|
Guest Authors
The Right Christians (therightChristians.org) is
pleased to present the work of guest authors. Our posting does
not indicate an endorsement of the views expressed or validation
of the facts reported therein. We seek to offer a fair and open
forum to those writing about issues in the area of politics and
religion whether or not they are in agreement with our views.
Your comments are invited via the site's public
Comment
boards or our feedback
form. You are also encouraged to make your own submissions.
Begin with the volunteer
form.
|
|
|
|
| Good, Jack |
"Bogus Biblicism:
the Vulnerability of the Religious Right"
|
| Roussel, Hart |
"Church and State/Sacrament
and Civil Contract" |
| |
"The Makings of
a Perfect Storm: Historical Naiveté
and Warped Theology" |
| |
"At a Loss for
Words" |
| |
"Models of Marriage
and Family: More than One" |
| |
"And the Sun Moves Round
the Earth" |
| |
"Reclaiming Mary Magdalene:
the Future of Gay and Lesbian Persons in our
World" |
| Sweeley,
Jack |
"How
The Radical Right Is Hijacking Christianity
and America" |
| Zemek, Matt
|
"Papal
Infallibility: Perceptions and Reality" |
| |
"Attacking
Marriage Promotes more Divorce" |
| |
|
|
|
|
The
Bogus Biblicism of the Relgious Right
by
Dr. Andrew J. (Jack)
Good
About the author
Andrew J. (Jack) Good, author of
The Bible: Faith's Family Album
(Chalice Press 1998), is an ordained pastor
of the United Church of Christ. Educated
at Boston University School of Theology,
the Maxwell School at Syracuse University
(International Relations), and the Lancaster
Theological School, Dr. Good has practiced
his socially oriented theology in pastorates
for over forty years. He has lived in
villages in Pakistan and Bangladesh and
has, through these and other experiences,
formed a great respect for other cultures
and other ways of worshiping God.
Good's latest book, The
Dishonest Church, soon to be released
by Rising Star Press in association with
The Center for Progressive Christianity,
is an unblinking look at the reasons behind
the decline of the mainline churches,
and a prescription for a long overdue
remedy: honesty.
Outline
Introduction:
The Vulnerability of the Religious Right
Abortion
Homosexuality
"Family
Values" and the Defense of the Patriarchy
Freedom
and Justice
|
Introduction:
The Vulnerability of the Religious Right
Recent events have given
additional evidence of a fact most of
us wish we did not have to acknowledge:
religious fundamentalism is one of the
most destructive forces on the planet.
The dangers increase when fundamentalism
is rooted in blind obedience to, and misuse
of, a religion's holy book.
In The United States, the
religious right has shown that the danger,
though in a less violent form, is no less
real in Christianity than in any other
faith. For more than a generation, this
reactionary group has pushed an agenda
that, if enacted, would limit the rights
and freedoms of significant portions of
the population. Their announced rationale
is that their positions are rooted in
the Bible.
Their claim does not square
with reality. The truth is that the Bible
does not support their stands on abortion,
homosexuality, or "family values."
Leaders of the religious right have seized
the Judeo-Christian scripture--"stolen"
is not too strong a word--to immeasurably
strengthen the arguments for their conservative
concerns. This has been a shrewd move.
Even in our increasingly secular society,
the Bible carries considerable weight.
Shifting that weight from one side of
the social debate to the other gives reactionary
arguments an inappropriate, and, as shall
be shown, a quite unsupportable, advantage.
The so-called "biblical
conservatives" do not attempt to
adjust themselves to biblical themes;
that would be disastrous for their cause.
Instead, they attempt to align the scripture
with their ideas. Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell have been particularly ingenious
in this task. Robertson and Falwell make
their biblical claims by taking snippets
of scripture and rearranging them to suit
their goals. Or, they simply claim a biblical
foundation for their ideas without any
biblical citations at all. A good example
of this is Falwell's response to criticism
by an organization of homosexuals:
"We were targeted solely because
we advocate biblical ideals, namely traditional
marriage and sexual purity before marriage
- moral principles that counter those
of the homosexual-rights movement."
The Christian Coalition, formerly led
by Pat Robertson, has been equally eager
to attach itself to the aura of scripture.
"God's Plan for Salvation,"
which this group offers on its website,
offers numerous short quotes taken from
various parts of the Bible, but gives
the reader no opportunity to explore the
Bible in depth. This shallow and scattered
approach has been the modus operandi
throughout the life of his Christian Coalition.
Few people seem to have noted how vulnerable
the religious right has become through
this process. Since their spokespersons
have designated the Bible -- "God's
Word" as they like to call it --
as the primary support for their social
positions, recognizing the false nature
of that support could cause the collapse
of their primary arguments. It is time
to challenge the religious right at this
point of vulnerability. Toward that end,
it is helpful to expose the distance between
what the religious right claims and what
the Bible actually says about concrete
items on their social agenda. Exposing
the bogus use that the religious right
makes of scripture can also reclaim the
Bible for its more traditional, liberating
role.
Abortion
On the subject of abortion,
the religious right takes a strongly
pro-life, anti-choice, position. Unfortunately
for them, biblical warrant for their
stance is non-existent. Absolutely.
The morality of abortion is not a biblical
topic.
No other subject illustrates
so clearly the dishonest way in which
the religious right exploits the Bible.
Here is a quote from one of Pat Robertson's
writings:
"Nature is clear.
Abortions kill babies. And the revealed
laws of God about such killings in both
the Old and New Testaments are easily
understood."
The reader may note that
"the revealed laws of God about
such killings" are not cited. They
are not cited because they do not exist.
The absence of biblical
comment on abortion is a surprise. The
sexual ethic of the early biblical writers
was designed to create as many babies
as possible. Israel was a small nation
surrounded by potential enemies. To
maximize births, polygamy was allowed.
The spilling of semen in any way other
than production of babies (via masturbation,
male homosexuality, and even intercourse
with one's wife during her period of
infertility) was declared an abomination.
Incredibly, in view of the need for
population growth, the deliberate termination
of a pregnancy never made it to this
"thou shalt not" list.
