The NOM Lie on Marriage Equality Popular Votes.

2012 is shaping up to be a big year for marriage equality, with legislative moves for approval in place in three states, and a ballot initiative  in Maine to restore it, repealing Proposition 1 of 2009. Opponents have set up ballot battles in Minnesota and North Carolina, and a possible legislative repeal in New Hampshire (although the Republicans who now control the state legislature appear to be backtracking on repeal – they know that voters are against it, and several of their caucus members have libertarian instincts which leave them opposed to removing rights already granted).

Catholics are in the thick of it, with Gov Chris Christie (NJ) and bishops predictably against, and Governors O’Malley (Maryland) and Gregoire (Washington) declaring in favour, and actively rallying support.  I’m not going to get into any detail on any of these: I’ll leave that to the extensive commentary available from any number of American news sites and blogs. However, there is one regular claim made by the opponents of marriage, and especially by the NOM (supported primarily by Catholic money and staff) that is simply, demonstrably untrue – and I cannot understand why the Americans have not vigorously pointed this out :

“Thirty-one states have voted on the definition of marriage and every one voted to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman,” Brian Brown, the president of the National Organization for Marriage, said in a statement. “Not only will we mount a successful referendum campaign, we will hold every Washington legislator accountable for his or her vote.”

Read more here: Tri-city Herald
Not so fast, Mr Brown. In 2oo6, exactly this was put to voters in Arizona, as Proposition 107:
To preserve and protect marriage in this state, only a union between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage by this state or its political subdivisions and no legal status for unmarried persons shall be created or recognized by this state or its political subdivisions that is similar to that of marriage.
The proposition went down, 48% to 52%.
The reason for the failure was probably overreach, in trying to eliminate not only full marriage equality, but also any recognition for  other forms of union. A modified proposition to ban only full marriage passed, two years later. So, yes. Arizona has voted to ban same-sex marriage, but it is not true that every ballot proposal against equality has passed.  Brian Brown’s bluster notwithstanding, note that prejudice can be defeated at the ballot box, as it was in Arizona in 2006. Although not a vote on full equality but on “near-marriage”, NOM also lost in Washington, in a 20o9 referendum that promised everything but the name.
Also worth noting is that his promise to mount a successful campaign, and hold legislators “accountable”, is an empty one. NOM, and the other organisations actively opposing equality, are running out of money. Unlike 2008, when they could channel all their resources on California, or 2009, when they spent it all in Maine and Washington, this year they are promising to spend in at least six states. The bulk of their funding comes from a handful of (anonymous) large, out-of-state donors, which this year will be thinly spread.  Financial support for equality typically includes a much higher proportion of small, local donors.
NOM and the like should prepare for more defeats this year, at the ballot box, and in state legislatures.
Enhanced by Zemanta

For Full Inclusion in Church, Be “Comfortable in Your Own Skin”

Whatever the election result, San Diego’s next mayor is guaranteed to be gay-friendly: two of the four candidates are openly gay, the other two are known to be straight allies. (Log Cabin Republicans have endorsed one of the straight candidates over the gay man and the lesbian in the race). This is an interesting illustration of the political changes over the last four years. In 2008, when the current mayor Jerry Sanders came out in vocal support for marriage equality, and opposition to California’s Proposition H8, he met with serious opposition from his Republican colleagues, and almost failed to get his party’s endorsement for his re-election.

There is a lesson in here though, for queers in church, as well as in politics. I believe firmly that wherever possible, we should be aiming to participate and worship fully and openly in our local communities (in addition to specifically LGBT congregations). These words by the lesbian candidate, Bonnie Dumanis, could easily be read as applying to coming out in church:

In my view, if you feel comfortable in your skin then people will feel comfortable with you,” she said. “You don’t have to make a big deal out of it. You just do your thing and people respond to that. And as more people have been more comfortable being openly gay then more people see that there’s somebody in their life that … they now know is gay and it changes views.”

via  UTSanDiego.com.

