In All Things
Newsweek Cover Story: The Bible on Gay Marriage
Lisa Miller, a senior editor at Newsweek who oversees all the mag’s religion reporting (and does a great job at it) has a cover story, posted online today, on what the Bible says (and may intend) and doesn’t say, about same-sex marriages and homosexuality in general. The most surprising quote comes from Walter Brueggemann, who can fairly be described as the dean of Old Testament studies in this country. When asked about same-sex marriage, he says, well, let me give you the lead up:
--The great Bible scholar Walter Brueggemann, emeritus professor at Columbia Theological Seminary, quotes the apostle Paul when he looks for biblical support of gay marriage: "There is neither Greek nor Jew, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Jesus Christ." The religious argument for gay marriage, he adds, "is not generally made with reference to particular texts, but with the general conviction that the Bible is bent toward inclusiveness."--Newsweek.
Read the rest of the article, entitled "Our Mutual Joy" here. And once again, when commenting, remember the dictates of charity. (Photo courtesy of Catholic News Service.)
James Martin, SJ
Comments (57) |
3582 Views
Add Comments (registration required)
Comments
They were utterly and completely dumbfounded,
because they had not seen what the miracle of the loaves meant; their minds were closed.'
~ Mark 6: 51-52
I am a gay man who has been in the same realtionship for over 42 years. Walter Brueggemann is telling us that even people who are enthusiast of the Bible can sometimes not understand it. It is those that have written it 'on their hearts' who may be more likely to see the generosity and love it teaches and encourages.
Recently I have done lectio on Mark. I like the way Mark can
get our attention and can open our hearts and minds with continuing promise. Recently in the 6th chapter of Mark, I came across Jesus' statement that `their minds were closed'. Mark tell us this about the apostles after he tells us that Jesus had walked on water and that Jesus had calmed the storm. I think Jesus was looking for faith and attention. I think attention needs to include a fairly steady willingness to listen and to learn about what brings hope and love to the lives of people.
The message of Salvation is offered to all who are willing to follow Him and, "Love one another as I have Loved you."-Christ.
"You can not be my disciples if you do not abide in my Word."
Christ revealed God's intention from the beginning for the unity of Marriage: "Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female' and said,'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore, WHAT GOD HAS JOINED TOGETHER, no human being must separate. (Mt.19:3-6)
God desires that all relationships be Holy.
By "twist meanings" do you mean interpret? Do we "twist meanings" when we argue that even though the Bible clearly supports slavery it is nevertheless wrong? Did the Church "twist meanings" when, for instance, it rescinded its Biblically based opposition to usury? Do we "twist meanings" by not adhereing to the Levitical Code - the Law which Jesus said he did not come to abolish? Do we "twist meanings" when we do not literally give everything we own to the poor?
Unfortunately, Natural Law must also be interpreted, and so we have rival versions here as well (e.g., New Natural Law Theory, Revisionist Natural Law, secular understandings of Natural Law, etc.,).
I think the author's point (aside from accusations of "cherry-picking") was that the Bible can provide a guide for contemporary life only to the extent that we "twist" its meanings through interpretation.
Read Acts 11:1-18 for a wonderful account of the early Christian community twisting the meanings of Scripture toward inclusivity.
In the Peace of Christ,
Brad Ledesma
Furthermore, Ms. Miller also deceitfully cherry-picks from St. Paul in her attempt to indicate that he left nothing of a positive image of marriage, when this is in fact totally untrue. One of the most beautiful passages Paul ever wrote in all of his epistles relates to the relationship between husband and wife, where he exhorts them to love each other with the perfect love as between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:21-33).
(cont...)
Ms. Miller claims that Christ ushered in a new attitude of acceptance, but she is attempting to equate acceptance with permissiveness, and permissiveness has nothing to do with Christ. Certainly Christ told the woman caught in adultery that He did not condemn her, but He also told her, 'Go and sin no more.' Nowhere did Jesus say that we must turn become permissive of sin. Nowhere did Jesus say that we must stop recognizing that sin is real. Quite the opposite. The Sermon on the Mount shows us that in Christ, the demands of the Law are even greater on the disciples than they were on the Jews (just look at all His, 'But I say to you...' sayings). But in placing greater demands on us, He has not left us on our own, but rather has offered us an eternal wellspring of grace so that we may live, "no longer I, but Christ lives within me."