In only one instance does
a biblical writer describe anything
like abortion. This case makes clear
that the protection of a pure paternal
line was of greater value than continuation
of a particular pregnancy. The passage
in question (the later verses of the
5th chapter of Numbers, a text so hostile
to women that I have never heard it
read in public) describes one method
of aborting an unwanted pregnancy. If,
according to this ancient passage, a
husband was suspicious that the fetus
his wife was carrying may not be related
to him, he and the priest could conspire
to feed the wife enough impurities to
make her violently ill. If she aborted,
this was taken as a sign that another
man had fathered the fetus. The woman,
having just lost her expected child,
would then be banished from the community.
If woman and fetus survived, it was
assumed the husband's suspicions were
wrong. This seldom-read passage shows
that abortion was practiced in ancient
Jewish culture.
Abortion is not mentioned
again in scripture, nor can any rules
be found to regulate the practice.
Several biblical passages relate indirectly
to abortion. The 21st chapter of Exodus
describes punishments to be meted out
in cases of personal injury or death.
Striking a person a mortal blow was
punishable by death. But if, in a brawl,
a man bumped against a pregnant woman
and caused a miscarriage, he was to
pay her spouse an amount determined
by that husband. This verse directly
precedes the famous "eye for an
eye" concept: "When harm is
done, you shall give life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth."
(Exodus 21:22-24). Obviously, the fetus
from the previous verse was not considered
to be fully human, or the person who
had caused its demise would have had
to forfeit his own life.
In the 27th chapter of
Leviticus monetary value was assigned
to men, women, and children-a determination
necessary to settle civil suits. Females
were valued at sixty percent the worth
of males. Children were assigned even
lower worth, a value that decreased
with younger age. No value was mentioned
for anyone less than a month old, and
no additional worth was assigned to
a pregnant woman.
In most debates over abortion,
the command, "You shall not kill,"
will be voiced. Actually, a correct
translation of this commandment is,
"You shall not murder." The
Jewish nation, along with other societies
of the time, was busy killing. They
killed in war. They killed by enforcing
a long list of capital crimes. Abortion
did not fall under this prohibition,
since no biblical writer labeled a developing
fetus a human being. Without that label,
the fetus would not be subject to murder.
One Biblical writer even
gave mothers and fathers permission
to kill their own children when those
children were disobedient. (Exodus 21:15
and 17) Children were considered the
property of parents, thus the children
could be either cared for or disposed
of as the owner determined. The religious
right is thus in the position of arguing
from scripture that parents had the
authority to stone a child to death
for insubordination, but were forbidden
to interrupt the pregnancy that produced
that child.
One thing is clear to
any reader of scripture. Biblical writers
were capable of putting together powerful,
declaratory sentences. Clear prohibitions
abound. Yet not a single writer felt
motivated to state: "You shall
not interrupt a pregnancy." Neither
this sentence nor anything remotely
like it appears in scripture. The morality
of abortion is not an issue in the pages
of the Bible.
Homosexuality
Those of the religious
right can find more scriptural support
for their stand on the issue of homosexuality
than for any other of their social concerns.
Even here, however, the support is limited
and ultimately unsustainable in a modern
context. Anywhere from five to eleven
biblical references have been cited
by those who argue that "God's
Word" condemns gay or lesbian sexual
activity. (These negative references
are scattered through a volume that,
in most editions, runs to about fourteen
hundred pages.)
In the Hebrew Scripture
(what Christians usually call the Old
Testament), the majority of the passages
relating to homosexuality concern sexual
activity that took place at altars dedicated
to foreign gods. These texts are unclear.
Is the condemnation directed toward
the idolatry, the sexual activity, or
a combination of the two_
A clear statement against
a man lying with another man (lesbian
activity is not mentioned) appears in
the eighteenth chapter of Leviticus.
Two chapters later this proscription
is repeated, this time adding that men
who have sex with other men should be
put to death. (Conservative Christians,
who usually insist that all scripture
is equally inspired by the divine, have
ignored, at least publicly, this call
for the extermination of five to ten
percent of the male members of the human
race.)
These biblical rules appear
among a group of laws known as the "Code
of Holiness" (Leviticus 17-26),
much of which relates to a variety of
forbidden sexual activity. One rule
from the Code of Holiness insists that
everyone guilty of adultery should be
punished by death (Leviticus 20:10).
Among the non-sexual prohibitions in
The Code of Holiness is a demand that
one's clothing should never include
cloth from two different kinds of fiber.
Trimming a man's beard is an abomination.
Persons with a physical disability,
including temporary conditions such
as a broken hand, are forbidden to lead
public worship. The fact that the compiler
of the Code of Holiness was opposed
to male homosexuality is beyond question.
But this editor had his unique take
on a large number of other concerns.
The issue then becomes: why, out of
this list of archaic and almost universally
ignored rules, the religious right has
pulled a single prohibition and placed
it at the center of a major national
debate_ Why do they not put more emphasis
on the death penalty for adultery, or
pursue, Taliban-like, the men who have
the effrontery to shave_
Another passage commonly
assumed to be a blanket condemnation
of same-sex activity is the strange
account of the destruction of the cities
of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19:1-30).
The association of this story with homosexuality
is so close that the word "sodomy"
has come to describe a form of sexual
activity associated with gay men. A
close reading of that text, however,
shows that no sexual contact of any
sort took place, although homosexual
rape was threatened. The story is complex.
Sodom and Gomorrah were probably mythical:
archaeologists have found no location
fitting their description. The narrator
of the middle chapters of Genesis used
these fictitious cities as symbols of
evil. According to the story in question,
Lot, a nephew of Abraham (father of
the Jewish nation), had taken up residence
in Sodom. God caught wind of the evil
ways of Sodom, and sent two messengers
(angels disguised as men) to investigate.
They went to the home of Lot. Lot, faithful
to his obligation to provide hospitality
to strangers, invited them to spend
the night with him. When news spread
that the outsider, Lot, had guests,
the men of the city surrounded the home
and demanded the angel/men for their
sexual pleasure. Lot then offered his
two daughters to the lustful men (an
act which many people see as the most
serious sin of this drama). This offer
was refused. Lot, along with his family
and his guests, managed to escape just
before both Sodom and Gomorrah were
annihilated. Both cities were destroyed,
although the threats to Lot's guests
had taken place only in Sodom.
