Questioner: "L"
Subject: Traditional Church and Biblical TeachingsQuestion:
- I was raised roman Catholic, and taught that sex outside of the context of a heterosexual marriage is wrong. I am a female who is in a committed relationship with a male, but I consider myself bisexual. I have two questions. First, is it true that the Bible condemns
homosexuality? And is it true that the Bible condones sexism? That God taught that women were inferior to men, and therefore had to be submissive and agreeable? I left the Church at fourteen, because of conflicting feelings over these issues. I don't agree with Church teachings of things like premarital sex, birth control, abortion and homosexuality. I think that the Bible needs to be taken into a historical context. What do you think? Thank you for your time.
John of AllFaith's reply
Hi "L",Much of my ministry these days revolves around the Bible and homosexuality. I will be happy to answer any questions on this you may have.
If you will visit my Grace Inclusive website at http://allfaith.com/Grace/ you will find detailed studies on every verse in the Bible that people use as 'proof texts' to condemn homosexuality and homosexual people.
I'm also listed under this topic with AllExperts: http://www.allexperts.com/expert.cgi?m=1&catID=3233&expID=73320
The Bible does and clearly condemn sex outside of marriage, whether as fornication (unmarried persons) or as adultery (married persons). It can be argued that it accepts polygamy, unless one is a church leader like a deacon etc. While not specifically stated, such is always between one male with multiple females and these relations are never engaged in by more than two persons at a time, i.e. the male and one female.
Only sexual relations between married people (whether they are heterosexual or homosexual) are permitted by the Bible. All other arrangements are rejected.
Many people argue that for non-Jews the biblical prohibitions are matters of contemporary social norms at the time they were written rather than strict ongoing commands, in part because Christians are under grace rather than law. Paul made a couple of statements like:
- I Cor 7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
Some take this as evidence that these are socially applicable principles rather than laws in the binding Torah sense.
Personally, I think this is stretching the text too far. While I judge no one, in my opinion, the Bible orders strict monogamous married relationships for those who are sexually active. What one does of course is their decision, between them and God.
As for sexism in the Bible... It depends on how one defines sexism. From our 21st century perspective it absolutely supports sexism...
However, we must bear in mind that times change. The Bible was manifested in the world as it was, and it dealt with that world in those terms. In the cultures of the Bible things were very different. An married woman, because of the culture, had little hope of even surviving. A husband was essential for virtually every woman. Girls went from their father's protection to their husbands. That's the way the world worked. Likewise, according to the Torah and the Jewish Talmud, the Shekinah, the Holy Spirit, would not dwell with a man who did not have a wife. When the husband traveled the Holy Spirit stayed at home with the wife and if he was unfaithful to her, he was unfaithful to the Holy Spirit as well!
So... it worked both ways. The Bible therefore demanded women to "...submit unto your husbands as unto the Lord" as part of a package of commandments of social structures. Neither women nor men could live full and meaningful lives without a spouse. The Song of Solomon speaks this vital truth in some romantically graphic detail. For most Jewish women living prior to 70 CE (when the Temple fell), this arraingement was seen as support and protection not as sexism. It had 'always been thus' and the New Testament was seen as adding protections to women, 'And ye men shall serve your wives even as Christ gave himself for the church....' I'm paraphrasing here.... I can get you the verses if you want. these things were not, at the time, seen as sexist but as liberating women, even though they sound horribly sexist to our ears. When studying scripture or any other ancient writings we must carefully consider time and circumstances.
However, there are also direct commands forbidding women to hold authority over men, to speak in the churches, to be uncovered during prayers (ie they are to wear hajibs like Muslim women wear when at prayer, and many pointed out at the time that since we are commanded to "pray without ceasing" devout women should always wear hajibs and for a while they did).
BUT Christianity has a wonderful defense mechanism that Islam and many other religions lack. Christians have historically believed that God reveals truth gradually as we are ready to receive it. In other words, although Truth is eternal, our realizing of it develops over time. Based on this belief, most Christians now allow women to speak in the churches, don't require hijabs, most have determined that divorced people can remarry, many even accept that women can be pastors and so on.
In my opinion, this applies to most areas of doctrinal truth. Women should be granted full equality with men in all areas, homosexuals should be granted full equality with heterosexuals and so on.
The Bible must, as you say, be taken in its historical context and must today be read in harmony with our contemporary realities.
As for birth control, I believe birth control is acceptable if it blocks the coming together of sperm and egg. The morning after pills etc. are not acceptable, which brings us to abortion.
The Bible condemns it.
Most of the historic Church has condemned it (other than perhaps the Cathers).
In my opinion, since there is no clear evidence telling us at what point human life begins, we should go one the side of caution, of honoring human life, and should outlaw it. By the point women know they are pregnant, it is a child. To abort a child is to stop a beating heart and a working mind.... hence, in my opinion, abortion is murder and should be treated as such. The only exception I'd support in outlawing it would be if the mother's life is clearly in jeopardy. No one can be required to die for another. Short of that, the life of the child should be the primary concern.
My views about the proper application of Christian doctrine, just to be upfront with you, is far more eclectic that most Christians are prepared to accept.
The question you must answer for yourself, in my opinion, is how you view the Bible. Based on this, you will be able to determine your actions etc. Do you feel the Bible should be viewed and obeyed from a literalist perspective or from a more open, more experiential point of view. One of my guiding lights is this:
- I John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Feel free to write back anytime,
May God bless,
-
~ John of AllFaith
You are visitor number...
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
Who cares, I'm glad YOU'RE here!
