Posted on 02/09/2011 3:51:50 PM PST by wmfights
Has the church misunderstood the Bible’s teachings on sexuality for over two thousand years? The current issue of Newsweek magazine reports on “new scholarship on the Good Book’s naughty bits” that is supposed to turn our understanding of the Bible’s teachings on sex upside down.
Lisa Miller, Newsweek’s religion editor, wrote the article entitled “What the Bible Really Says About Sex.” Well, the one thing you need to know up front is that the article falls far short of its title.
Miller bases her report on two recent books — Michael Coogan’s God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says and Jennifer Wright Knust’s Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions about Sex and Desire. Neither of these books breaks new ground. Instead, the books distill arguments that have become common among liberal and revisionist Bible scholars and homosexual activist groups.
Coogan, trained as a Jesuit priest, has served as editor of The Oxford Annotated Bible, a favorite study Bible among theological liberals. He currently serves as director of publications for the Harvard Semitic Museum. In God and Sex, Coogan argues that the biblical condemnations of various sexual behaviors and relationships should not be considered normative for today. In his words, the biblical texts on sexuality “reflect the presuppositions and prejudices, the ideas and ideals of their authors.” He argues that we should not be bound by those same prejudices.
He rejects outright the belief that the Bible is in any objective sense the Word of God. The guild of academic biblical scholars has adopted a liberal approach to the Bible, he affirms, and the real problem is that the great multitude of church-goers have not joined the scholars in this liberal approach. Coogan laments the fact that “we have not succeeded in changing the way most nonspecialists and even many in the clergy think about the Bible.” Instead, “people still maintain that the Bible is God’s word, plain and simple: that God is the author of scripture.”
Yes, Dr. Coogan, people do still maintain that belief.
To his credit, Coogan does not argue dishonestly. He is straightforward in presenting his rendering of the key biblical texts, for his main point is that the church is not bound by the “presuppositions and prejudices” of those texts.
Jennifer Wright Knust follows a very different game plan in Unprotected Texts, though she shares Coogan’s rejection of biblical inspiration. Knust, who teaches religion at Boston University, bases her revisionism on the claim that the Bible simply lacks any consistent sexual ethic. “The Bible is not only contradictory but complex,” she insists. Some parts of the Bible “promote points of view that, from a modern perspective anyway, are patently immoral.”
An ordained American Baptist pastor, Knust argues that the Bible is so contradictory when it comes to sexual matters that we cannot gain any consistent sexual ethic from its pages. Her agenda is clear from the start — she wants to overthrow the normative authority of the Bible on matters of sexual morality.
Lisa Miller summarizes the arguments of Coogan and Knust by explaining that they are each attempting “to steal the conversation about sex and the Bible back from the religious right.” Putting the two books together, Miller explains that they argue along these lines: first, that “the Bible is an ancient text, inapplicable in its particulars to the modern world.” Second, that “sex in the Bible is sometimes hidden.” Third, that “that which is forbidden is also allowed.” And fourth, that “accepted interpretations are sometimes wrong.”
Well, one immediate problem with this set of arguments is that they are themselves contradictory. Is the Bible itself wrong, or just its interpretations? If the Bible is just an ancient text, which is not relevant in its particulars for the modern world, why argue over its interpretation? They need to get their story straight.
Knust and Coogan cannot even agree when it comes to the particulars. Knust claims that King David “enjoyed sexual satisfaction” with Jonathan, and that this thus serves as evidence of an authorized homosexual relationship within Scripture. Again, to his credit, Coogan is too careful a scholar to go with that kind of argument. David and Jonathan were covenant partners, he argues — “but despite the claims of some gay activists, they were not sexual partners.”
Lisa Miller notes that “Coogan and Knust are hardly the first scholars to offer alternative readings of the Bible’s teachings on sex.” As a matter of fact, almost all of the arguments made in these books have been around for the past thirty years. Miller argues that it is the populism of these books that sets them apart. “With provocative titles and mainstream publishing houses, they obviously hope to sell books,” she explains. “But their greater cause is a fight against ‘official’ interpretations.”