A story in Judges 19 is
so similar to the Sodom account that
many scholars feel it is the same event
told with changes in details. In this
alternate narrative, rape did take place.
The rape was heterosexual and led to
the death of the abused women, the dismembering
of their bodies, and finally to the
destruction of the male members of an
entire tribe of Israel. If the story
as told in Genesis is a condemnation
of all homosexuality, then surely the
story as told in Judges is a condemnation
of all heterosexual activity. Since
logic breaks down at this point, another
explanation must be found. God's anger
surely had to do with forced sex-rape.
Neither telling of the story indicates
that divine anger was aimed at the form
of sexuality involved.
In the uniquely Christian
(New Testament) scripture, the only
negative references to homosexuality
appear in writings of Paul. Paul lived
in a Greek culture in which homosexuality
usually meant adult men taking boy lovers.
The Greek word Paul used to describe
a male homosexual can also be translated
"pedophile." Again the issue
is vague. Paul definitely intended to
forbid pedophilia. Sex between consenting,
committed adults received no separate
mention.
When an ethical issue
is otherwise unclear, those who call
themselves Christians are expected to
seek guidance in the teachings of Jesus.
Since condemnation of homosexuality
is a central theme of a large group
of modern Christians, one would expect
to find in Jesus' teachings clear and
frequent references to the subject.
The truth is that same-sex relationships
are not mentioned at all in the four
biblical biographies of Jesus. The Unitarian-Universalist
Church has published a brochure entitled,
"What Jesus Said about Homosexuality."
One opens the brochure to find two blank
pages.
On the issue of homosexuality,
then, the Bible as a whole says little.
Jesus said nothing. Without question,
the few biblical writers who wrote of
male homosexuality, as they knew it
viewed it negatively. No biblical writer,
however, addressed the style of homosexual
relationship that has caused such division
in churches and society today: mature,
committed couples of the same sex who
wish to establish monogamous relationships
and to have those relationships blessed
by the state and the religious community.
On that issue, the Bible is as silent
as it is on the subject of abortion.
"Family
Values"
What, then, of "traditional
family values," that murky phrase
that has appeared so often in the
cultural wars of the past decade_
The religious right wants us to believe
this issue has deep biblical roots.
"Traditional family
values," in the vocabulary of
the religious right, seems to refer
to a nuclear family of a husband and
wife, both committed to procreation.
In this model the father is both authority
and breadwinner, while the wife obediently
focuses her attention on rearing children.
The religious right has described
correctly the sexual power dynamics
of biblical times. The scriptures
were written in a patriarchal era.
Men were assumed to be in charge.
Nonetheless, the subjugation
of women in the Bible is not universal.
The recent declaration by The Southern
Baptist Church that all wives should
be submissive to their husbands does
not square well with a broad reading
of scripture. A number of individual
women in scripture managed to find
ways to surmount the glass ceilings.
The Bible describes a porous patriarchy
that allowed one woman to slip through
and become a military leader (Deborah),
another a community savior (Esther),
and one even a queen (Athaliah). In
the New Testament, a woman named Lydia
appeared. She was described as a cloth
merchant, a traveling salesperson
who included her family on her extended
business trips. Paul and other early
Christians looked to Lydia for financial
support. Even in the context of an
established patriarchy, some biblical
writers could celebrate the strength
of powerful females. Where do these
independent women fit in the "family
values" scheme_
Apart from their emphasis
(overemphasis_) on male dominance,
the religious right can find little
biblical support for their concept
of a proper nuclear family. "Family"
in scripture is a fluid structure,
constantly adapting to the needs of
a changing community. The twelve tribes
of Israel are descended from the twelve
sons of Jacob. Jacob fathered these
sons by four women with whom he cohabited
simultaneously, only two of whom he
wed. King David and King Solomon both
had harems so vast that no one bothered
to count. The biblical writers produced
not a single word of censure for these
arrangements. The modern pattern of
one man for one woman does occur in
the Hebraic Scripture, notably in
Adam and Eve and in Hosea and his
errant wife. Mary and Joseph can be
cited in the New Testament. Other
biblical writers, however, describe
widespread polygamy. Concubines produced
offspring when wives were infertile.
The teachings of Jesus
offer even less comfort to the family
values people. When a New York columnist
was preparing an article on the subject
of family values, she phoned a well-known
theologian at a southern seminary
and asked for his comments. The writer
obviously expected her source to offer
quotes from Jesus glowing in their
support for the traditional family.
Instead, the professor growled into
the phone: "Family values_ What
family values_ Jesus was opposed to
the family!" Unfortunately for
the cause of "family values,"
the man had Jesus' words to back up
his claim. "Whoever comes to
me and does not hate father and mother,
wife and children, brothers and sisters,
yes, and even life itself, cannot
be my disciple." (Luke 14:26)
"Whoever loves father or mother
more than me is not worthy of me."(Matthew
10:37)
We can never know, of
course, whether Jesus was actively
opposed to the family or whether--a
more likely option--he feared that
filial commitment might become a rival
to a person's faith commitment. Ultimately,
Jesus defined family by action rather
than kinship. One created one's own
family from among those with shared
values. "Whoever does the will
of my Father in heaven is my brother
and sister and mother." (Matthew
12:50, and Mark 3:35)
The Bible is a book
about community. The importance of
kinship is evident on almost every
page. Nonetheless, when the religious
right claims scriptural support for
a single style of family living, they
are practicing tunnel vision. The
way families are put together varies
throughout the Bible, and filial commitment
is consistently given second billing
to one's commitment to the kingdom
of God.
Defense of the
Patriarchy
The three issues, abortion, homosexuality,
and family values, are not random
selections by the religious right.
They have a common concern: preservation
of the patriarchy. Jerry Falwell describes
the connection with surprising frankness.
The words seem to be aimed against
homosexuality. They reveal, however,
a larger agenda:
"In the Christian
home the father is responsible to
exercise spiritual control and to
be the head over his wife and children;
"for the husband is the head
of the wife, even as Christ is the
head of the church." (Ephesians
5:23) Women are to be feminine and
manifest the "ornament of a meek
and quiet spirit, which is in the
sight of God a great price."