I once heard a wise priest say about the Soho Masses that “at it’s best”, the congregation enables people who have long been estranged from the church, to return, once again recognize the value of sacramental life of the church, and then to begin participation in their local parishes.

In other words, the Soho Masses, as well as Dignity, Quest, Integrity and the multitude of their counterparts in other denominations and countries, help us to become “comfortable in our own skins” – the essential precondition to accepting and creating full inclusion in church.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Candace Chellew-Hodge, on a “Dangerous Vision of God”.

Growing up as the daughter of a Baptist minister, Candace Chellew-Hodge had a deep love of God and commitment to the Christian faith. She was also a lesbian, for which she encountered extensive bullying, as school – and in Church. Finding that her attraction to females meant that the God she loved did not, after all, love her, she tried to kill herself. Thankfully, she survived the attempt, and went on first, to found the online Christian magazine, “Whosoever”, to study theology, and then to enter ministry. She has also written an LGBT Christian survival guide, “Bulletproof Faith“.

At Religion Dispatches, she has a piece up (“God, Rid Me of God“), reflecting from her personal experience on the rash of teen suicides by American queer youth, and especially that of  19-year-old Eric James Borges. These are a result, she argues, of a “dangerous vision of God”.

(more…)

“He Who Pays the Piper” Corollary: the Lesson From Maine

What happens when the piper disregards the adage, and ignores those who pay him?

Bart’s post yesterday (“He who pays the piper“) reminded me of Frances De Bernardo’s report at Bondings 2.0, on how the diocese of Maine is a stark reminder of this. Back in 2oo9, the Bishop of Portland and his allies threw themselves into the battle to repeal the state’s gay – marriage law (and no, it wasn’t on the side of the traditional Catholic values justice and equality, or protecting all families).

Catholic Church Doesn’t Need to Take Another Battering’

The Catholic hierarchy’s opposition to marriage equality during Maine’s 2009 referendum has had a “devastating” effect on the church there.

That’s the opinion of a Maine parish administrator, and also of William H. Slavick, who penned an op-ed in the Portland Press Herald entitled, “The Maine Catholic Church doesn’t need to take another battering.”   Slavick, a veteran church reformer and peace activist who ran for U.S. Senate in 2006, points out that the hierarchy’s supposed “victory” has been a decisive defeat on the pastoral level, with financial consequences, too:

“Recently, a parish cluster administrator acknowledged that the referendum repeal campaign was, for the church in Maine, ‘devastating.’ No explanation was necessary. We know. The lack of charity occasioned wide discomfort. Some left, often among the better educated and more generous. More stopped attending Mass after weeks of campaign bullying. With $200,000 of diocesan referendum contributions unexplained, many refused to make contributions from which the bishop received a cut. That includes the Sunday offertory collection.”

Slavick’s concern is timely because  supporters of marriage equality have gathered enough signatures to stage another referendum on the issue in November, so a new struggle is very near.   Details about the referendum can be read in an article, “It’s on: Same-sex marriage supporters give it another try,” from Maine’s Sun Journal.

- Bondings 2.0.

What is especially shameful about Maine diocesan intervention in 2oo9, is that it was not even honest. As Frances De Bernardo outlined in a previous Bondings post, Marc Mutty, the Director of Public Affairs for the Diocese who had also been the Chair of “Yes on 1,” and who led the fight against marriage equality in the referendum now regrets a lot of the anti-gay rhetoric that he promoted  - and even acknowledges that some of it was blatantly untrue.

According to a Portland Press Herald April 17, 2011, article, the documentary contains interviews of Mutty acknowledging that  his words were sometimes false:

“‘We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that’s always dangerous,’ says Mutty during a Yes on 1 strategy session, at the time on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.”

‘You know, we say things like “Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!” ‘ he continues. ‘Well, that’s not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn’t, you know?’”

