* God is good, as opposed to capricious or a bully who likes to torment humans for amusement (as the gods of other cultures are portrayed). Therefore the rules and restrictions given to us are for our benefit and lead to happiness.
* The Bible is divinely inspired and thus an accurate representation of God, God's people, and God's rules for better living.
* Church doctrine accurately represents the Bible.
I personally don't agree with the second and third and would amend the first. I would revise those statements like this.
* God is good, and the rules and restrictions are for our benefit, though many of them were only appropriate for the time in which they were recorded. While God doesn't change (a frequent Fundie claim to say we must uphold Leviticus) our culture, knowledge, and the way we view God does. There are consequences for disobeying the rules -- mostly spoiled relations between people -- but God won't smite us for our disobedience. In addition, God's love for us is not dependent on our ability to follow the rules.
* The Bible is a historical recording of the Jewish and early Christian encounters with God. It is subject to the understanding of the writer. The reason why any particular story is told is because somebody had a life-changing encounter with God.
* Some church doctrine does represent the Bible. A lot doesn't. I've seen too many instances in which church leaders use tortured logic and selected phrases to make sure the Bible "proves" what they want it to prove. Part of this is what the Jews called "fencing the law" -- to make sure the law (such as don't work on the Sabbath) wasn't broken, a lot of auxiliary rules (turning on a light switch is work) were set up around it. Part of it is political. And part of it is reinforcing personal biases.
Back to Kincaid's conundrum.
If God's rules are for our benefit and the Bible clearly says homosexuality is bad, then gays willfully defy God.
Modern science says homosexuality is as naturally occurring as different hair colors, not something a person chooses.
What is a church to do with the discrepancy?
They are faced with 4 options:
* The writers of the Scripture got it wrong and thus Scripture has no authority.
* The readers of the Scripture got it wrong (this could be anyone from the pew-sitter to the top of Church hierarchy), and how could they be wrong when Leviticus says it so plainly?
* Modern science around homosexuality has it wrong.
* God is a bully, who has created some people who have no chance of getting into heaven.
Three out of those four options are highly troubling to many Christians. Is there a way out? Various denominations have come up with responses that fit in the following categories:
1. Liberal interpretation: The Holy Spirit continues to reveal truth and overarching Biblical Principles trump specific troublesome verses. If a passage conflicts with do justice, show mercy, love your neighbor as yourself, then it is relevant only in context or shows the bias of the author. Condemnations of gays are actually about prostitution, abuse of power, and pagan worship. This response best fits what I do.
2. Rethink how scripture is interpreted. Verify the translation is as accurate as possible and delve into the context of the society in which it is written. For example, St. Paul used words that can't be found in other ancient documents so their meaning is unclear. Elsewhere the word eunuch refers to any sexual minority, so the Ethiopian eunuch who is baptized shows that the Leviticus condemnations no longer apply.
2A. Remain in conflict. They recognize both the scientific evidence (and the lives of gay people they know) and the long-held Biblical prohibitions. They may believe it is sin, but won't stand in the way of rights.
3. Deny evidence. Personal testimony trumps scientific evidence. In the same way miracles are viewed, the less empirical is seen as more holy and more truthful -- creationism is more holy than evolution. If God will punish people for being gay, then they deserve it. And since sin is about choice then homosexuality is a choice. The ex-gay is the poster-boy, even though the success rate of change is at zero.
3A. Obfuscate by changing language. Everybody has a heterosexual orientation and there is only homosexual behavior. Even identifying as gay is rebelling against God. So even celibate gays can't be trusted. They might have sympathy if you are struggling to overcome same-sex attractions.
3B. Make excuses. Gays deserve punishment because of the other things they do -- hate God, threaten families, be promiscuous, seduce children. And all gays do these things. A careful tally is kept of all the negative things some gays do, so they can be properly portrayed as evil. Of course, they are convinced they aren't bigoted.
4. Step away from the issue. The contradiction just can't be handled.
4A. Abandon decency and compassion. If God wants to be cruel to gays, well, that's his prerogative. This group tends to be the most vocal.
4B. Abandon faith. If there are no gods there is no need to worry about whether God is fair.
4C. Wait and see. Let the pastor rant about gays. I just won't talk to my gay friends about it and leave it all up to God.
This is a basic conundrum that strikes many at the core of their beliefs. Change doesn't come easily. It will take time. However, when someone faces the conundrum and comes out believing gays should be welcome in the church it is a hard-fought resolution and they won't give it up easily.
A commenter sees the whole conflict as being between domination theology and liberation theology. Domination theology says everything declared to be a sin must be eliminated and society must strive to be a place where only good works are allowed. Humans are basically corrupt, so goodness must be coerced. Liberation theology uses the standard "love God and your neighbor" to evaluate the rest of the Bible. Given a chance humans can recognize good. The shift from monarchy to democracy is part of the shift from domination to liberation. The change must come from within the church. Since the church is such a major player in our culture the pains of this shift affect everyone.
In response to my posting on how anti-gay organizations portray gays as scary in order to justify keeping petition signer names secret, my friend and debate partner wrote:
Scary gays -- say what? -- a silly oxymoron, 0% credible. Buff ain't the same as tough. Comedians in gay bars all over the country must be having a field day with this.
He's right. Very few people are buying that line, especially compared to the intimidation, violence, and killing done against gay and transgender people.
No comments:
Post a Comment