(1 Peter 3:4) In the Christian home
the woman is to be subordinate. "Wives,
submit yourselves unto your own husbands,
as unto the Lord." (Ephesians
5:22) Homosexuality is Satan's diabolical
attack upon the family, God's order
in Creation."
In other words, homosexual relationships
upset what the religious right sees
as God's inviolable plan for all intimate
relationships: dominant men wed to
submissive women. Taken together with
the religious right's anti-abortion
stance, which denies women control
over their reproductive organs, the
quote lays bare an over-arching theme.
What is being protected is not the
"unborn child," nor any
particular sexual orientation, nor
the nuclear family. What is being
protected is the patriarchy.
"Freedom
and Justice"
Falwell's words in defense
of the patriarchy show the degree
to which the religious right has distorted
the Bible. A document which has been
an instrument of freedom and justice
has been turned to a tool of oppression:
men dominating women and straights
dominating gays.
In the Hebrew scriptures,
the central event is an act of liberation:
the release of Jews from four hundred
years of slavery in Egypt. This Exodus
drama echoes throughout the pages
of the Bible. Other divine acts are
extensions of this central fact: God
is the giver of freedom.
No biblical sophistication
is required to identify the pervasive
theme of freedom. Many plantation
owners, before the Civil War, insisted
that Bible stories be read to their
slaves. This, the owners thought,
would convert and pacify their captives.
Convert them it did; pacify them it
did not. The slaves heard the message
beyond the words. Soon they were singing,
"Go down, Moses, and set your
people free." The slaves identified
one of, if not the, major theme of
the Bible. While homosexual activity
may be mentioned as many as eleven
times in scripture, the words "freedom"
and "free" occur more than
one hundred and fifty times in The
New Revised Standard Version. In that
same translation, the word "justice"
is used more than one hundred and
sixty times. The Bible, then, is clearly
about human liberation. It challenges
its readers to build communities in
which women and men can live out their
freed lives with a minimum of deprivation.
In short, the religious
right is using the Bible as an instrument
to manipulate the American people.
Especially wounded by this deception
are women and gays. In addition, society's
movement toward greater openness,
broader freedoms, and increased justice
is being delayed or reversed. By laying
claim to the Bible and the respect
in which it is held, the religious
right has had a significant impact
on American society. They have achieved
their power by cleverly attempting
to twist scriptural ideas into the
shape of their social goals. This
effort will eventually run aground
on reality. The Bible does not support
their repressive agenda. As this truth
is recognized, the Bible will be released
from its right wing bondage and restored
to its traditional, liberating role.
|
|
About the author
Hart T. Roussel is an Episcopalian who
resides in Pasadena, CA where he attends
All Saints Episcopal Church. He is a professional
fundraiser and currently works in the
field of University Advancement. Hart
has held executive positions in a variety
of church-related and non-profit organizations.
He holds a Masters in Theology from the
Catholic University of America, Washington
DC, and an MBA from the Claremont Graduate
University, Claremont, CA.
|
Church
and State/Sacraments and Civil Contracts
by
Hart Roussel
Churches have sacraments. Governments
have civil contracts. There is a difference
and we should keep it that way.
Senate Majority Leader Bill
Frist (R-TN) told ABC's "This Week"
on Sunday June 29, 2003 that he supported
a constitutional amendment banning same-sex
marriage on the grounds that "I very
much feel that marriage is a sacrament,
and that sacrament should extend and can
extend to that legal entity of a union
between what is traditionally in our Western
values has been defined as between a man
and a woman. So I would support the amendment."
Frist's comment raises several questions
about how Americans understand the history
of marriage in western Christianity and
the separation of church and state.
Senator Frist is a Presbyterian
and Presbyterians hold that there are
two sacraments: "The Presbyterian
Church (U.S.A.) has two sacraments, Baptism
and the Lord's Supper. "The Reformed
tradition understands Baptism and the
Lord's Supper to be Sacraments, instituted
by God and commended by Christ. Sacraments
are signs of the real presence and power
of Christ in the Church, symbols of God's
action. Through the Sacraments, God seals
believers in redemption, renews their
identity as the people of God, and marks
them for service." (Book of Order
W-1.3033.2)
It may seem petty to point
out that Frist does not even accurately
represent the theology of his own denomination,
but the history of the sacramentalization
of marriage, a civil institution, comes
to bear in any conversation about marriage
in our society today.
In the pre-Christian Roman
world, marriage was a matter of civil
law, establishing the role of paterfamilias,
the relationship between families, and
governing the inheritance of property.
In the later days of the Christian Roman
Empire, as the civil infrastructure collapsed,
a bureaucratic vacuum was created and
eventually filled by the emerging bureaucracies
of the Roman church. As in other matters,
bishops and clerics began to take on "civil"
functions as the church remained somewhat
stable during the "dark-ages".
The intermingling of secular functions
with the only available bureaucracy (the
clergy) blurred the lines and shifted
the paradigms.
The essential function of
record keeping, primary to civil law,
was subsumed by the educated clerics of
the church, which eventually, for its
own reasons, slowly, over time, sacramentalized
the civil institution of marriage. While
considered sacramental (representing something
holy) by many during the first thousand
years or so of the church's history, it
was not until the 11th and 12th centuries
CE that clear articulations of marriage
as one of THE sacraments emerged. Lastly,
in 1563, the council of Trent declared
once and for all that marriage was one
of the seven sacraments in Roman Catholic
theology.
Edward
Schillebeeckx in Marriage:
Human Reality and Saving Mystery
(London: Sheed and Ward, 1965) provides
a concise history of this process and
argues that marriage, though secular in
origins and purpose, is an institution
well suited to being shrouded in the church's
language of salvation and grace. Here,
the Christian community embraced a secular
institution and articulated a theology
that made it not only respectful, but
holy.
The struggle in America
today is to reclaim for the government
secular institutions that are rightly
matters of government and keep within
the churches those things that are celebrated
in the theologies and histories of voluntary
faith communities. Canada, in its recent
debate regarding same-sex marriage, is
actively in this process. These institutions
sometimes operate within the same historical
and geographic spheres, but are distinct.
Marriage in theology is
not marriage in public policy. Faith communities
"witness" marriages, giving
assent to a pre-existing loving relationship.
Governments "certify" contracts
between two parties when a license or
certificate is issued. What a tragic day
it would be if we were to awake to find
our sacraments defined by governments_
What government could ever articulate
marriage as part of salvation history,
rooted in the myriad meanings and layers
of the incarnation_
|
The
Makings of a Perfect Storm: Historical
Naiveté and Warped Theology
by
Hart Roussel
Few things disturb me more than politicians
or religious leaders making appeals to
the traditions of western culture, the
historical constancy of Judeo Christian
tradition, and the historical constancy
of particular theological statements.
A critical mass of bad history and bad
theology often converges as a "perfect
storm" in America threatening both
our civil society as a whole and the many
voluntary faith communities which help
to shape public discourse on important
issues. Our current "culture wars"
provide an example as "Right-wingers
react to sodomy ruling."
Historical perspective is an amazing
tool. Lack of historical perspective is
a crime. Looking back over the historical
record of a nation or a people offers
insight into the evolution of ideas, technologies,
cultural practices and religious beliefs.
But history is both theological and chronological.
From a theological perspective, historical
perspective is more than luxurious nostalgia.
Rather, as Christians, we believe that
god is an historical god, an active participant
in history, who by engaging in relationship
with humans inserts himself/herself into
chronological history. We fall back on
symbolic language (constant, unchanging,
timeless, true god from true god, begotten
not made, etc) to assert that god is beyond
the touch of time but share the central
stories of salvation history (creation,
exodus, incarnation) with a god who is
an active, in-your-face and in-the-dirt
participant in our time and history.
History is progressive, not stagnant.
Each subsequent moment of progressive
history is unique, totally new, but also
encompassing of all previous moments.
Without this concept of the fluidity of
time, our eucharistic theologies would
be little more than renderings and reenactments
rather than participation in that never
ending story which begins at a point in
time, a point in time intermingling past,
present, and future. And you thought wormholes
were an invention of Star Trek_
This, for me, raises the question of
historical arrogance, akin to the arrogance
of faith. The story isn't over yet so
how could we know so much with such certainty
as to say our current beliefs and practices
are optimum. For Christians, yes, there
is a certain goal or end toward which
we gravitate…we see that in the incarnation
and resurrection. But it's the getting
there that we can't know…the permutations
along the way to the end.
Looking back to the trends of chronological
history allows us to understand how ideas
and definitions about marriage, the family,
and same-sex pairings have evolved in
response to the geographical, environmental,
and economic conditions of human kind.
In the broad scope, for better or for
worse (pun intended), human bonding has
taken every conceivable form. We find
monogamy, polygamy, polyandry (one woman
with several men), and a variety of marriage
models such as triads, quads, and whatever.
My bottom line assertion here is that
those models which have emerged over time
as dominant in particular cultures have
done so because they are the most economically
viable and successful in the given situation.
From tribes, to cities, to nations…
the economics of marriage drive the form
of marriage. This is one of primary reasons
marriage evolved in most cultures as a
highly regulated social institution, basic
bloodline and genetic management being
the other.
As an aside, as bible believing Christians
we are reminded that there is a stronger
biblical basis for polygamy than other
models of marriage. This was recently
explained to us by the Anglican Archbishop
of Sydney, Peter
Jensen.
In America, as in many parts of the world,
the transition from an agricultural/rural
society to an industrialized/urban society
created an environment in which alternative
models of marriage or non-marriage could
become economically viable. The single
wage-earning female (or male) could survive
and thrive in an industrialized/urban
society but often could not in an agricultural/rural
society. This became even more the case,
for females in particular, as our technologies
allowed us to separate reproduction from
sexual expression. The most basic needs
of food, shelter and protection were as
much if not more the push into marriage
as romance. For most of human history,
what we call love had little to do with
marriage.
As Christians, we believe that god embraced
our humanity and participates in our history,
and so as Christians we look at the world
around us and sacramentalize or assign
a sacred meaning to those things (objects,
events, institutions, traditions) that
we believe symbolically represent our
relationship with god. Some would argue
this is revelation from below. I would
argue this is the only possible way the
human mind can articulate the transcendent.
To this day, I am amazed that marriage,
a secular institution with so much baggage,
has become for us a symbol of our relationship
with god and the war banner of both the
religious right and those seeking same-sex
marriage. St. Paul, for whom marriage's
sole purpose was the curbing of lust,
surely turns in his grave.
|
|
At
a Loss for Words
by
Hart Roussel
Unfortunately, what we call a relationship
does matter
Simply stated, I believe that gay and lesbian
people have an inalienable right to a civil
and religious equivalent to marriage. I
also believe we lack a word to describe
that equivalent.
Michael Kinsley's piece in the July 3,
2003 Washington Post entitled "Abolish
Marriage" proposes a solution to
the gay marriage debate: just do away with
any and all government involvement in marriage.
His argument is somewhat tongue in cheek
but not without merit and basis. Unfortunately,
the likelihood of this libertarian utopia
is slim. We can, though, be creative in
our consideration of what we call our human
couplings because what we call a relationship
does matter.
Senator John
Kerry articulated a sophisticated understanding
of the differences between heterosexual
marriage and same sex partnerships, "Kerry
said he supported civil unions and broad
rights for gays but added, "I have
a belief that marriage is for the purpose
of procreation and it's between men and
women. I see no great compelling rationale
for changing that institution when measured
against the rights that can be granted to
people to live exactly as others do but
not in that quote nomenclature."
For humans, language is symbolic, descriptive,
with words generally representing real things.
Language has no existence apart from the
meaning particular peoples assign to it.
The meaning assigned to words is generally
developed by a consensus created through
common usage and time and subsequent generations
accept, modify, layer or reject the meaning
given to particular words. Indeed, subsequent
generations create new symbols (words) to
articulate the new realities they encounter
in an ever changing world. Words have not
only meaning, but history. And over time,
the meaning of words are influenced by the
events of history and the values of cultures
and societies.
Throughout history, particularly patriarchal
history, one took a wife or was given a
wife or given as a wife. The practice strengthened
and protected kinship lines, secured tribal
survival and alliances, and facilitated
amassing economic power. Eventually, needs-
based marriage gave way to preference-based
marriage in most of the modern world. I
say most because arranged, needs-based marriage
still exists in large parts of the world.
By consensus, we have come to call this
practice marriage.