If people wish to make a secular argument for why civil unions between gay persons should be recognized by law, that's one thing. I go back and forth on the matter. But there quite clearly is no argument whatever to be made for a biblical support of homosexual relationships or homosexual marriage. Quite the opposite, in fact. Christ was clear about it, and the rest of Scripture is clear about it, as well. Any attempt to distort Scripture as Ms. Miller has done is blatantly deceptive.
On a different topic than homosexuality. I recently read that the road from the Ten Commandments to the Beatitudes is long, winding and filled with exceptions. The further someone moves from general principles to specific situations, the less one can claim certainty for a particular moral judgement.
I certainly hope that nobody is telling their homosexual family members and friends to become heterosexual. If they are, they are doing them great harm.
I am 63 years old. It takes life time to learn what love means. It is not like learning what a tree is. Its meaning can certainly not be contained in fussy syllogisms and questionable exegesis of scripture. It takes a life time to learn about it. I am still learning.
There is only one True Word of God.
The two becoming one flesh has as much to do with the legal standing of two married people as it does about sex. It means that when you get married, your family of origin loses its claim on you and you are owned by your spouse. The wedding ceremony is the Church's gift to the families, allowing them to consent to the new arrangements, at least tacitly.
Not blessing gay unions does not really cheat the couple - it cheats the losing families. If every Catholic family with a gay son or daughter demanded its rights to a ceremony (and withheld contributions until it occurred) you would see change on this issue.
All who believe in the Word of Love, the Word Made Flesh, are one Body united in Christ.
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=4204#comments
Some of the contradicting comments (above) to this article duplicate my own views, based on my scriptural training, which actually bends very much toward Protestant & Jewish scriptural study, even though I am Catholic & Catholic-theology trained as well. I read widely, & some Catholic biblical criticism is doctrine-driven at the expense of the text. Nevertheless, even based on my wide reading, my opinion is that Brueggemann is showing a great deal of lack of discipline in his response, and/or has a political agenda driving his analysis. Suffice it to say that others are right in asserting that the inclusiveness of Jesus' message does not extend to a loosening of morality; if anything, his ministry points to a deepening of morality & more disciplined (while less 'technical') conformity to Jewish law.
No one (including the Catholic Church) is denying that you shouldn't be able to love whom you love. It is the expression of that love that comes under the umbrella of morality -- just as it does for straight singles & couples. If I felt as you do, and I were also Catholic (you haven't said you are), I would not stay in the Catholic church, because gays trying to do so will be struggling with authority (& with acceptance of a forbidden behavior) for the entirety of their consummated relationship together. If I wanted to live out a Christian commitment in an institutional setting, without restrictions on my personal relationships, I would join the Episcopalians or the United Church of Christ (for example). I would not demand that the Catholic Church agree to Walter Brueggemann's interpretation, or that they dispense with the natural law argument that underlies their moral theology (combined with Scripture).
The inclusiveness referred to in the NT exists in the context of charity & membership -- just as it does today. It does not extend to inclusive behavior necessarily.
The Catholic Church's current thinking about homosexuality tends to avoid bringing up Scripture in it defense. Also, it is meaningless for people to tell homosexuals it is okay for you to be a homosexual and it is okay for you to love others. However, you cannot be in a relationship. Did God some how give every single gay person the charism of celibacy? Of course not!
Some of the above commenters have suggested that anyone who believes differently from the current magisterial view on this subject ought to consider leaving the Catholic Church. That, my friends, is thoroughly un-Catholic and un-Christian. On the other hand, it does seem to be consistent with the underlying tone of much of what the Church has to say on the subject. "Just go away, you bother us" is the message that so many gay men and lesbians hear from us. That is not the message of Jesus, who calls all his children to himself.
"The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures and spiritual attitudes."
-CCC,no.1603
Sacrament: An efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us by the work of the Holy Spirit (CCC,nos. 1131,774).
My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.” Let the priest’s prayer be our own.
"If Jesus were alive today ..." The blunder invites the obvious response: Has Jesus died AGAIN? Why weren't we told?
Miller does not put those words in quotation marks, and it's a reasonable conjecture that they represent her own obtuseness rather than Fr. Martin's. But there's an important doctrinal point to be made. Jesus IS alive, and he speaks to us, today, through his Vicar, the successor of Peter. Such is the conviction of Catholics. And that Vicar has made it radiantly clear that sodomy is contrary to God's will and that marriage is effected between, and only between, a man and a woman.
To Mr. Austin: The reason I didn't mention my appearance in that piece was that I was trying to maintain a bit of humility.
To other commenters: Remember that the system doesn't accept comments without email addresses. And that we don't accept ad hominem comments.
James Martin, SJ
In the truest sense of the word, the Church's current teaching on homosexuality is mortally sinful to those who proclaim it. It results in the deaths of teens who suicide, not because the experience of being gay depresses them akin to the way alcoholics are trapped by their addiction, but because they are told their natural desires are disordered. It results in needless deaths from A.I.D.S. because promiscuity and monogamous relationship are considered equally sinful. Parents literally die of heartbreak, not because their children are miserable but because they have been told their children are disordered and in danger of damnation for acting on what science now tells us are natural desires. Under the old formula of a life for a life, the Chruch's hands are stained in blood. To not speak out against these evils is to be personally responsible for them, and for the harm that comes upon the sinner. I will not stay silent, any more than Ezekiel could when the priests of his day sinned.
I do indeed believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in the lives of gay couples and have seen it when one of them was sick and the other cared for them unselfishly. While not all do this, neither do all married couples.
Be very careful about denying the Spirit in their lives, as blasphemy against the Spirit is an unforgiveable offense.
I agree that it is un-Catholic and un-Christian to tell others to leave. I was baptized into this faith and love the Mass and other liturgies. I am as much a member as any other Catholic and I am not going anywhere. I do not have to.
I am more concerned with the hierarchy using the Magisterium as a backdoor way of reintroducing the Inquisition, which was ended by the Second Vatican Council. In light of the actions of the Council, I believe doing so should be considered gravely sinful, especially as it denies the Spirit of Prophesy within the Church (which so desparately needs Her).
I have a short history of subscribing to Newsweek, but have enjoyed my time with the magazine. During this election season I was excited to receive each new issue, and often passed them on to family and friends with high recommendations. However, during this same period of time I have always been bothered by the column written by Lisa Miller, and, in general, Newsweek’s coverage of the Christian faith. It is my impression that Ms. Miller often portrays Christianity in simplistic, negative terms (See: 'The Silent Issue,' 'Is Obama the AntiChrist,' and 'No God, No Abortions'). This simplistic, negative path of argument reached its height in the most recent article 'Our Mutual Joy,' in which Ms. Miller attacks a literal interpretation of the scriptures (on this point I strongly agree with her), but then fails to do justice to the fuller spectrum of reasons against same-sex marriage. At my own university we hosted a 'Conversation on Same-Sex Marriage' last spring which included perspectives from History, Sociology, Catholic Spirituality, and the father of homosexual daughter who has suffered discrimination – this forum, only an hour in length, was far more beneficial than Newsweek’s one-sided article.
Beyond Ms. Miller’s writing Newsweek has also displayed poor judgment elsewhere. See: 'The Vatican Breaks Its Da Vinci Code' which humiliates a serious effort of the Catholic Church by comparing a Michelangelo to a work depicting Michael Jackson.