In response to that, Lisa Miller quotes me: “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.” I enjoyed my conversation with Ms. Miller, but my point was not that the church needs “proper authorities,” but that just any interpretation of the Bible will not do. The authority in this issue is that of the Bible itself. Those who read it as bearing the very authority of God will read the Bible quite differently than those who see it as a human book conditioned and warped by human frailty and fallibility.
The most important point I made to Lisa Miller is that revisionist interpreters of the Bible are playing a dishonest game. Consider the audacity of their claim: they claim that no one has rightly understood the Bible for over two thousand years. No Jewish or Christian interpreter of the Bible had ever suggested that the relationship between David and Jonathan was homosexual — at least not until recent decades. The revisionist case is equally ludicrous across the board. We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia?
I have far greater respect for the intellectual integrity of the scholar who reads the Bible and interprets it honestly, but then rejects it with candor. This is far superior to evasive and clever attempts to make the Bible say what it plainly does not say. The Bible is brutally honest about human sinfulness in all its forms, including sexuality. Nevertheless, the Bible presents a consistent and clear sexual ethic. The issue is not a lack of clarity.
The real problem here is not that the Bible is misunderstood and in need of revision. To the contrary, the real problem is that the ethic revealed in the Bible is both rejected and reviled.
You’re right, of course. I do agree with GeronL, though. As soon as I saw Newsweek, I almost stopped reading.
Yes, it would be very interesting.
Yes, it would be very interesting.
Actually, you don’t need to do much interpreting when it comes to the Bible passages on gay sex. 1 Corinthians chapter 6 says “no....homosexual shall enter the kingdom of God. Straight, direct - so simple even a caveman (or 6 year old) could understand it.
Bear with me here. I am not defending these pro-gay interpretations; but I beg you to become better-equipped for the fight by looking into the actual argument being made.
Here's a website called Gay Christian 101 (Link) Which makes the following argument to support their position that the Corinthians passage does not refer to homosexuality per se:
| "Many modern Christians have embraced false teaching about 1 Corinthians 6:9. They arrive at their false teaching by assuming that the Greek words, malakoi and arsenokoitai mean homosexual. "Of course, there is nothing in the Bible and very little in church history to support their false teaching. In the first century AD, no one would define malakoi to mean homosexual. The Greek word malakoi was rarely, if ever, used in the first century to indicate homosexual men and was never used to indicate lesbians. "In the first century AD, no one would define arsenokoitai to mean homosexual. Historical evidence - the way the arsenokoit stem was actually used in the first century AD - indicates that the arsenokoit stem referred to: Rape Sex with angels or the gods.... "Based on the extant Greek manuscripts available to us today, the Greek word arsenokoites was rarely, if ever, used to indicate homosexual men and was never used to describe lesbians. "Therefore, when someone quotes 1 Corinthians 6:9 or 1 Timothy 1:10 to "prove" that God is against homosexuality, they are conveying nothing more than their opinion, without any basis in fact."
|
Agree with this? No, you don't, and neither do I. But my point is that this is where the argument has gone. These people agree with "Sola Scriptura," "authentic Bible Chirstianity," And all the rest, but are convinced, and argue, that the Biblical words do not apply to such things as "gay marriage," but only to gay rape and angel abuse and the like.
That's the state of the argument now.
And Dr. Mohler is no fool: he knows this. Which is why he has to allude to "how Christians have understood this for 2,000 years." Because the interpretation of Scripture is NOT self-evident, absent the authority of the historic Church.
If someone wants to leave their understanding of Scripture to an apostate church, steeped in paganism, and full of made up "traditions" it won't be long before they are bowing down to men, praying to idols and calling men Father. I'll stick with the rough and tumble arguing with folks from Scripture Alone.
You are missing my point, wmfights. The GayChristian101 site (honestly, now: did you take a look at it?) adopts the POV of Sola Scriptura, and claims that the key Biblical terms "arsenatokoi" and "malakoi" refer not to homosexuality per se, but to rape, boy prostitution, etc.
It's Albert Mohler who makes the excellent point that these terms are not to be defined only in the context of the particular Scriptural examples (the threat to the angelic visitors at Sodom, the boy-prostitution prevalent at Corinth) but in the context of what the Church has said for 2,000 years.
I agree with Mohler here. Your argument isn't with me. It's with Mohler.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2671210/posts?page=47#47
I usually wander off, once I find that someone’s flip-out button has been pushed. It’s too much like real life. “Why did you have to tell Pat he was perspicacious? Now he’ll spend an hour howling!”
