I think you may have misunderstood me, Ehud. The church I was talking about did not suggest that Paul’s references to homosexuality were references to rape or lust alone — just references to homosexual rape, or homosexual lust, or homosexual prostitution alone.
It’s pretty clear that the sin of rape — not homosexuality — is implied in both the stories of sodom and gomorrah, and the levite’s concubine. In fact, both heterosexual and homosexual rape is condemned, ultimately, in these two stories. I guess that is what I found so illuminating. These two stories have been used historically as proof-texts of the evil of homosexuality (ie. sodomy) when a more responsible reading of these texts would have condemned rape instead.
This is also true about the comment you made about women who lay down with other women. Although you are right that this is not a very violent image, it is certainly a lustful image. The bible even says that, that they were inflamed, and that such actions were a product of lust, not love. The bible says that. It makes that distinction. So I guess I find that hard to ignore. The distinction between lust and love is so huge, as every christian knows when they struggle with love, in a world bent on lust.
But I think that you are right when you say we should be careful lest we use the bible to justify what we want it to justify. Even though we should be careful, i think it’s important to remember that the work of the spirit is not to condemn, but is the work of justification. And even as we should be wary of leaning too far from the Word of God to justify out-of-hand, we should also be careful not to paint certain human activities, like homosexuality, with too broad a brush, as we encounter it in scriptures. These verses also talk about rape, lust, and prostitution, and we should not blur the distinction between lust and love, or rape and love-making, when we read about homosexuality in the bible.
I guess i am sounding argumentative, Ehud, and I shouldn’t be. I really feel that you are clearing a path that leads to you to God’s love. You have set your sights on God’s glory and goodness, and I would never want to “argue” that away from you, or pretend that such a thing was even possible to argue away. I just know that christian same-sex couples share your path when they talk about their path to salvation. They see the glory of God, and God’s goodness. They feel the justifying work of the holy spirit — not just the effort to create a gay-friendly God in their own image.
I think this is important to remember, and to reflect upon. A homosexual reading of the bible may produce surprising results that a largely heterosexual community will be unprepared for. We haven’t had too many opportunities to hear what gifts homosexual persons can bring to the christian tradition. Given that interpretations of the bible have largely been the job of heterosexual men, we should never dismiss, out of hand, what homosexual eyes and ears encounter when they approach the text — they understand homosexuality better than anyone else. They know the love they live, and will know better than any of us what Paul is condemning and not condemning.
ventriloquistmime
Nov 22 2004
12:53 pm
I think you may have misunderstood me, Ehud. The church I was talking about did not suggest that Paul’s references to homosexuality were references to rape or lust alone — just references to homosexual rape, or homosexual lust, or homosexual prostitution alone.
It’s pretty clear that the sin of rape — not homosexuality — is implied in both the stories of sodom and gomorrah, and the levite’s concubine. In fact, both heterosexual and homosexual rape is condemned, ultimately, in these two stories. I guess that is what I found so illuminating. These two stories have been used historically as proof-texts of the evil of homosexuality (ie. sodomy) when a more responsible reading of these texts would have condemned rape instead.
This is also true about the comment you made about women who lay down with other women. Although you are right that this is not a very violent image, it is certainly a lustful image. The bible even says that, that they were inflamed, and that such actions were a product of lust, not love. The bible says that. It makes that distinction. So I guess I find that hard to ignore. The distinction between lust and love is so huge, as every christian knows when they struggle with love, in a world bent on lust.
But I think that you are right when you say we should be careful lest we use the bible to justify what we want it to justify. Even though we should be careful, i think it’s important to remember that the work of the spirit is not to condemn, but is the work of justification. And even as we should be wary of leaning too far from the Word of God to justify out-of-hand, we should also be careful not to paint certain human activities, like homosexuality, with too broad a brush, as we encounter it in scriptures. These verses also talk about rape, lust, and prostitution, and we should not blur the distinction between lust and love, or rape and love-making, when we read about homosexuality in the bible.
I guess i am sounding argumentative, Ehud, and I shouldn’t be. I really feel that you are clearing a path that leads to you to God’s love. You have set your sights on God’s glory and goodness, and I would never want to “argue” that away from you, or pretend that such a thing was even possible to argue away. I just know that christian same-sex couples share your path when they talk about their path to salvation. They see the glory of God, and God’s goodness. They feel the justifying work of the holy spirit — not just the effort to create a gay-friendly God in their own image.
I think this is important to remember, and to reflect upon. A homosexual reading of the bible may produce surprising results that a largely heterosexual community will be unprepared for. We haven’t had too many opportunities to hear what gifts homosexual persons can bring to the christian tradition. Given that interpretations of the bible have largely been the job of heterosexual men, we should never dismiss, out of hand, what homosexual eyes and ears encounter when they approach the text — they understand homosexuality better than anyone else. They know the love they live, and will know better than any of us what Paul is condemning and not condemning.