I am one of those who argues that in the
context of western history and Christian
theology, marriage is a uniquely heterosexual
institution and has become integrated into
our civil society as a uniquely heterosexual
institution. I argue this because of the
unique procreative potential of heterosexual
marriage. I also argue that gay and lesbian
people have an inalienable right to a civil
and religious equivalent to marriage. I
just don't believe marriage is the word
to use to describe this equivalent institution.
The long term relationship shared between
my partner and I is not marriage…and,
please, don't imply that it is. My parents
have a marriage. What they have, I do not
have nor do I desire it.
For me, two dimensions render marriage
a uniquely heterosexual institution: the
innate capacity for procreation and its
subsequent social responsibility of bloodline
management. These characteristics, which
are important dimensions of both the civil
and religious traditions of marriage, are
unique to heterosexual marriage. The equivalent
institution may also have dimensions of
procreation and both institutions share
childrearing opportunities and responsibilities,
but the equivalent does not have, at least
within the realm of our current technologies,
an innate capacity for procreation. So,
for me, that's part of the rationale for
not wanting to use the word "marriage"
to describe the equivalent.
I believe we need a different, perhaps
new, word to describe this equivalent institution.
Whether we call it partnership or union
or something else, I am at a loss for words.
The classic apples and oranges analogy works
well here. Both are fruit but are not the
same kind of fruit. Simplistic…but
it gets the point across.
Heterosexual marriage and its same sex
equivalent are both pair-bonds, relationships,
couplings. Both have common elements such
as mutuality, fidelity, and commitment.
Yet, they are different. As our society
lurches toward a more complete recognition
of same sex relationships, what we lack
as a society are the words to describe and
celebrate the similarity and the difference.
Home
| Feedback
| Comment
|
|
Models
of Marriage and Family: More than One
by Hart Roussel
It would be helpful in our society's current
debate about marriage and family if proponents
of the "traditional institution of
marriage" defined their source for
this model for there is certainly more than
one model of marriage and family found in
the bible.
Debate
continues in this country regarding
how to protect the "traditional institution
of marriage." Across the pond, cultures
older than ours progress toward a more fluid
recognition of complex pair-bonding as a
consensus
forms in the EU that couplings have
been and always will be diverse. If the
debate is to have any integrity, the questions
must be asked, which tradition and which
institution_
Avery Dulles' Models of the Church
(Doubleday & Company, 1978) introduced
many students of theology to the importance
of understanding the same reality viewed
from different perspectives. In one of my
favorite ecclesiology classes with Avery,
he built this conceptual approach on Ian
Barbour's work regarding language, models
and paradigms in the history of religion
and science (Myths, Models and Paradigms:
A Comparative Study in Science and Religion,
Harper and Row, NY, 1974). Dulles argues
that a variety of models can be used to
express any particular dimension of a larger
reality. For example, the "Servant
Church" is but one expression of the
mystery of the church.
Particular models can rise to the level
of a paradigm when they prove so useful
to a community that the model seems to express
everything a community understands about
a particular reality. Dulles uses the example
of how the model of the church as a "perfect
society" rose to the level of a dominant
and near-exclusive model and became a paradigm
that guided and limited discussion of ecclesiology
in Roman Catholic theology for generations.
Similarly, the assumption that there is
one "traditional institution"
of pair bonding inhibits the discussion
of the potential of human relationships.
Multiple models open themselves to an ongoing
and expansive search for the meaning of
particular realities. Paradigms that become
dominant tend to restrain deeper exploration.
Even today in the business world we throw
around the term "paradigm shift"
to describe the rapidly changing business
environment as we think "outside the
box" because meaning and solutions
become clear when we free ourselves from
thinking the same way all the time. The
framework of models and paradigms can prove
helpful in discussions of the "traditional
institution of marriage".
Where do we derive our models of marriage
and family_ There are sociological and anthropological
sources, but based on the rhetoric one hears
in the debate about marriage and family
in our society, one quickly deduces that
proponents of the "traditional institution
of marriage" believe that the bible
provides a clear and definitive model, a
paradigm, of family and marriage. Yet, even
a casual review of family and marriage in
the bible leaves one with multiple models.
It would be helpful in our society's current
debate about marriage and family if proponents
of the "traditional institution of
marriage" defined their source for
this model for there is certainly more than
one model of marriage and family found in
the bible.
Polygamy is the common model described
throughout the Hebrew scripture and is implied
in the Christian scriptures with references
to "wives". Abraham participates
in polygamous pair-bonding and has children
with more than one woman, including slaves.
Incest is practiced, though condemned with
varying intensity at times, to perpetuate
the husband or father's blood line. For
example, the daughters of Lot lie with their
father and have children by him. Jacob,
Rachel and Leah use slaves to produce children
to begin a family. David and Solomon have
numerous concubines and wives. And David
has that wonderfully ambiguous relationship
with Jonathan.
The Christian scriptures describe several
models of marriage and family. Jesus recognizes
a variety of family structures, including
a perpetual celibate and sexless state (eunuchs
by birth, by choice, those who renounce
marriage for the kingdom of heaven). Jesus
encourages the formation of what today we
call families of choice when he says he
has come to turn child against parent and
defines as "my brother and sister and
mother" whomever becomes his disciple.
In some traditions, Jesus' parents participate
in a sexless marriage, which would not be
considered a marriage at all by "traditional"
standards. And Jesus has that wonderfully
ambiguous relationship with his beloved
disciple, John.
In the times immediately preceding and
following the historical period of Jesus,
households headed by one male who took one
wife at a time were becoming the dominant,
but not exclusive model in the cultures
of the period. In the Christian scriptures
(Matthew 19), Jesus seems to hold up a model
of marriage (a pair bonding excluding adultery
and divorce) to the exclusion of other models
common to the Hebrew traditions, but does
not define this as the only model to the
exclusion of others. Paul discourages "marriage"
for those who are single and goes so far
as to say that those who have wives should
live as if they had none. And wives, of
course, were to be submissive to their husbands.
Bishops and deacons were to be the "husband
of but one wife", the implication being
that divorce, remarriage after the death
of a wife, or perhaps, polygamy is permissible
for those not htmliring to be overseers and
deacons.
Like statistics, one can use the bible
to argue anything one wants. It is always
tempting and easy to read scripture and
give its words and images the same meanings
we give words and images today. This is
a challenge for both the fundamentalist
who holds to the inerrancy of scripture
and the progressive who pursues a modern
hermeneutic employing an historical interpretation
of scripture. But what scripture does give
us are a series of models through which
we can explore the complexity of human relationships.
Unfortunately, although many hope to find
a single, supreme model or paradigm of the
"traditional institution of marriage"
in the bible, we are left with multiple
and sometimes conflicting models and no
real answers to the question of which tradition
or which institution.
Home
| Feedback
| Comment
|
|
And
the Sun Moves Round the Earth
We've been here before. History and theology
don't support the Vatican's most recent
attempts to dictate public policy on same-sex
unions. No matter how many times one chants
the mantra of "it has always been so,
it has always been so…" reality
is often stubbornly uncooperative. The Vatican
isn't alone in this Herculean effort to
turn back the age of reason and enlightenment.
Anglicans are also in the midst of their
own divisive discourse on same-sex issues.
Voluntary faith communities are obligated
to express their values and beliefs, to
differentiate themselves from the values
and beliefs of others, and to engage the
world around them. It is incumbent upon
people of faith to participate in the dialogues
within their communities. It is also the
obligation of people of faith to respect
the dignity of every human being. As an
Episcopalian, I am moved by the words of
the baptismal covenant set out in the Book
of Common Prayer, "Will you seek and
serve Christ in all persons, loving your
neighbor as yourself_ Will you strive for
justice and peace among all people, and
respect the dignity of every human being_".
On a public policy level, what is at stake
in our world today are fundamental issues
of justice and human dignity. It is nothing
new to watch ecclesiastical power structures
lash out at a world they no longer control,
lash out a reality no longer defined by
the limited scope of their imaginations.
We've been here before. I take comfort in
that.
In the history of the consolidation of
papal prerogative over sovereign states,
the interdict became a common tool during
the middle ages. An interdict, simply put,
is a declaration through which the church
prohibits individuals or whole communities
from participating in acts of worship or
receiving the sacraments. Examples of this
were the conflict over the jurisdiction
of church courts and the appointment of
bishops in France and England.
"It will suffice to recall the interdict
imposed in 1200 on the Kingdom of France,
when Philip II Augustus repudiated Ingeburga
to marry Agnes of Meran; and that on the
Kingdom of England in 1208, to support
the election of Stephen Langton to the
See of Canterbury against John Lackland,
which lasted till the submission of that
king in 1213. It was a dangerous weapon,
but its severity was mitigated little
by little, and at the same time it was
less frequently employed. The last example
of a general interdict launched by the
pope against a whole region seems to have
been that imposed by Paul V in 1606 on
the territory of Venice, it
was raised in the following year."
In a way, Rome is again employing the interdict
to wage its holy war on homosexuality.
"The Prime Minister of a sovereign
nation is being threatened with interdict
over public policy. The Roman Catholic
Archbishop of Ottawa has warned Canada's
Prime Minister that if he continues to
support same-sex marriage he could be
denied the sacrament 365Gay.com has learned.
In a strongly worded personal letter to
Jean Chretien, Archbishop Marcel Gervais
told the PM that "you have lost your
way." The letter warns Chretien that
it is his obligation as a Catholic to
defend the principals of the faith and
and that he must cancel plans to legalize
gay marriage according to a source in
the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime
Minister also declined to discuss the
contents of the letter, but through a
spokesperson Chretien said that he respects
the Church's opinion, but believes
in the separation of church and state."
And Rome has again restated its interdict
on any form of blessing, sacramental or
political, on same-sex unions. "Marriage
is holy, while homosexual acts go against
the natural moral law….There are absolutely
no grounds for considering homosexual unions
to be in any way similar or even remotely
analogous to God's plan for marriage and
family," the Vatican
document says.
In the Anglican communion, bishops and
archbishops of differing parts of the world
have, in effect, excommunicated a Canadian
diocese for, through the consent of its
members, blessing same-sex unions, and
threatened the entire Episcopal Church USA
with excommunication if the election
of a gay bishop is approved by the General
Convention.
It was both heart-warming and infuriating
to hear the President invoke the language
of sin and a biblical parable to suggest
that we should be a welcoming nation but
that people are sinners and well, we'll
find
a legal way to keep some of them second
class citizens.
These are odd times. Churches seeking to
control public policy. Public policy makers
defining morality. We've been here before.
Try as hard as they might, the sun will
never again revolve around the earth.
Americans cherish the separation of church
and state and American political leaders
who are religious have long learned to balance
personal belief and the needs of broad public
policy. Are we on the brink of losing a
unique characteristic of the American experience_
In our short history, we have largely avoided
the wars of religion that marred European
history and continue to savage parts of
the world today. Although many on the political
and religious right favor some sort of psuedo-theocracy
(as long as their theology dominates), Americans
seem set on a nation governed by well informed
public policy rather than the theological
beliefs of any particular faith community.
In previous articles in this series, I
have argued that history does not support
the idea that there is one model of human
pair-bonding. I have also argued that both
secular citizens and religious citizens
should be cautious and critical when political
leaders confuse "sacraments" and
contracts, theology and public policy. People
of faith have the most to lose when the
prince of the realm determines the religion
of the people.
Home
| Guest
Authors | Feedback
| Comment
|
|
Reclaiming
Mary Magdalene: the Future of Gay and Lesbian
Persons in our World
by Hart Roussel
Many years ago, while walking to a theology
class at the Catholic University of America,
a classmate and I discussed the ordination
of women. Almost as an aside, I opined that
the future of the gay community in America
was ultimately dependent upon the treatment
of women in our society, and that until
women were fully and equally embraced, gays
and lesbians, but especially gay men, had
little hope of inclusion in our society.
Why, he asked. Because, I answered, for
most people homosexuality is ultimately
about culturally defined gender roles and
the perceived surrender of masculinity.
In our culture, as in many patriarchal cultures,
the taboo isn't really about sexual behavior
so much as it is about surrendering masculinity.
And taboos are not about morality or theology…they
are social constructs.
