(Ir)religiosity

theology | philosophy | culture

Selective literalism and the homosexuality debate

with 8 comments

  • Sharebar

Tony Jones hits the nail on the head in this video.

If you follow his blog then you’re aware that Tony has been blogging about homosexuality lately and called for an open and honest discussion without reference to the six clobber verses that are all too often taken out of context.

The problem, of course, isn’t that Tony wants to abandon scripture and rigorous exegesis as he and others are accused of suggesting. The problem is that too many of us are limiting our hermeneutic to a handful of verses, the immediate context of which is either replete with other off the wall stipulations that we have long since abandoned, as in the Hebrew bible, or uses vocabulary which is ambiguous at best and more than likely refers to sexual behavior that is hardly analogous to those in long-term monogamous homosexual relationships in today’s context, as in the case of Paul’s letters. The problem is that we are guilty of a dangerous selective literalism that not only creates a highly myopic and repressive ‘canon-within-the-canon,’ (we are all guilty of our varying emphases) but that it blatantly ignores, as Tony points out, the overall trajectory of scripture — a trajectory of liberation, redemption, and restoration in which God’s interaction within humankind and all of creation is steeped with grace tempered with justice.

There is a meaningful, constructive debate to be had here. But until we find a way to mend this gap it seems that communication is at a standstill. We’ll just keep going around in circles rehashing the same old points and probably yelling louder and getting more emotional in the process. Most of the comments on Tony’s blog are a case point.

So, as far as I can tell (and I’ve read most of the comments) Tony’s question is still an open and unanswered one:

If you are one who thinks that homosexual sex is sinful, can you please explain to me WHY a gay or lesbian person who is in a long-term, monogamous relationship would not be able to wholeheartedly follow Christ?

My only stipulation is this: You may not quote one of the six verses in scripture that mentions homosexuality. Instead, you must use theological and/or philosophical arguments to attempt to convince me that when you have genital contact with someone of your own gender, it somehow inhibits your relationship with Christ.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Written by Blake Huggins

August 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , ,

«
»
  • Existential_Punk

    'There is a meaningful, constructive debate to be had here. But until we find a way to mend this gap it seems that communication is at a standstill. We’ll just keep going around in circles rehashing the same old points and probably yelling louder and getting more emotional in the process.'

    i so agree with you, Blake. Thanks for this post. i am so tired of the same old 'Stepford Wife' mantras. Hence, one of the reasons i created Queermergent, so that fruitful dialogue can take place without the clobbering that so often takes place at places like Tony's blog.

    i really appreciate Tony trying to open up debate about this topic. TRUE conversations will only take place b/w people who are open=minded. Not saying people cannot change, but it really cannot be about changing minds. There just needs to be a level of maturity on ALL sides to take the time to REALLY listen and take the time to get to know each other. Often, blogs make this hard.

    Best Regards,
    EP

  • http://blakehuggins.com Blake Huggins

    I get so tired of debate the same things and defend myself on the same points about the same verses over and over and over. It's so disheartening. And I times I feel like not talking about it anymore because I already know were things will go. But I try to remember folks like you when that happens and continue to fight the good fight. If anything it teaches me to choose my battles wisely.

    I appreciate what Tony is doing as well. It is always encouraging for me to see someone in a large audience using their voice to push for justice. I know he takes a lot of hits for it, but I thank God for his work.

  • Larry B

    I too tire of the debate, but exist on the “other side”. What I find particularly odd about Tony's query though is that he feels compelled to limit it to long term monogamous situations. I'm assuming he derived this standard from scripture somehow, because it is not clear to me that monogamy is an absolute in terms of whether a relationship is accepted or prohibited. Tony affords himself the luxury of using scripture to frame his question requiring monogamy and then prohibits others from using scripture to answer it. How does that move the debate forward?

    In reality you could change his question to any behavior and then ask someone to counter it without reference to verses that explicitly mention a behavior. I don't get how that illustrates anything. For example what if he asked how does being a murderer prevent somebody from whole-heartedly following christ? Explain your reasoning without resorting to scripture that condemns murder. In fact Moses was a follower of God and a murderer – should we throw out condemnation of murder now?

  • http://blakehuggins.com Blake Huggins

    I can't speak for Tony, but my initial thoughts are that he chose his language that way to avoid the common misconception that homosexuals are more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals. The Bible never mentions a faithful, monogamous homosexual relationship and the verses commonly cited against homosexuality in the New Testament have more to do with sexual promiscuity in ancient culture than loving relationships today. Again, I don't know that that would be Tony's reasoning, but that's my kneejerk reaction.

    (Adele, if you're “listening” I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.)

  • http://blakehuggins.com Blake Huggins

    I get so tired of debate the same things and defend myself on the same points about the same verses over and over and over. It's so disheartening. And I times I feel like not talking about it anymore because I already know were things will go. But I try to remember folks like you when that happens and continue to fight the good fight. If anything it teaches me to choose my battles wisely.

    I appreciate what Tony is doing as well. It is always encouraging for me to see someone in a large audience using their voice to push for justice. I know he takes a lot of hits for it, but I thank God for his work.

  • Larry B

    I too tire of the debate, but exist on the “other side”. What I find particularly odd about Tony's query though is that he feels compelled to limit it to long term monogamous situations. I'm assuming he derived this standard from scripture somehow, because it is not clear to me that monogamy is an absolute in terms of whether a relationship is accepted or prohibited. Tony affords himself the luxury of using scripture to frame his question requiring monogamy and then prohibits others from using scripture to answer it. How does that move the debate forward?

    In reality you could change his question to any behavior and then ask someone to counter it without reference to verses that explicitly mention a behavior. I don't get how that illustrates anything. For example what if he asked how does being a murderer prevent somebody from whole-heartedly following christ? Explain your reasoning without resorting to scripture that condemns murder. In fact Moses was a follower of God and a murderer – should we throw out condemnation of murder now?

  • http://blakehuggins.com Blake Huggins

    I can't speak for Tony, but my initial thoughts are that he chose his language that way to avoid the common misconception that homosexuals are more sexually promiscuous than heterosexuals. The Bible never mentions a faithful, monogamous homosexual relationship and the verses commonly cited against homosexuality in the New Testament have more to do with sexual promiscuity in ancient culture than loving relationships today. Again, I don't know that that would be Tony's reasoning, but that's my kneejerk reaction.

    (Adele, if you're “listening” I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.)

  • Dava

    Homosexuality – It would seem that ‘Holy’ literature doesn’t provide the positive guidance to satisfy all members of the religious fraternity. As the silly beggars can’t find a way to consult with the Almighty One direct, the reverent gents are forced to use their own opinions as to what judgement their ‘figmentary’ Lord would favour.

    No surprise then that disagreements are rife. Verbal gymnastics abound. Their wordy squirming is very entertaining – at times, hilarious.

    Charlatans – the lot of ‘em!

    Self-righteous preachers must realize that homosexuality is just another example of the myriad of anomalies that occur in the nature of things. Even tho abominating some of it’s abnormal practises, ‘normal’ people must learn how to tolerate ‘abnormality’ without undue authoratative interference. There is no alternative.

    It’s very doubtful indeed that any person’s make-up is !00% male or female; an individual’s sexual orientation can lie anywhere in the spectrum. ‘Correcting’ the condition of those ‘way out’ would seem wel nigh impossible.

    Seeking a wrong / right ruling on this matter from some Unearthly Essence displays crass imbecility.

    Common sense must prevail.

    Unrealistic ‘beliefs’, the cause of so much mayhem & mortality of past & present are all very primitive Man-made creations – devious proclamations of a false & tedious nature, incessantly beguiling shallow minds with absurd religious dogma. Nothing but pure HUMBUG!

    High time Humanity discarded these sentimental sanctimonious ramblings & put much more of their Faith in level-headed Rationality!