From: 78witherspoo@cua.edu
Subject: "Homophobic? Re-read your Bible"
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:24:24 GMT

Hello All--

	I was checking on my backed-up mail files and found this article that
was posted on GayNet.  It appeared in the August 17th edition of the New York
Times, in the Op-Ed section.  The author, Rev. Peter J. Gomes is an American
Baptist minister, and is a professor of Christian Morals at Harvard.  Thought
you might enjoy it.

		"Homophobic? Re-read your Bible"

			by Rev. Peter J. Gomes

	Opposition to gays' civil rights has become one of the most visible
symbols of American civic conflict this year, and religion has become the
weapon of choice. The army of the discontented, eager for clear villains and
simple solutions and ready for a crusade in which political self-interest and
social anxiety can be cloaked in morality, has found hatred of homosexuality to
be the last respectable prejudice of the century.

	Ballot initiatives in Oregon and Maine would deny homosexuals the
protection of civil rights laws. The Pentagon has steadfastly refused to allow
gays into the armed forces. Vice President Dan Quayle is crusading for
"traditional family values". And Pat Buchanan, who is scheduled to speak at the
Republican National Convention this evening [Aug. 17], regards homosexuality as
the litmus test of moral purity.

	Nothing has illuminated this crusade more effectively than a work of
fiction, "The Drowning of Stephan Jones", by Bette Greene. Preparing for her
novel, Ms. Greene interviewed more than 400 young men incarcerated for
gay-bashing, and scrutinized their case studies. In an interview published in
"The Boston Globe" this spring, she said she found that gay-bashers generally
saw nothing wrong in what they did, and, more often than not, said their
religious leaders and traditions sanctioned their behavior. One convicted
teen-age gay-basher told her that the pastor of his church had said,
"Homosexuals represent the devil, Satan," and that the  Rev. Jerry Falwell had
echoed that charge.

	Christians opposed to political and social equality for homosexuals
nearly always appeal to the moral injunctions of the Bible, claiming that
Scripture is very clear on the matter and citing verses that support their
opinion. They accuse others fo perverting and distorting texts contrary to
their "clear" meaning. They do not, however, necessarily see quite as clear a
meaning in biblical passages on economic conduct, the burdens of wealth and the
sin of greed.

	Nine biblical citations are customarily invoked as relating to
homosexuality. Four (Deuteronomy 23:17, I Kings 14:24, I Kings 22:46, and II
Kings 23:7) simply forbid prostitution, by men and women.

	Two others (Leviticus 18:19-23 and Leviticus 20:10-16) are part of what
biblical scholars call the Holiness Code. The code explicitly bans homosexual
acts. But it also prohibits eating raw meat, plainting two different kinds of
seed in the same field and wearing garments with two different kinds of yarn.
Tattos, adultery an sexual intercourse during a woman's menstrual period are
similarly outlawed.
	
	There is no mention of homosexuality in the four Gospels of the New
Testament. The moral teachings of Jesus are not concerned with the subject.

	Three references from St. Paul are frequently cited (Romans 1:26-2:1, I
Corinthians 6:9-11 and I Timothy 1:10). But St. Paul was concerned with
homosexuality only because in Greco-Roman culture it represented a secular
sensuality that was contrary to this Jewish-Christian spiritual idealism. He
was against lust and sensuality in anyone, including homosexuals. To say that
homosexuality is bad because homosexuals are tempted to do morally doubtful
things is to say that heterosexuality is bad becuase heterosexuals are likewise
tempted. For St. Paul, anyone who puts his or her interest ahead of God's is
condemned, a verdict that falls equally upon everyone.

	And lest we forge Sodom and Gomorrah, recall that the story is not
about sexual perversion and homosexual practice. It is about inhosipitality,
according to Luke 10:10-13, and failure to care for the poor, according to
Ezekiel 16:49-50: "Behold, this was the iniquity of they sister Sodom, pride,
fullness of bread and abundance of idleness was in her and her daughters,
neither did she strengthen the hand fo the poor and needy". To suggest that
Sodom and Gommorrah is about homosexual sex is an analysis of about as much
worth as suggesting that the story of Jonah and the Whale is a treatise on
fishing.

	Part of the problem is a question of interpretation. Fundamentalists
and literalists, the storm troopers of the religious right, are terrified that
Scripture, "wrongly interpreted", may separate them from their values. That
fear stems from their own recognition that their "values" are not derived from
Scripture, as they publicly claim.

	Indeed, it is through the lens of their own prejudices and personal
values that they "read" Scripture and cloak their own views in its authority.
We all interpret Scripture: make no mistake. And no one truly is a literalist,
depsite teh pious temptation. The questions are, by what principle of
interpretation do we proceed, and by what means do we reconcile "what it meant
then" to "what it means now".

	These matters are far to important to be left to scholars and
seminarians alone. Our ability to judge ourselves and others rests on our
ability to interpret Scripture intelligently. The right use of the Bible, an
exercise as old as the church itself, means that we confront our prejudices
rather than merely confirm them.

	For Christians, the principle by which Scripture is read is nothing
less than an appreciation of the work and the will of God as revealed in that
of Jesus. To recover a liberating and inclusive Christ is to be freed from the
semantic bondage that makes us curators of a dead culture rather than creatures
of a new creation.

	Religious fundamentalism is dangerous because it cannot accept
ambiguity and diversity and is therefore inherently intolerant. Such
intolerance, in the name of virtue, is ruthless and uses political power to
destroy what it cannot convert.

	It is dangerous, especially in America, because it is anti-democratic
and is suspicious of "the other", in whatever form that "other" might appear.
To maintain itself, fundamentalism must always define "the other" as deviant.

	But the chief reason that fundamentalism is dangerous is that, at the
hands of Rev. Pat Robertson, the Rev. Jerry Falwell and hundreds of
lesser-known but equally worrisome clerics, preachers and pundits, it uses
Scripture to encourage ordinarily good people to act upon their fears rather
than their virtues.

	Fortunately, those who speak for the religious right do not speak for
all American Christians, and the Bible is not thiers alone to interpret. The
same Bible that the advocates of slavery used to protect their wicked
self-interests is the Bible that inspired slaves to revolt and their liberators
to action.

	The same Bible that the predecessors of Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson
used to keep white churches white is the source of inspiration of the Rev.
Martin Luther King Jr. and the social reformation of the 1960s.

	The same Bible that anit-feminists used to keep women silent in the
churches is the Bible that preaches liberation to captives and says that in
Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free.

	And the same Bible that on the basis of an archaic social code of
ancient Israel and a tortured reading of Paul is used to condemn all
homosexuals and homosexual behavior includes metaphors of redemption, renewal,
inclusion and love-- principles that invite homosexuals to accept their freedom
and responsibility in Christ and demands that their fellow Christians accept
them as well.

	The political piety of fundamentalist religious right must not be
exercised at the expense of our precious freedoms. And in this summer of our
discontent, one of the most precious freedoms for which we must all fight is
freedom from this last prejudice.
_____________________________________________________________________________

Whew!  My fingers are killing me, so I will stop now.

Hope you get something out of this!

Love and good walking,

Tom Witherspoon

78witherspoo@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu 

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU