What Bible?
This was on the message board at jenaustin.com recently. "Just curious about what bible you read from. Romans the first chapter alone is against homosexuality. Just curious."
I'm sure this anonymous poster and I read from the same Bible. Different translations perhaps, but the text is most likely the same. It's the interpretation that's radically different. If the logic follows, then it's my interpretation that's being called into question.
Romans 1:25-27 (NIV) says:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Rev. Michael Piazza at Cathedral of Hope in Dallas has said on more than one ocassion that at the time Paul wrote this passage in Romans, temple prostitution was prevalent. What's more, cults--who used both heterosexual and homosexual sex acts--were usually the primary participants. It doesn’t take any sort of stretch of the imagination to see that there is something cockeyed about selling one’s body for personal gain, whether homosexual or heterosexual sex acts are the means used. Paul had to address this situation. But Paul is not addressing same-sex love in this passage, where two committed adults live together, love one another, and mutually contribute to a household and a family. Paul is talking about that middle-of-the-night, back-alley sort of sex act of which lust is a part, and which would still get you arrested today. To try to hastily pin this passage on those who possess a natural homosexual orientation just proves how misunderstood we gay folk continue to be.
Homosexuality is not so whimsical that it requires a bunch of lawless hooligans to suddenly become “inflamed with lust for one another” and to resolutely pursue those lusts at the expense of anything and everything that happens to be in the way. We homosexuals are far more tame and boring than that. We do not become “inflamed” any more than a heterosexual person becomes “inflamed” with heterosexuality prior to pursuing a potential mate. In fact, we may fall asleep in the middle of a heated round of Trivial Pursuit on a wild and crazy Saturday night rather than get carried away by the winds of passion, and doing so does not make us any less homosexual. Maybe that's just me. Regardless, homosexuality is not an action. It's a state of being all its own, and behavior does not decrease or increase it's existence or validity.
The subject of what is “natural” to one person over another is an interesting one. For me, it is not natural to be in a sexual relationship with a man. I have given it a half-hearted whirl, and there are no words to describe the awkwardness. My connection to men is similar to that between two heterosexual men I would imagine, in that I can talk and laugh and shoot the breeze, but the sexual attraction is entirely absent. To kiss a man is contrary to everything that I know to be true about myself and, although the act may produce a raucous and triumphant round of applause at a Focus on the Family “ex-gay” rally, it would be the ultimate self-betrayal. I choose truth over superficial and conditional acceptance by would-be peers. Christians who use this chapter of Romans to condemn homosexuality carry with them the mistaken assumption that a heterosexual orientation is the default orientation that God naturally assigns to everyone. God has other plans for about ten percent of the Realm.
Neither I nor any of the GLBT Christians I have come across in my spiritual journey have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie." It's more accurate to say we have continued to pursue truth of God despite the obstacles, and by doing so we have become better vessels through which that truth can be displayed. We have not abandoned God and God has not abandoned us. The fruit of the Spirit that continues to be produced in our lives serves as evidence. Goodness, kindness, gentleness, self-control, joy, peace, self-sacrifice, benevolence, faithfulness, and thousands of other positive qualities are present. To ignore those and focus on something that accounts for a very small percentage of the whole of the relationship speaks to a sexual fear and not to the liberating wholeness of God's love.
So who has the correct interpretation of this passage in Romans 1? Who's interpretation is incorrect? That's for you to decide. These are simply testimonies of faith that gain significance and meaning only as others relate to them and find harmony. This is the truth that I have found in God. And as I continue to grow in this relationship I'm sure God will continue to guide me, refine me, and give me greater understanding. And God will do the same for you.
So what Bible should we read? I would suggest the one that grows from words on a page, to action in our lives, to a more profound understanding of Jesus, of God, and of our faith. That's the one I want to be defined by.
I'm sure this anonymous poster and I read from the same Bible. Different translations perhaps, but the text is most likely the same. It's the interpretation that's radically different. If the logic follows, then it's my interpretation that's being called into question.
Romans 1:25-27 (NIV) says:
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Rev. Michael Piazza at Cathedral of Hope in Dallas has said on more than one ocassion that at the time Paul wrote this passage in Romans, temple prostitution was prevalent. What's more, cults--who used both heterosexual and homosexual sex acts--were usually the primary participants. It doesn’t take any sort of stretch of the imagination to see that there is something cockeyed about selling one’s body for personal gain, whether homosexual or heterosexual sex acts are the means used. Paul had to address this situation. But Paul is not addressing same-sex love in this passage, where two committed adults live together, love one another, and mutually contribute to a household and a family. Paul is talking about that middle-of-the-night, back-alley sort of sex act of which lust is a part, and which would still get you arrested today. To try to hastily pin this passage on those who possess a natural homosexual orientation just proves how misunderstood we gay folk continue to be.
