish Christians’ views of the behaviors of Gentile Christians. He is reiterating their negative views, not necessarily taking a moral or ethical stance on homosexuality.
Crelly explained the complex context of Romans. “He may not even agree with what he is saying. He is using it as an argument about idolatry, saying that Gentiles are idolatrous. They have graven images, but the Jewish people also have an idolatrous worship of the law over God.”
LGBT Christians and progressive people of faith argue that Paul’s writing and message of Christian inclusion should bring LGBT Christians into the church and not be used to expel them.
Respecting Interpretations
“There are often loud voices that use their religious views to call for discrimination against GLBT people, and unless we have a different religious perspective speaking out, there is silence on the other side,” Monica Meyer, public policy director for OutFront, writes at MinnPost.com. “This work gives people tools to advocate for GLBT rights and helps people understand that they can constructively participate in the public dialogue around GLBT rights, along with their conservative counterparts, using both sides’ shared sacred text, the Bible.”
Crelly says that respecting those you disagree with is vital to having this discussion. “You want to respect it [the Bible] enough to say ‘I may not agree with you and might not even identify myself as a Christian, but I can at least respect the fact that this is your sacred text. I am caring enough about you to respect that.’”
Follow Andy Birkey on Twitter24 Comments
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 8:52 am
Leviticus: the Holiness Code – Great News Thanks – That’s great to clear up Leviticus for us.
Now that we understand what that means – I guess it is morally ok to:
7: having sexual relations with your mother
9: have sexual relations with your sister
10: sexual relations with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter
11: sexual relations with the daughter of your father’s wife
etc..
or for fans of the movie Zoo
23: have sexual relations with an animal
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Well, no Those particular things are against the law.
It is possible for some of the Holiness Code items to be immoral, while others are not. Surely, you wouldn’t say that men shaving or people eating clam chowder is immoral. But I think everyone can agree that having sex with animals is immoral.
In fact, most Christians see the laws of Leviticus as having little practical importance due to New Testament writings.
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
But according to you biblical Scholar there is nothing Morally wrong with them Two problems.
One the passages I listed above are all in Leviticus 18, were it is clearly making a statement on moral law.
Two, “most Christians” do not see the laws of Leviticus as having no importance.
The three laws, moral, social and ceremonial are key for Christians.
Jesus full filed the ceremonial laws. Belief sets us apart (social laws) and his death paid the price for the moral laws we break. But they still apply.
If Leviticus has no importance , then so did Jesus’ death.
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Whoa… First of all, don’t call me a biblical scholar. I clearly state that these are not my interpretations, but those presented by others. I wrote: “Below, I provide very brief interpretations as presented at a Bible Self-Defense Course organized by OutFront Minnesota; the Faith, Family, Fairness Alliance; and Soulforce, as well as information from progressive religious websites. These are not the only interpretations, and are simply my understanding of the progressive arguments presented.”
I didn’t say that the laws in Leviticus have “no importance.” I said most Christians don’t see them as having “practical importance,” which is why those I reference argue that Christians don’t follow the laws to the letter the same way they do the New Testament. The New Testament supercedes the Old.
See this: “Most Christians believe that Leviticus is the word of God, but generally do not consider themselves to be bound by all the laws prescribed by the text, due to the implied antinomianism in some passages of the New Testament, notably the letters of Paul. Most Christians consider 1 Corinthians 10:23-26, in which Paul directs followers to “eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience”, to exempt them from following the dietary laws set forth in Leviticus.”
I’m not a theologian, and I’m not a Christian. I’m simply relaying what others have said. I also don’t see it as a “who’s right? Who’s wrong” issue. For centuries people have argued that their interpretation is correct, and that’s why Christianity has hundreds of sects, denominations, and strains.
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Should to have typed your not you Did not mean to indicate you, was referencing the writer and their interpretation.
It is bad theology at minimum and dangerous to some.
At the article also ends with a two common misstatement about Christians:
“bring LGBT Christians into the church and not be used to expel them.”
“There are often loud voices that use their religious views to call for discrimination against GLBT people”
I know of no Christian group that do this.
The ones I commonly see complained about are simple doing the same as Jesus did when meeting another woman who had committed a moral sin, let her know that through him there was forgiveness and then reminding her to “leave you life of sin.”
The New Testament is the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament not a removal of it.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Now *that’s* what I call an explaination! “Only a handful of verses deal directly with the issue, including Genesis and Leviticus in the Old Testament and Romans in the New Testament.”
Only a handful eh?
So the problem is that the Gospels just didn’t say “don’t” enough times for it to sink in….pfft.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Oh yeah, I liked this bit too. “Crelly says that respecting those you disagree with is vital to having this discussion. “You want to respect it [the Bible] enough to say ‘I may not agree with you and might not even identify myself as a Christian, but I can at least respect the fact that this is your sacred text. I am caring enough about you to respect that.’”