There is a (small) silver lining here, and it is this: my reading of the situation now, for the 2012 campaign, is that the bishop has indeed learned that “He who pays the piper, calls the tune”. He and Mutty have seen the wanton destruction their campaign wreaked on the diocese the last time around. They can read the newspapers, and will know that Catholic support for marriage equality is now even stronger than it was three years ago. They will continue to oppose marriage for all – but I will be very surprised if they throw themselves into this battle with anything like the reckless fervour that they displayed in 2oo9.

The Church is gearing up for another battle – but this time, reluctantly:

Maine’s Catholic Church, which played a big role in the campaign to overturn the law three years ago is gearing up for another battle, albeit reluctantly.

“Quite frankly, we don’t think we should have to go through this again,” said Church spokesperson Brian Souchet. “It’s divisive and contentious lot of money spent on both sides.”

NECN.com

Recognizing that it is so contentious, not least among Catholics, perhaps the diocese should simply stay on the sidelines, or at least display some of that “respect, compassion and sensitivity” demanded by the Catechism?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Good Heretic

the•ol•o•gy    [thee-ol-uh-jee]

noun, plural -gies.

1. The field of study and analysis that treats of God and of God’s attributes and reactions to the universe; study of divine things or religious truth; divinity.

Theology, then, is man’s studying of God and drawing conclusions based on this information.  However, man is limited in his understanding of the universe as well as the divine. In addition, man’s reasoning is often faulty. In history we have often relied on what has been called ‘truth’ in any given field of study only to have it overturned in the next generation, or sooner.

I am left to wonder why, then, theology for many religions is so fixed and not fluid.  I am astonished that there is any group of people that even remotely hints that their version of God is ‘the truth’ and unchangeable when their conclusions on not based on anything other than the interpretations of men existing thousands of years ago. Even more silly, are the interpretations of God based on the interpretation of men a century ago which was based on the interpretations of men 1000 years before that which was based on the writing of men 2000 years before that!

It would seem more prudent and honest, if these various religions with fixed dogmas, made a commitment instead to get together every 10 years to review their theology and change it in light of cultural changes, advancements in science and language, and revelations of God to his Church (the people, not the hierarchy).

For any soul on a journey with the divine, this journey is not static (at least we hope not).  The revelation of God to us as individuals changes in our journey; sometimes fast, sometimes slow.  The things we knew as truth 10 years ago is not what we know today or, at the very least, we do not know truth in the same light.  So, why do some of our religious communities show very little of the same fluidity in our communal journey?

 

I am sure our Creator shares the same concerns. So, God has provided a remedy. God has created the heretic (in the image of his Son) to help things move along and balance things out.  Heretics play an important role in all of society and deserve respect regardless of our/their position on divine or secular issues. If you think, perhaps, that today’s heretics are NOT thought of in the same way as 1000 years ago (punished and put to death), think again.  A quick look at Facebook alone provides all the answers: there are many sentiments promoting killing of heretics and/or rejoicing in their death.  Heretics are killed or beaten daily for being vocal and visible in standing up for an issue.  When you consider that the Roman Catholic Church at large considers LGBTQ movement to be heretical and that they readily promote hate, intolerance and legislation that causes suffering against LBGTQ… what more proof do you need?

 Anatomy of a Heretic

 her•e•tic    [n. her-i-tik; adj. her-i-tik, huh-ret-ik]

noun

1. A professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.

2. Roman Catholic Church: A baptized Roman Catholic who willfully and persistently rejects any article of faith.

3. Anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.

So, what are the marks of a heretic?

(more…)

“Catholics for Gay Rights”: Facebook Group

I am now a co-administrator of the facebook group, Catholics for Gay Rights.  Members are a diverse bunch, with a range of opinions and sharing some useful thoughts and links. Earlier this week I shared an extract and link to Michael Carden’s thoughts on homophobia and bible translation. Here’s a thought from a new group member, Gary Campbell:

I’ll share a thought, for what it’s worth. I’d started regular Mass attendance after a number of years, but was feeling pretty undervalued. Not by my parish, or most of the priests I have met in my city, but by the bishops and the guy in the pointy hat in Rome. They think gays should suffer in silence. Then I was thinking about Jesus. I was thinking about how he didn’t have a partner. And a thought just dropped into my head. He did that not to sanctify celibacy, as many people think, but to show himself above and beyond considerations of sexuality and gender. In other words, he was saying, ‘I don’t endorse heteroxexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, transexuality or asexuality to the prejudice of the other. You’re all my brothers and sisters as I made you’. I find that idea so consoling.

My colleagues as administrators are Steven LovattMichael Carden, and Marie-Louise Thurton, a Canadian. Steven is an English, very traditional Catholic, who runs “Pharsea’s World / Pharsea’s Home Page“, and “Faithful to the Truth” which has a pro-gay, traditionalist Catholic perspective. Michael is an Australian biblical scholar whose contributions to “The Queer Bible Commentary” I greatly admire, and blogs about “Bible, Religion, Society, Sexuality, Politics” at Jottings. Marie-Louise is a Canadian, who had an interesting response to the furore over Cardinal George and his offensive comparison of some LGBT activists and the KKK: blending traditional Catholicism with modern technology, she set up a facebook  page to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for Cardinal George. (The much-publicized apology followed almost immediately).

The group is currently at 558 members. How soon can we reach 1000? Take a look, and consider joining.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

He Who Pays the Piper

… Calls the Tune

Perhaps it’s best to put up a GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING: “Too much speculation is bad for your spiritual health!” before going any further. Well, I’ve just done so. Let the speculation begin…

The suspicion is growing on me that the supposedly theological battle – loosely framed as conservative/traditional vs. liberal/modern – for the very heart and soul of the Church is just a red herring. In my view it’s something akin to a conjuring trick, where the conjuror gets you to look in one direction, diverting your attention away from the trick he intends to pull on you. The real issue, in my opinion, is a political one, and is largely determined by what’s happening behind the scenes. Who is taking hold of the reins of power within the Catholic Church? Who is calling the shots? Who is paying the piper, thus deciding the tune?

Illustration from The Pied Piper of Hamelin

There are those of you who are reading this and saying to themselves: Okay, here goes another fancy conspiracy theory. Well, not really. Instead, I would like to point to certain inconsistencies that are, at the very least, a bad PR exercise, but when put together undermine the Catholic Church’s authority and standing. Let’s have a look at the upcoming creation of 22 new cardinals, and the implications of this move. You may follow the link to the article in the Tablet for the statistics. (more…)

“There is no spoon!”

In the movie, “The Matrix”, the lead character, Neo, discovered that his world was the product of his perspective and belief.  If he wanted to change the world, he did so by changing himself.

This is not a new concept but one that has been retold for millennia throughout various cultures. Generally speaking, it is not a concept completely accepted by Christians; their history of changing the world has relied on eliminating other cultures and religions through indoctrination, abuse, torture, murder and war (i.e., LOVE).   Christianity’s historical tradition is not to change themselves, but to change everyone else.

So, it is odd that a non-violent, Christain movement called Soul Force is perceived as a threat by Christian Leadership.  Who are Soul Force?

The gay advocacy group Soulforce presents itself as a faith-based, civil rights organization, promoting justice for homosexuals by confronting churches and Christian leaders who promote the traditional biblical view of homosexuality. Soulforce has adopted teachings from both Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr., and views itself as a modern civil rights movement following the traditions of nonviolent protest. Founded by Mel White, a former ghost writer for Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell, Soulforce believes the traditional Christian position on homosexuality is wrong, damaging to homosexuals, and must be confronted as its promoters must also be confronted, converted, or ultimately silenced. To this end, it has sponsored demonstrations at denominational conventions, churches, and conferences across the country, and has visited numerous Christian and secular universities. If pastors or Christian leaders choose to dialogue with this group, they should be aware of its erroneous theological positions and should clearly assert their disagreements with Soulforce’s beliefs and goals.

[From the Christian Research Journal, volume 32, number 2 (2009)]

For example, one tactic Soul Force undertakes  is to ask if they can speak to church leadership about LGBTQI.  Basically, the Soul Force team is using simple Evangelistic techniques that those same churches themselves use with others,  such as sharing a meal and talking about scripture!  Now, what church would not want to do that?  In fact, in the article in the Christain Research Journal in 2009, they tell Christian leaders of many denominations that:

DIALOGUE IS OPTIONAL, NOT MANDATORY~  We are not biblically required to respond to every charge leveled against us, nor to every request for a conversation.”

Why would leaders of Christian church not want to talk?  Easy, you cannot convert/change people who are already healed and believe they are equal. The problem is actually more complex, however.  Christian tradition of repent or die, my way or the highway, is alive and well. Right Wing, “Traditional” Christians have been bred to be predators.

 

Yeah, and…

I could go into a diatribe and come up with all kinds of references to point out that the  habits of traditional Christians (abusive predators) are valid.  For instance, there has been a rise seen in the UK over religious exorcisms of children that really have become ritualistic abuse.  You can also read about the recent suicide of a gay young man whose history including exorcisms.

 

But I have to ask myself, “why?”  Most people instinctively know abuse when it rears its ugly head.  Most folks really do know how to identify predators.  Queer distrust of the church can be directly attributed to these facts.   We all know that many Right Wing Traditional Christians prey on people’s vulnerabilities and target those who will be easily led through guilt, shame, and fear.  People who become brainwashed, taken advantage of and who turned their own reason over to a group of people do so because they WANT IT (this is not a reference to children). Listing the facts and evidence and expounding upon the original intent of scripture to prove my point and to convince them they are wrong won’t change a thing.  Making this point to people who already know this is just plain masturbation.

You Might Want to Watch Out of Curiosity Once, but….

For people who believe they are right, there is no argument that will convince them otherwise.  Read this article from mainstream Christianity about Soul Force.  It is a long missive meant to prove how wrong Soul Force is based on logic, history, tradition and scripture.  I don’t believe a word of it.  I think they’re full of crap.  In all my recollection, I have never been won over by this type of “dialogue”.  So, I wonder why Soul Force participates in exemplifying the same traditional practices of force and confrontation that Right Wing Christians use?

Please do not misunderstand me, I have no argument with what Soul Force stands for, I have issue with some of their chosen ways to change world.  When a Church or University they have chosen to target won’t talk with them, they perform a physical protest.  They are often arrested for trespassing after being asked to leave.  This is supposed to win people over how?

Traditional Christians Are Not All Bad

I believe one of the greatest gifts traditional, right Christians shared was the idea of a personal relationship with Christ.  This belief was the engine of change behind the Reformation.  In this LGBTQ reformation, I believe it is useless and sometimes wrong  to attempt to “convert” people using the same tactics as the Traditional Right Christians.


I believe that energy should be spent empowering people, not with swords of any symbolism, but with opportunities for personal change.  Strengthening the already established growing network of Churches, Agencies, and Groups who offer alternative choices is a better investment in permanent change.  We need our people strong and able to stand in the middle of the discrimination and violence as living and loving examples of change and then move aside to allow Christ to change hearts of men through their personal relationship with God, rather than us trying to force them.

Please Sir, may I have some more?


Soul Force does have a powerful practice that I do not hear a lot about.  As a mix of gay and allies, couple and singles, they attend church services in these right wing, traditional Churches. What a powerful message this sends about our Queer Christian Community.  It is very easy to build an idea of an enemy in one’s mind.  Typically, that enemy is some fantastical conglomerate about all the hateful things attributed, rightly or wrongly, to that enemy.  When confronted with the real person, however, that fantastical creature loses a lot of its magic. Sharing in worship gives them a chance to take some of the “magic” out the fantastical homosexual enemies they made us into and us for them.

This is one of the first ideas I have heard coming out of either side of the pulpit (left or right) that attempts to break down the wall of separation.  There are so many of us concerned with being right and proving it with our wit, logic, history…  All the while this wall of hate is maintained.


The wall  is hate and intolerance for what each other stands for and it blocks the vision of the valuable human beings behind it.  Breaking down this wall and coming together on things we can agree on, even when the climate is tense and perhaps even unwelcoming, goes a long way into changing the hearts of men, though some of them will never admit it.  And if we would only step aside afterward, and allow Christ to move as he will, it would be far more effective than imitating our Right Wing brothers and sisters by taking the ball out of Christ’s hands before he even had the chance to run with it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Conversion of St Paul

Today, the Church celebrates the feast of the conversion of St Paul. Just in that title, there is encouragement for LGBT Christians: just as Saul of Tarsus, scourge of the early Christians found God and became instead a great champion of their cause, it is possible that the institutional churches, which are so widely seen by the queer community as their persecutors, could likewise meet God and undergo a similar change of heart, to become our champions – turning to what Jenni described a few days ago as a “preferential option for the queer”. This is not as far-fetched as it may seem: there has already been a most extraordinary transformation of religious responses to homoerotic relationships over the last half century, and an increasing number of influential churchmen and women are becoming enthusiastic straight allies, champions of our cause.

I am working towards an extended post on this theme (which will be the basis of an address I will be giving to the Quest annual conference in September), so will not go over the evidence here. Meanwhile, in honour of Paul, I reproduce below a post I wrote in 2010.

*********

There is much that is paradoxical in the figure of Paul. In his dual persona as Saul / Paul, he is renowned as both a one-time feared persecutor of Christians, and as the greatest of all the early missionaries, who spread the word far beyond it s original geographic compounds, and author of by far the most influential Christian texts outside the Gospels themselves. In the same way, as the author of the most infamous New Testament clobber texts, he is widely regarded as strongly condemning homoerotic relationships – and yet  Paul Halsall lists him in his Calendar of LGBT Saints:

There is considerable debate over those anti-gay “proof -texts”, but whatever the conclusions, there is much, as Anglican Bishop of Newark John Spong has pointed out, which leads one to suspect Paul might have been “queer” in some way. The fact he was never married, unusual for a Jew of his time, his companionship with a series of younger men, especially St. Timothy, his mention of an unnamed “thorn in the flesh”. and, possibly, his disdain for some types of exploitative homosexual relationship in his period, all raise questions, questions which cannot be answered it must be admitted, about his sexuality.

What are we to make of this?

Conversion of St Paul (Andrea Meldolla, more often known in English as Andrea Schiavone or Lo Schiavone c. 1510/1515)

First, let us dismiss the idea that Paul’s writing is anti-gay: it isn’t, and further, much of his message is precisely the opposite, arguing for full inclusion of all. For a counter to the standard view of Paul as anti-gay, anti-sex, see Reidulf Molvaer, Sex & St. Paul the Realist

St. Paul was, in many ways, an ascetic and happy to be so, but he refused to make asceticism a general model or ideal for Christians – most people cannot live by such principles, especially in the area of sex. In the seventh chapter of his first letter to Corinth, he rejects any appeal for his support of sexual abstinence as ethically superior to active sexual relations. He sets limits, but does not limit legitimate sexual relations to marriage. In his day, it was commonly believed that homosexual practice, more easily than heterosexual relations, could bring people into harmony with the unchangeable nature of God. This Paul strongly rejects in the first chapter of his letter to Rome. Otherwise he does not write about “natural” homosexuality. In fact, it is a logical inference from the principles he sets forth in his letter to Corinth that loving, lasting homosexual relations are ethically as valid as heterosexual relations. Dr. Molvaer maintains that insight into contemporary ideologies can be a help to understanding what the New Testament says about these matters. Today, as in the early Church, extraneous influences in these areas can easily distort genuine Christian moral concerns as they are stated by Christ and St. Paul.

