Scripture, Stonings, and Homosexuality

[Update 12/17: I posted a link to additional scriptural citations in a comment below]

Traditionalists often argue that homosexuality is supposedly condemned by the Bible, and that's that.

But it seems to me that, if the literal words of Scripture held the once-and-for-all answers to all moral questions, then we would still be stoning rebellious sons at the town gates, as commanded by Deut. 21:18-21.

(I mentioned the stoning business to my mother on the phone not long ago. No doubt remembering my adolescence, she laughed and responded, "so?")

* * *

Moreover, some traditionalists can be selective in their reading of Scriptural rules --

• They believe that the Bible prohibits homosexual acts as "detestable," (e.g., e.g., Lev. 15:18, 18:22.
  
• But they seem to have no problem with eating shrimp or crabs, which are likewise "detestable" because they have neither fins nor scales (see, e.g., Lev. 11:12).
  
• One wonders whether the men among them always refrain from sex during a woman's menstrual period, which is one of the prohibited "detestable things" in a laundry list of sexual misconduct (see Lev. 18:19, 26).
  
• And let's not forget that the same book of the Bible explicitly permitted God's people to enslave foreigners (see Lev. 25:44-46), just as it prohibited punishing a slave-owner for beating his slave if the slave recovered in a day or two, "since the slave is his property" (see Lev. 21:20-21).
  

Some traditionalists argue that, for example, "the civil and ceremonial laws of the Old Testament were set aside by Jesus Christ" (emphasis added), but the moral laws of the Hebrew Scriptures supposedly remain unchanged. I find that argument wholly unpersuasive. Jews consider the dietary laws which Jesus set aside to be moral laws, as explained for example by this commentator: "the dietary laws occupy a central position in that system of moral discipline which is the basis of all Jewish laws." Moreover, how can traditionalists possibly say with a straight face that Leviticus's explicit condoning of human slavery, quoted above, was merely a "civil" or "ceremonial" law? Their argument is an outrage.

Traditionalists are certainly entitled to argue that homosexuality is a bad thing. For all I know, they may be right. But they don't help their case when they selectively quote scriptural rules out of historical- and cultural context.

* * *

To make a comment, click on the link below. You don't have to include your name or email address if you prefer not to.

--D. C.

Comments

Did God create "Man and Man" or "Man and Woman" as stated in the Bible...? Whether that be in seven 24 hr days or seven 24 million hr days is not important. The question above seems to be a principal issue about gays.

If you look at History, and I believe it repeats itself if you do not learn from it, when does society break down...? Go and look...you'll see morals are one of the key points of a society breakdown. So, I have to ask myself does gay sex seem right? Sometimes a person has to look with a "passion" for truth and let his feelings dictate...that is also something called Faith. God calls to us through each of our own faith battles.

My faith tells me that it is not up to me to judge whether gay sex is right or not. However, my faith tells me that I must not condone it either. God will set that straight at sometime in the future.

By me condoning the Bishop, I condone a lifestyle that I believe is inconsistent with my faith. Therefore I must stand against the Bishop w/o condemning him. I just wish the gays and the Bishop would accord me the same rights.

The "liberal" group would have me change my beliefs to fit their lifestyle....is that a fair question to ask of me?

[DCT]

> The "liberal" group would have me change my beliefs to fit their lifestyle....is that a fair question to ask of me?

I think the majority of so-called liberals are not trying to get anyone to change their beliefs. But at the same time, they're asking traditionalists not to try to impose their own beliefs and their own interpretations of Scripture on others. The Diocese of New Hampshire took a prayerful action in electing Gene Robinson as their bishop. The General Convention likewise took a prayerful action in confirming him. I don't know which way I would have voted had I been a delegate in New Hampshire, but I do think this is an issue where "local option" is best.

[DCT]

A parishioner asked me by email: "are there any other biblical bases for Larry's position other than those appearing on your blog? Maybe the Sermon on the Mount's references to adultery?"

I did a quick Google search and came up with this site. It looks pretty even-handed. Scroll down till you get to "Analysis of key passages."