What is most difficult for me to understand is that while members of the Christian faith continue to be leaders around the world in spreading justice and a message of God’s love Newsweek feels the need to focus solely on the negative. For instance here are some stories you have missed: The meeting at the Vatican between Muslim and Christian scholars, the work of Christian Peacemaking Teams such as the Frontiers, or American Catholics support of immigration reform.
The Vatican accepts the fundamental nature of homosexuality which is still a big question for many other Christian traditions.
I don't think I need to go into all the medical, psychiatric,
psychological, etc. evidence that tells us the facts about
homosexuality are contrary to what the Catholic Church officially thinks are the facts about homosexuality.
With respect to homosexuality, the Vatican Congregations have responded very oddly. They concede that 'being like that'(homosexual) is simply part of nature, which is to say, part of God's creative project, then it is evident that the acts which flow from that way of being could not be 'intrinsically' evil, but that they might be good or bad according to their use and circumstances, as in the case with heterosexual acts.
You are right when you say that we must learn to treat gay persons better, and must learn to love them better, because that is something many today simply do not do. And I agree completely with Fr. Martin that gays and lesbians would certainly be a group to whom Christ would reach out if his earthly ministry were going on right now - which is to say that Christ in His Body needs to reach out to them in a big way now. However, we must not mistake 'love your neighbor' and the idea of reaching out to those who have been abandoned and mistreated for somehow becoming permissive of sinful behavior. We cannot change divine law, and nothing can ever make homosexual relations anything but sinful. That does not mean we stop having compassion. We have to recognize how painful this sin is, and what a difficult struggle battling it entails. We must reach out to those struggling with homosexuality just the same way Christ reached out to the woman caught in adultery - we must recognize the pain of their being outcast, as she was; we must never condemn them because of their struggles with a particularly difficult sin, as He did not; but we must also encourage them to live chastely, to sin no more, as Christ exhorted the woman.
I agree that a Catholic who is struggling with the faith should be encouraged to stay and find it. But we must draw distinctions. Regular old Joe Catholic who is struggling with the faith is one thing; a high profile priest who publicly promotes dissent is another. With regard to the latter, a regular Catholic, like me, is entitled to ask, directly or indirectly: what are you doing, and why?
Walter Fauntroy-Former DC Delegate to Congress Founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus Coordinator for Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march on DC
Paul isn't the slightest bit ambiguous in his desciption of homosexual sex as sinful. Read the end of Romans chapter 1. He describes all sorts of sins. Jesus never condoned sin, he forgave it. He only forgave the sins of those who were remorseful, repentant and asked for forgiveness. He said strong words of condemnation for many others. Examples are so numerous I don't need to offer examples.
After reading the last part of Romans 1 we need to continue to the beginning of Romans 2 where we are commanded to not judge. Since we also are sinners, to judge others is to show contempt for God's saving grace and love. But that doesn't say we are to approve of or encourage other people to sin. Clearly there is teaching against this.
If you are like me you are struggle wiht the sins of self and find it difficult to nearly impossible to address such issues without becoming judgemental or condemning. That's not to say that I should become permissive. I need to spend time in prayer and ask for God's guidance and submit myself to him in these interactions.
Homosexuality is not an alternative life-style acceptable to God. Both gay and liberal preachers twist the scriptures in futile endeavors to make it seem that it is. (2 Peter 3:16) Thousands of years ago Jehovah destroyed Sodom because most of the males of that city practiced it. (Genesis 19:4-25)
People choose this way of life alluding they have the right to do so, free will, not taking into account God's viewpoint. In that sense, God allows them to do what they wish to do. However,Jehovah leaves no room for any ambiguity , both male homosexuality and lesbianism are condemned: “God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error.”—Romans 1:26, 27.
The Bible says: “Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.” (1 Corinthians 6:9, 10) Other Bible translations render the expression “men who lie with men” in various ways, as follows: sodomites, perverts, sexual perverts, homosexual perverts, homosexual perversion, and just plain homosexuals.
He had completely shattered the meaning of the passage in Galatians where Paul, IN CONTEXT,(read ALL of Gal. ch 3 please)...is writing about the salvific acceptance of humanity -POST repentance.