Michael Coogan, as far as I can determine, is not a Jesuit. (The article says, trained as a Jesuit ... not the same thing.)
I don't see any evidence that he's a priest of any kind. He's a college professor.
This is absolutely wrong and nothing but a gay attempt to rewrite the NT as was the excerpt you posted by the Gay author. The word used by Paul in 1 Cor. 6 is arsenokoitai which is a word you will not fined in ancient Greek literature other than in the Pauline epistles. It is a Greek take off of the Hebrew word used in Leviticus to describe "sleeping with a man as with a woman". The word literally means "man-bed". It clearly means homosexuality as has been noted by Christian exegetes since the first century. One cannot escape God's dictates by trying to rewrite his word. Of courst the word "homosexual" didn't exist when Paul wrote his epistles because the English language didn't exist yet. But the concept and associated native language words clearly existed at the time.
You are so percipient. Take that!
I’m deeply wounded by your persiflage.
You and I and "Christian exegetes since the first century" are in agreement: arsenokoitai = man-bedding = homosexuality. We would say that Christian moral law forbids sexual contact between two males, two females, or even masturbation (which is the way Martin Luther interpreted it, and I think he was right, too.)
This interpretation is much broader, however, than what one can derive from the word "arsenokoitai." For one thing, we take it to be against lesbianism, too (since lesbianism is included in the definition of homosexuality), but lesbians are obviously not covered by the word "arsenokoitai" (they don't "bed men".) Also that word does not apply against a wife with her husband, since she does "bed a man," but in a way which is entirely honorable, holy, and blessed.
My point here is that the interpretation of this word depends on Christian exegetes from Paul's time onward --- that's a long history of exegesis ---which ought NOT to to be overturned by some novel interpretation that just emerged in the 20th or 21st century.
I honestly as you to look and notice how this Ontario "Religious Tolerance" website (Link) makes a linguistic case that "arsenokoitai" is hopeless ambiguous.
This illustrates why the ipsissimi verbi of the Biblical text cannot be thought to convey the full intended meaning. Only the Church (as you rightly said, "Christian exegetes since the first century") can do that.
Not meant as contumely.
Thank you ladies.
Just you wait til Tax-chick busts loose with something really sesquipedalian!
What defines an "empty marriage"?
One doesn’t need the Church for this interpretation. Romans 1 makes it clear the prohibition against homosexualilty applies to women also. Further, given that Paul created the word arsenokoitai as a take off of the Hebrew word in Leviticus clerly shows what he meant. The Bible interprets itself. All one needs is a bible, a concordance, linguistic books if they don’t speak Greek or Hebrew and lots of hours of study. Certainly consulting the work of other Godly Christian writers is important. But no Church has any special “hotline” to God which gives it special powers of exegesis. Individual indwelling by the Holy Spirit is the only essential spirit.
My aim here is to help arm fellow Christians against the gay exegetes, who also rely on "the Bible, a concordance, study of Greek and Hebrew, consultation with other Christians," and extra-and-specially "individual indwelling by the Holy Spirit," -- and of course they are convinced that their scholarship and their indwelling are as good as yours: better, actually.
I have no doubt that they are wrong, but their error largely rests on their reliance on "their" scholarship and "their" "individual" inspiration, and their rejection of the 20 centuries of Christian scholarship, reflection, discipline and discipleship that preceded them.
"...Has the church misunderstood the Bible’s teachings on sexuality for over two thousand years?...We are only now able to understand what Paul was talking about in Romans 1? The church was wrong for two millennia? "-- Albert Mohler
As Mohler said, the gay exegetes seriously posit that they are right, and the Church has been wrong for 20 centuries.
We, in our lifetime and in our parents' lifetime, have seen many Christian teachers accept divorce, masturbation, and contraception, in stark discontinuity with what "Godly Christian writers", Reformed and Evangelical and Orthodox and Catholic, armed with Biblical proof-texts and principles, had taught for the previous 1900 years. The gay exegetes fit in comfortably with this larger process of church-minimizing and church-discontinuity.
Please understand that I am firmly, urgently, on your side, not theirs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.