CONTENTS     |
INTRODUCTIONTry a little experiment. Bring up the subject of homosexuality in a conversation and see how long it takes before the Bible enters that conversation. Don't do it once. Do this several times, with different groups of people. Unless your group consists entirely of first or second generation immigrants from Eastern Pacific-Rim countries, it should only take a few minutes, or comments, before the Bible enters into the conversation. This should not surprise you. The Bible influenced our nation all of its more than two hundred years of history. This influence has been so foundational to our way of thinking that religious right believe we are a Christian nation, as if Christ were our monarch and the president only an agent of Christ. Those who realize the non-Christian attitudes of many of our founding fathers recognize that the Bible did play an important part in the thinking of our pre-nation history. Even Thomas Jefferson, who coined the term Unitarian, and could be considered the first of that group, spent countless hours with that book. He probably knew it better than most fundamentalist preachers do today. Therefor, it would be surprising if a conversation about homosexuality was held and the Bible never entered in. The problem is that while there are three passages which do condemn homosexuality, the use of those passages to represent the entire Bible is one of the most unscriptural misrepresentations of that Book the church has ever committed. Even so, the church has confounded this misrepresentation by using passages which are totally unrelated to the issue. She also used passages which concern a very limited aspect of homosexual behavior to bolster her case. This has been done with total disregard for one of the greatest themes of the Bible, the theme inclusion. The evolution of this theme even caused some bible writers to over-ride laws ascribed to Moses. On the other side, there have been attempts to undo the effects of these passages which are wanting. These attempts include trying to argue that Moses in Leviticus and therefor Paul in Romans were discussing male temple prostitution, not homosexuality. There are attempts to say that the ordinances against homosexual behavior were part of the ceremonial law and became void with the cross of Christ. I have even read one attempt to say that since the laws against homosexual behavior was written specifically against the Canniness and their religion, once that ethnic group was destroyed these laws became void. This argument continues by suggesting that homosexuality was nothing more than a social indiscretion like picking your nose and eating it is today, (the writer's example, not mine). Part of the problem is the erroneous mystique that surrounds the Bible. This book has been called, in extreme cases, the written "Word of God" in the same manner as Jesus is the living "Word of God." This false doctrine makes many incapable of seeing the forest because of the trees. (The above cliché has been so overused that it looses its meaning. It describes a person who doesn't realize that the forest has under-brush, flowers, moss, as well as animal life and even micro-organisms. Yet, in this case, the person is even more limited. He is so involved in one tree, such as a pine, that he becomes incapable of recognizing not only other evergreens such as fir, spruce and tamarack, but deciduous such as apple, oak and maple in the same forest.) Many become involved in one proof-text, such as Moses' proscription of an eye for an eye, that they become incapable of seeing any passage that would tend to contradict their pet proof-text, such as Jesus' command to turn the other cheek. They also become incapable of seeing the context, which would explain that Moses proscribed a limit on revenge, not a hard fast rule of justice. When people use the Bible to condemn homosexual behavior they are using it in the same manner, beating the issue with one tree and failing to recognize the diversity of trees, as well as the other life forms that make up the entire forest. The prohibition against homosexual behavior comes from the law of Moses, specifically Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. I maintain that, while these passages do condemn homosexual behavior, specifically male homosexual behavior and all forms of male homosexual behavior in every occasion and for every purpose, they are wrong. They do not represent God. To make my case, I present to you, the jury, several small essays in which I will begin by "examining witnesses" against Moses. After I have destroyed the credibility of Moses in this manner and explained Paul's prejudice as an uncritical extension of Moses' prejudice, then I will move on to examine the use of passages which the anti-gay contingent use that have nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality at all, or consider such a limited aspect of homosexual behavior as to have nothing to add to the case. Next, I will call Paul back to witness to some aspects of the issue that we have not considered in our hell-bent rush to condemn the gay, the bisexual, the transgendered and the transsexual. (Let me point out here that when I say "we," I am using that word in the generic sense, speaking of the majority. I do not include myself in that "we," except to admit that while I vehemently disagree with the majority, as a member of the greater church I am a part of that group which condemns differing forms of sexual identity, orientation and behavior.) Finally, I will summarize by calling on the Holy Spirit, the third person of the divine trinity, to explain Her attitudes and actions in this matter. Will I make my case? That is up to you to decide. Each of these essays will be under 1,500 words. This will allow you to consume each of them in less time than it takes to listen to your pastor's sermon on Sunday morning. This will allow you to fully digest each essay before moving on to the next, if you wish. The concepts presented here build upon one another, moving to the conclusion, so I do suggest you read this booklet in order, instead of jumping around. In that manner, you can follow my thinking as it progresses. NEXT ESSAY |