Heh, yeah I suppose that Crelly would vigerously object to CPCSM sending it’s goon squad to the cathedral on Pentecost every year to disrupt the mass….it’s all about respect, right? Right?
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 4:38 pm
Yep. A handful “So the problem is that the Gospels just didn’t say “don’t” enough times for it to sink in….pfft.”
No, that’s not the problem. And that’s not the point of the post or the interpretations presented.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Crelly Crelly is not involved with CPCSM from what I understand. I could be wrong, but haven’t seen anything that indicates she is. In fact, I’m fairly sure she is Protestant.
But you have a blog. Why not ask her yourself and publish a response? It doesn’t do much good to throw out a hypothetical in the comments section here if you’re not willing to find out for yourself.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 9:11 pm
Crelly may not be involved but certainly encouraged support for CPCSM She is a little of everything according to her Bio.
From an official Bio as part of some event she was at:
Rev. Laurie comes from a diverse religious background which includes Roman Catholic, Jesus People Church, Assemblies of God and the United Church of Christ
And she encouraged support for a recent CPCSM event.
And from an email she sent Oct 21, 2007 about a CPCSM event
(Presentation by Carol & Robert Curoe), forwarded the informaion and encouraging people to attend:
From: laurie crelly
Sent: Sun Oct 21 22:44:56 CDT 2007
Subject: Fw: Press Release: Change in Place and Time for Presentation by Carol & Robert Curoe at Oct. 22nd Event
I strongly encourage anyone who is able to attend this event in support and solidarity of our catholic community of allies.
Rev. Laurie Crelly
HRC Minnesota Field Organizer
and Chair of Faith Family Fairness Alliance
—– Forwarded Message —-
Dear Friends,
Following is a statement to the media released yesterday by the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) and Syren Book Company. Please watch for more responses to this action by the Archdiocese on CPCSM’s website and in future emails from CPCSM.
[Deleted the rest]
From: CPCSM
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:20:02 PM
Subject: Press Release: Change in Place and Time for Presentation by Carol & Robert Curoe at Oct. 22nd Event
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Thanks for the background Thanks PawlentyGoon. Her support for the Curoe event has been noted. It should also be noted that Catholic churches in the Twin Cities also supported that event.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with supporting CPCSM. I’d just like swiftee to back his rhetoric up with some fact. He’s had trouble with that lately.
Using a rhetorical question to accuse someone of supporting something is shady. Why doesn’t he just call Crelly up and ask her?
She talks about respecting other people’s interpretations of faith. I have yet to see proof that she doesn’t.
Comment posted December 21, 2007 @ 8:29 am
Support GLBT I know a dating site exclusively for bisexuals and bicurious named http://www.biloves.c… where Bisexual and bicurious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment and find sexy singles& couples looking to explore their sexuality.
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 2:52 am
Leviticus: the Holiness Code – Great News Thanks – That's great to clear up Leviticus for us.
Now that we understand what that means – I guess it is morally ok to:
7: having sexual relations with your mother
9: have sexual relations with your sister
10: sexual relations with your son's daughter or your daughter's daughter
11: sexual relations with the daughter of your father's wife
etc..
or for fans of the movie Zoo
23: have sexual relations with an animal
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 8:03 am
Well, no Those particular things are against the law.
It is possible for some of the Holiness Code items to be immoral, while others are not. Surely, you wouldn't say that men shaving or people eating clam chowder is immoral. But I think everyone can agree that having sex with animals is immoral.
In fact, most Christians see the laws of Leviticus as having little practical importance due to New Testament writings.
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 8:58 am
But according to you biblical Scholar there is nothing Morally wrong with them Two problems.
One the passages I listed above are all in Leviticus 18, were it is clearly making a statement on moral law.
Two, “most Christians” do not see the laws of Leviticus as having no importance.
The three laws, moral, social and ceremonial are key for Christians.
Jesus full filed the ceremonial laws. Belief sets us apart (social laws) and his death paid the price for the moral laws we break. But they still apply.
If Leviticus has no importance , then so did Jesus' death.
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 10:37 am
Whoa… First of all, don't call me a biblical scholar. I clearly state that these are not my interpretations, but those presented by others. I wrote: “Below, I provide very brief interpretations as presented at a Bible Self-Defense Course organized by OutFront Minnesota; the Faith, Family, Fairness Alliance; and Soulforce, as well as information from progressive religious websites. These are not the only interpretations, and are simply my understanding of the progressive arguments presented.”
I didn't say that the laws in Leviticus have “no importance.” I said most Christians don't see them as having “practical importance,” which is why those I reference argue that Christians don't follow the laws to the letter the same way they do the New Testament. The New Testament supercedes the Old.