He and others practice an age old heresy, which is isogeting the text(placing some other meaning or ideal into something not originally there.) Exogeting is pulling out of the text the meaning in context, without adding anything to it. This is proper biblical interpretation.
Furthermore, any layperson without the seminary degree easily understands that being gay is unnatural. Its no different however, to any other sin that's oft rationalized. 'I love to steal, therefore God made me this way'' isnt any more than 'Jimmy has two dads and no mom'. Its all unbalanced and certainly damnable. It breaks societies down, quickly. God calls it sin. I can't apologise for what the Creator has named.
Over-educated folk such as this Brueggemann; may indeed be persuaded by the pressures of the world view, but it says nothing about reality.
No one in the news media has any business nor right to redefine God's mandates or doctrines. The Laws of God bend for no one.
If you disagree and remain narrow-minded yourself,
you certainly have the right to and certainly have the right to be wrong.
Try stealing someones property, committing adultery, or flat out killing someone. WHAT usually happens? The law of God remains just and right, -you will be punished, either here or in eternity or both, depending on you being forgiven here or not.
Jesus even said certain cities would incur more judgment than Sodom and Gomorrah(judged for homosexuality), due to their lack of repentance.(Matt 11:20-24) respectively.
I believe you're thinking of puppies. Being a servant of God takes a lot more than your dreadfully simplistic 'thoughts' will have you believe.
Kevin S
John 8:7-11
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ''If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'' Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, ''Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?''
''No one, sir,'' she said.
''Then neither do I condemn you,'' Jesus declared. ''Go now and leave your life of sin.''
Apparently M. Binder is a prophet as well as a backer of gay marriage since he favors a ''more sensible'' stance on it. Perhaps a mentalist as well, since he seems to know the thoughts of teen suicides.
Diseases of the body, soul and mind need to be treated, some with medicine, some with love and understanding but certainly not with surrender.
The scriptures are excellent in stating what the author's believed to be God's view when written. Changing our understanding of God's view is not the same as saying that God changes his view. To believe our knowledge of God's view on everything ever was or is perfect is hubris of the highest order. Paul saw as darkly as the rest of us.
"Love one another as I have loved you."-Christ
We are to use Christ's definition of love, not our own.
In ancient times, the writers of Leviticus and works that relied upon it were heterosexual (or masquerading as such) and relied on their natural revulsion of homosexuality to condemn it. A part of sexual identity for most people is to be repulsed by the other identity, to not identify. It takes an act of will for a straight man to not be repulsed by two men kissing, since he does not find men sexually attractive.
That merely proves that sexual identity is ingrained in the people who write scripture. It says nothing about the morality of the act.
One wonders how the presence of latent celibate homosexuals in the Church has contributed to attitudes about heterosexual sex.
I have also yet to see a convincing refutation of what I wrote in #21.
A disordered relationship is one that is not ordered towards God's definition of Love.
That is circular reasoning unless you reference the source of what is ordered and disordered. The source has to be the nature of man himself, since God cannot have a personal stake in this besides his love for man (or else God would have feet of clay and be codependent).
Our knowledge of the nature of man and of homosexuality in particular has changed since Leviticus (just as we now eat pork, do not hold wifes as property or require them to drink abortiefficents to prove they were cheating if we suspect they are pregnant by someone other than the husband). You can either accept the entire ancient law or realize that it evolves with understanding.
Our understanding of the nature of man is not perfect, although it has certainly improved.
I do not quarrel with correcting gays and lesbians. I think we must definitely condemn any chosen lifestyle which involves promiscuity. However, to get our foot in the door, we must accept both what science tells us and what gays report about their being created that way. Then we can share the words of eternal life and the guidance that monogamny is best.
The CDF's version of human sexuality is very poetic in its idealization of the marital act, but lovely poetry is not natural law.
As far as circular reasoning goes regarding a truth, if you start with the truth you end up with the truth unless you add a false assumption.
Add Comments (registration required)
* The opinions expressed here are those of our contributors, and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of America magazine.