Homosexuality is not so whimsical that it requires a bunch of lawless hooligans to suddenly become “inflamed with lust for one another” and to resolutely pursue those lusts at the expense of anything and everything that happens to be in the way. We homosexuals are far more tame and boring than that. We do not become “inflamed” any more than a heterosexual person becomes “inflamed” with heterosexuality prior to pursuing a potential mate. In fact, we may fall asleep in the middle of a heated round of Trivial Pursuit on a wild and crazy Saturday night rather than get carried away by the winds of passion, and doing so does not make us any less homosexual. Maybe that's just me. Regardless, homosexuality is not an action. It's a state of being all its own, and behavior does not decrease or increase it's existence or validity.
The subject of what is “natural” to one person over another is an interesting one. For me, it is not natural to be in a sexual relationship with a man. I have given it a half-hearted whirl, and there are no words to describe the awkwardness. My connection to men is similar to that between two heterosexual men I would imagine, in that I can talk and laugh and shoot the breeze, but the sexual attraction is entirely absent. To kiss a man is contrary to everything that I know to be true about myself and, although the act may produce a raucous and triumphant round of applause at a Focus on the Family “ex-gay” rally, it would be the ultimate self-betrayal. I choose truth over superficial and conditional acceptance by would-be peers. Christians who use this chapter of Romans to condemn homosexuality carry with them the mistaken assumption that a heterosexual orientation is the default orientation that God naturally assigns to everyone. God has other plans for about ten percent of the Realm.
Neither I nor any of the GLBT Christians I have come across in my spiritual journey have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie." It's more accurate to say we have continued to pursue truth of God despite the obstacles, and by doing so we have become better vessels through which that truth can be displayed. We have not abandoned God and God has not abandoned us. The fruit of the Spirit that continues to be produced in our lives serves as evidence. Goodness, kindness, gentleness, self-control, joy, peace, self-sacrifice, benevolence, faithfulness, and thousands of other positive qualities are present. To ignore those and focus on something that accounts for a very small percentage of the whole of the relationship speaks to a sexual fear and not to the liberating wholeness of God's love.
So who has the correct interpretation of this passage in Romans 1? Who's interpretation is incorrect? That's for you to decide. These are simply testimonies of faith that gain significance and meaning only as others relate to them and find harmony. This is the truth that I have found in God. And as I continue to grow in this relationship I'm sure God will continue to guide me, refine me, and give me greater understanding. And God will do the same for you.
So what Bible should we read? I would suggest the one that grows from words on a page, to action in our lives, to a more profound understanding of Jesus, of God, and of our faith. That's the one I want to be defined by.
posted by Jen Austin at 12:48 PM
2 Comments:
I always find those comments interesting. As if the Bible is so black and white. First of all, I wonder if the commentor has actually read Romans 1. And did he/she read chapter 2. So many people take one verse (or in this case, a handful of verses) and use them out of context and rely only on their pastor's sermon for an understanding of the verse without ever really reading it for themselves or reading other versions/commentaries.
What is so funny to me is that those verses right now are used to promote the anti-homosexual agenda. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when those verses were used to preach against birth control (women not having children was viewed as exchanging the natural use of their bodies for an unnatural use), used to preach against women having jobs (exchanging the natural use of their bodies to bear children and care for household duties for the unnatural use of toiling in the factories), and other simialr agendas.
I wonder how these verses will be misused in the futire.
Please put the verses in context. Please listen to other points of views on the Bible and read commentaries. This chapter is talking about the idol worship and temple practices of the day (as Jen stated). And if you read in chapter 2, Paul is warning his readers in Rome not to judge for they practice the same things.
Don't take a verse or two out of context and interpret the verses based on the hateful agendas being promoted today. Read the entire chapter, as well as the chapter before and after, and read the Bible in the context of the time in which it was written.
What about in the Old Testament when God destroyed the two cities for their immorality?
You cannot say that when the angels visited Lot, the men in the city just wanted an autograph...
Lot even offered his own female daughters, but the men in the city wanted the angels, probably in male form, not the women.
Don't skirt the issue and bend it to meet your needs.
Christianity and homosexuality cannot be reconciled with one another.
Post a Comment
<< Home