See this: “Most Christians believe that Leviticus is the word of God, but generally do not consider themselves to be bound by all the laws prescribed by the text, due to the implied antinomianism in some passages of the New Testament, notably the letters of Paul. Most Christians consider 1 Corinthians 10:23-26, in which Paul directs followers to “eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience”, to exempt them from following the dietary laws set forth in Leviticus.”
I'm not a theologian, and I'm not a Christian. I'm simply relaying what others have said. I also don't see it as a “who's right? Who's wrong” issue. For centuries people have argued that their interpretation is correct, and that's why Christianity has hundreds of sects, denominations, and strains.
Comment posted December 16, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Should to have typed your not you Did not mean to indicate you, was referencing the writer and their interpretation.
It is bad theology at minimum and dangerous to some.
At the article also ends with a two common misstatement about Christians:
“bring LGBT Christians into the church and not be used to expel them.”
“There are often loud voices that use their religious views to call for discrimination against GLBT people”
I know of no Christian group that do this.
The ones I commonly see complained about are simple doing the same as Jesus did when meeting another woman who had committed a moral sin, let her know that through him there was forgiveness and then reminding her to “leave you life of sin.”
The New Testament is the fulfillment of the promises of the Old Testament not a removal of it.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Now *that's* what I call an explaination! “Only a handful of verses deal directly with the issue, including Genesis and Leviticus in the Old Testament and Romans in the New Testament.”
Only a handful eh?
So the problem is that the Gospels just didn't say “don't” enough times for it to sink in….pfft.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Oh yeah, I liked this bit too. “Crelly says that respecting those you disagree with is vital to having this discussion. “You want to respect it [the Bible] enough to say 'I may not agree with you and might not even identify myself as a Christian, but I can at least respect the fact that this is your sacred text. I am caring enough about you to respect that.'”
Heh, yeah I suppose that Crelly would vigerously object to CPCSM sending it's goon squad to the cathedral on Pentecost every year to disrupt the mass….it's all about respect, right? Right?
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 10:38 am
Yep. A handful “So the problem is that the Gospels just didn't say “don't” enough times for it to sink in….pfft.”
No, that's not the problem. And that's not the point of the post or the interpretations presented.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Crelly Crelly is not involved with CPCSM from what I understand. I could be wrong, but haven't seen anything that indicates she is. In fact, I'm fairly sure she is Protestant.
But you have a blog. Why not ask her yourself and publish a response? It doesn't do much good to throw out a hypothetical in the comments section here if you're not willing to find out for yourself.
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Crelly may not be involved but certainly encouraged support for CPCSM She is a little of everything according to her Bio.
From an official Bio as part of some event she was at:
Rev. Laurie comes from a diverse religious background which includes Roman Catholic, Jesus People Church, Assemblies of God and the United Church of Christ
And she encouraged support for a recent CPCSM event.
And from an email she sent Oct 21, 2007 about a CPCSM event
(Presentation by Carol & Robert Curoe), forwarded the informaion and encouraging people to attend:
From: laurie crelly
Sent: Sun Oct 21 22:44:56 CDT 2007
Subject: Fw: Press Release: Change in Place and Time for Presentation by Carol & Robert Curoe at Oct. 22nd Event
I strongly encourage anyone who is able to attend this event in support and solidarity of our catholic community of allies.
Rev. Laurie Crelly
HRC Minnesota Field Organizer
and Chair of Faith Family Fairness Alliance
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: CPCSM <cpcsmmail at=”at” gmail.com=”gmail.com”></cpcsmmail>
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 4:20:02 PM
Subject: Press Release: Change in Place and Time for Presentation by Carol & Robert Curoe at Oct. 22nd Event
Dear Friends,
Following is a statement to the media released yesterday by the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM) and Syren Book Company. Please watch for more responses to this action by the Archdiocese on CPCSM's website and in future emails from CPCSM.
[Deleted the rest]
Comment posted December 17, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Thanks for the background Thanks PawlentyGoon. Her support for the Curoe event has been noted. It should also be noted that Catholic churches in the Twin Cities also supported that event.
I don't think there is anything wrong with supporting CPCSM. I'd just like swiftee to back his rhetoric up with some fact. He's had trouble with that lately.
Using a rhetorical question to accuse someone of supporting something is shady. Why doesn't he just call Crelly up and ask her?
She talks about respecting other people's interpretations of faith. I have yet to see proof that she doesn't.
Comment posted December 21, 2007 @ 2:29 am
Support GLBT I know a dating site exclusively for bisexuals and bicurious named http://www.biloves.c… where Bisexual and bicurious individuals to meet in a friendly and comfortable environment and find sexy singles& couples looking to explore their sexuality.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