Just listen to the comments from across
the world about the confirmation of Gene
Robinson and other gay/theology related
questions and ask, is this a conversation
about Christian faith or taboos_ Are we
able to separate the two_
- The leader of the Anglican Church of
West Malaysia, Bishop Lim Cheng Ean, said
Asia's bishops might consider cutting
their ties with the U.S. church because
of Robinson's appointment. "Practicing
homosexuality is culturally
and legally not acceptable here,"
he said.
- Australian Prime Minister John Howard
Tuesday dashed the hopes of gays and lesbians
hoping to see legislation granting the
right to marry. "It would do nothing
to ensure the survival of the species"
Howard told reporters in the northern
city of Darwin. "This is not in any
way an attack on gay people, quite the
reverse, but it's just a strong statement
in support of the central role of traditional
marriage in our society, he said. "Traditional
marriage is one of the bedrock institutions
of our society, and I don't want anything
to occur that further weakens it. Marriage
as we understand it in our society is
about children, having children, raising
them, providing
for the survival of the species."
- In Kenya, the Bishop of Eldoret, Stephen
Kewasis, denounced the decision as contrary
to scripture and African culture. The
Nigerian Bishop of Owerri, Cyril Okoracha,
said the appointment was insensitive,
and the American church had, in effect,
removed itself from the Anglican Communion.
"Those of us in Africa have serious
difficulty with that kind of way of thinking,"
he said. "We are praying for him
and praying for the church in the US as
we are battling with our problems at this
end, which includes the severe persecution
we are going to receive now from our Muslim
neighbours because they keep accusing
us of maintaining relationship with those
who deny the scripture," said Bishop
Okoracha.
- The Anglican Church was threatened yesterday
with a global schism after Western leaders
were accused of being "culturally
deaf" over the appointment of the
first openly gay bishop…John Dayal,
vice-president of the All India Catholics
Union, also criticised the decision. "The
election of a gay bishop is a blatant
aggravation of societal norms, and
in India it certainly will not be acceptable,"
he said.
Recently, among scriptural scholars, there
has been an attempt to reclaim the person
of Mary Magdalene. Time
magazine's story, "Mary Magdalene:
Saint or Sinner_" provides an overview
of the issue. Within this effort is a recognition
that Mary Magdalene was not the prostitute
she has been made out to be, and that she
was more than likely a full and equal disciple
of Jesus whose role was diminished by the
predominantly patriarchal society in which
much of the early Christian community evolved.
This reclamation is not just about cleaning
up Mary's reputation, but at its core is
the argument about leadership and discipleship
(and hence the episcopacy and priesthood)
in the early church.
This is not a new insight. Karen J. Torjesen's
When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership
in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their
Subordination in the Rise of Christianity,
(Harper, San Francisco, 1993) provides a
wonderfully succinct analysis of how the
cultural predisposition toward patriarchy
eventually snubbed out the reality and record
of female church leadership. Earlier still,
Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza's In Memory
of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction
of Christian Origins dissects the issue
from the historical, legal, scriptural and
extra-canonical sources of the early Christian
period.
Reclaiming Mary Magdalene as a full and
equal disciple, as the first to proclaim
the good news of resurrection, is an assertion
of the feminine. In embracing the feminine
as priest and bishop, as evangelist and
leader, we have embraced that which is not
masculine.
And here, my friends, is the taboo at the
heart of the fear of the homosexual: the
embrace of that which is not masculine.
It is no surprise that a faith community
that ordains women to the priesthood and
episcopate is also the first faith community
to openly and knowingly embrace a gay man
as a bishop. I say openly and knowingly
because from day one there have been homosexual
persons accepted into religious communities
and ordained into leadership with a nudge,
nudge and wink, wink. To argue that gay
people, celibate or not, have not held every
possible ordained leadership role in our
churches from the very beginning is to deny
history itself.
Home
| Guest
Authors | Feedback
| Comment
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The Mission
of the Right Christians
"The Right Christians" was founded
to serve people of faith who object to the agenda of the Christian
Right. Our purposes are fourfold: 1) serve as a source of
information about Christianity and politics; 2) provide a
voice for those whose faith leads them to different conclusions
about political issues than those of the Christian Coalition,
etc.; 3) create a Web community for the mutual support of
like-minded Christians and those of other faiths; and 4) reach
out to those in the Christian community who have begun to
question the motives and agenda of the Christian Right.
There is currently no formal membership process
for "The Right Christians" but we welcome your comments,
encouragement and prayers and invite you to participate
by offering your own contribution in the form of opinion pieces,
scholarly papers or even Weblogs focused on particular topics
within the more general area of Christianity and politics.
We would especially appreciate points of view from outside
the Christian community, e.g. Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, agnostics,
etc.
Home
About the Founder
Allen H. Brill, founder of "The Right Christians",
is a private citizen and Christian who wanted to see viewpoints
of progressive Christians better represented in the public
forum. He provides a Weblog on issues involving Christianity
and politics that is updated five times a week.
Rev. Brill is an ordained Lutheran minister
educated at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, MO. He is also
a member of the South Carolina Bar with a B.A. degree in Government
from Harvard College and a J.D. from the University of Virginia
Law School.
Home
About "The
Right Christians"
We thank the Rev.
Al Sharpton for our name. Confronted by an anti-abortion
protester at NARAL's January rally to celebrate the 30th anniversary
of Roe V. Wade, Rev.
Sharpton responded, "Young lady, it is time for the
Christian right to meet the right Christians." Our site
is not otherwise connected with the Sharpton campaign and
he is not responsible for its content nor we for his campaign.
We do appreciate his stating so succinctly what we have been
feeling for some time and wish him well.
"The
Right Christians" was founded by the Rev.
Allen H. Brill and is currently under his direction.
Home
Participate
You are invited to contribute to "The Right
Christians" by
submitting letters, articles or even a blog on a specific
topic. Use the Volunteer
Form to get started.
We have some ongoing opportunities
to participate:
We would especially like
to add the following:
Diverse Sources:
Roman Catholics, Jews,
Muslims, Buddhists and other religious groups; pastors or
former pastors of Evangelical or neo-Pentecostal congregations;
academics in the areas of church history or systematics
Experts in the following
areas:
contemporary Christian
music; the business interests of the Christian Right; "Christian"
publishing
Home
|