First, I want to wish a happy and blessed Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eleven as the clock winds down on 2010. None of us knows what is to come except God, but that's good enough for me.
I saw this blog on the Huffington Post website:
Why Gays and Lesbians Should Never Argue Scripture, by Candace Chellew-Hodge, pastor of the Jubilee! Circle United Church of Christ in Columbia, South Carolina.
Rev. Chellew-Hodge argues that there is no point in bringing the Scriptures into the discussion of ordination standards. She cites three reasons:
"...First, it's pointless and nobody wins. Those who are anti-gay have their authorities and scriptural interpretations and so do pro-gay people. No one wins a "they said, they said" argument because no one will believe the scholars from either side no matter what argument anyone makes.
"Secondly, arguing over scripture just hardens the opinions of both sides. Neither side is willing to give an inch. This is not a true dialogue, it's simply a contest of who can argue the longest, and usually the loudest. No one is convinced, and everyone leaves further entrenched in their own ideas, and usually angry. No education happens, and little, if any, compassion ever happens.
"Thirdly, the arguers on either side never share the same starting point on scripture. Those who are anti-gay are more likely to see the Bible as the infallible "Word of God" -- which means the words literally dripped from the lips of God through the pens of the scribes and onto the page. Each jot and tittle is God-breathed and never to be contradicted....Those who argue from the pro-gay side are generally those who see the Bible as inspired by God, but not the literal, infallible words of God. This means they are more open to different interpretations and approaches to scripture. Those who see the Bible as "God's literal word" only know one way to read any passage, and it's usually to back up their current beliefs about God, homosexuality or any other issue.
"The most important reason, however, that gays and lesbians should never, ever argue about scripture is because the Bible has nothing much to say about homosexuality.... In short, we cannot extract modern ideas from an ancient book. The writers of the Bible no more understood homosexuality than they understood that a spherical Earth orbited the sun...Why on earth would we take it as an authority on sexual orientation?" [End of quote]
I think she's right about a few things. We do argue past one another as we use Scripture. I've seen this time and time again in our debates. And it is because we start in different places and never really engage one another. Over time our opinions have hardened, as she points out. But I take exception to her oversimplification of conservative/evangelical hermeneutics. Chellew-Hodge describes herself as a recovering Southern Baptist and that no doubt colors her perspective. Not all who believe that the Bible is infallible, however, are Fundamentalists. There are many nuances in Scripture which call for further study and deeper understanding. The conservative/evangelical hermeneutic, however, strives to harmonize rather than to deconstruct the Bible.
For what it's worth, here's my analysis of how we got to where we are today. During the Enlightenment intellectuals openly questioned and even ridiculed Christianity. The faith had many defenders who stood firm for the faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 3), but they too were objects of derision. Friedrich Schleiermacher tried a different approach when he wrote On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers. At the risk of oversimplifying a thesis that unfolds over some three hundred pages, Schleiermacher gave away the store to the critics. He conceded virtually all of their arguments and admitted that Christianity cannot stand up to modern scrutiny. Yet he asserted that it is nonetheless true, on a deeper level, as we realize our dependence upon God. Schleiermacher laid the groundwork for wide acceptance of Higher Criticism and its "assured results." If the accounts in the Bible are unbelievable, then we must face the possibility that Scripture is likewise mistaken when it comes to faith and morals. From here it's a short leap to the conclusion that homosexual practice per se is not sinful and thus not a barrier to ordination. This is more than many of us can accept, so we do battle.
I think I've pontificated enough today. I look forward to your responses.
In Christ,
Marty
The many scriptural arguments that are made in favor of LGBTQ ordination aside, I think this just rests on far too many over-generalizations. This does not seem similar to the hermeneutics that I practice, nor those that I learned in my evil progressive Seminary. That is, I think you are making almost exactly the same mistake that prompted the pontification - misrepresenting those who disagree with you.
ReplyDeleteI didn't use the word "evil" to describe any person or any institution. That really WOULD be demonizing. Maybe my brush did paint a bit broadly. There are many methods of interpretation. But you have to admit that there are some pretty far out methods. The Jesus Seminar voted with colored marbles to decide what were and weren't the words of Jesus. Might as well roll dice or toss a coin.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to post an article on the Belhar Confession which also addresses 10-A. I'll be interested in your opinion,
Huh - just lost a comment. Anyway, you're right, "evil" was my snarky over-statement, aimed at my perception of the broad brush issue.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually fine with the Jesus Seminar, and disagree that it is the same as tossing a coin. They were just doing what all academics do all the time - discussing theoreticals in their field. It wasn't a coin-toss, it was an academic opinion. If I did the same, it would be more like a coin-toss, because I'm not academically at that level.
ReplyDelete(If I make shorter, comments, they seem to not get lost.)
ReplyDeleteThe big issue, for me, is that some conservative Biblical interpreters are selective in their reading, they make choices about how to read and what to preference within the Bible, but they pretend that they don't do that, and then criticize liberal commentators of doing the same thing - making decisions. There is no singular "Biblical position" on any major issue - not war, nor the economy, nor enemies, nor the reason for suffering, etc. To read the Bible is to make decisions, to value some things over other things, because it is a book that clearly argues with itself (Job and Isaiah would disagree strongly on why one suffers, for example, and both would be correct.)
What some liberal commentators, some higher critics, and so on are doing is trying to be transparent about what they are preferencing. What I find frustrating is those who are clearly preferencing certain things in interpretation, but pretending they are not.