Then, consider his person. Astonishingly little is known for certain of Paul the man, but Bishop Spong is not the only one to have suggested that Paul may have had same close same -sex relationships  of his own. Gay Catholic blogger Jeremiah Bartram, who recently spent time on a pilgrimage “in the footsteps of St Paul” has reflected deeply on the life and writign of Paul, and concluded that on balance, the suggestion is sound.

In the absence of hard evidence, personally I am happy to leave this discussion to others with greater scholarship and expertise behind them. My interest in the queer saints is in the lessons they hold for us today, and here I think there is one clear message, which lies in the best known story of al about Paul, his conversion on the road to Damascus. This has entered language as a “Damascene Conversion”, and therein lies hope. For if Saul, the renowned persecutor of Christians, could undergo such a complete change of heart and become instead active as the most famous proselytizer,  so too is there hope for the religion -based persecutors of sexual minorities today. Not only is there hope, but there is already abundant evidence from the very many Christians in the modern world who have experienced just such Damascene conversions, going from direct, outright condemnation of same sex relationships, to actively advocating full inclusion in church.   These changes of heart, usually coming after intensive study of Scripture and extensive discussions with gay and lesbian church members, have already been responsible for changes of policy in several denominations, and a more welcoming atmosphere in many local congregations. This process will continue.

For those Catholics who like to pray to the saints, you can freely include St Paul in you prayers. This is not because he was queer (although he may have been), but because his own conversion experience provides a useful model for all those modern day conversions that we need among the bigots who use religion as a cloak for prejudice and discrimination.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Bible and Textual Abuse: The Case of “malakoi” and “arsenokoites”.

Sane and rational discussion of the Bible and same-sex relationships are bedevilled by difficulties with language, arising from problems with translations on the one  hand, and vastly different cultural conditions which make it difficult sometimes to make sense of the applicability of the words, even where the literal meaning is clear. This is especially important in the case of two obscure Greek words which, in poor translation, appear to say clearly that the Biblical teaching is opposed to homosexual activity.

Several notable scholars (Boswell, Countryman, and those that followed) have shown that these translations are faulty, casting doubt on a large chunk of the case for biblically based homophobia. Michael Carden, an Australian biblical scholar, has a post up which first notes that Christianity is unique in depending on translations for its scriptures, and then goes on to a lengthy, detailed discussion of the problems presented by translations of these two troublesome words.

From the opening of a much longer discussion at Michael Carden’s Jottings:

Christianity is rather unusual in the family of Abrahamic/Middle Eastern religions in the role of scripture and language. For Judaism and Islam, and I suspect traditionally for Zoroastrianism too, the language of scripture, i.e. the language in which it was written, is also the language in which it must always be read. So countless Jews and Muslims have grown up learning something of Hebrew and Arabic and not just any Hebrew and Arabic but the Hebrew of the Torah and Tanakh and the Arabic of the Qur’an, even if it means just memorising slabs of text (as a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic child I have a resonance with this because I remember being taught the responses of the old Latin Mass, which I regard nowadays as a valuable bit of rudimentary childhood second language teaching). For Jews and Muslims too any translation of scripture is counted as an interpretation, it does not share in the authority of the ‘original’ text. Christians, on the other hand, have always read their scriptures in translation.  Christian bibles are comprised of two parts: an Old Testament comprising texts originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; and a New Testament comprising texts originally written in Greek. Early Christians used as their Old Testament the Greek translation/version of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts known as the Septuagint, together with those texts Protestants term apocryphal that were written in Greek. Just about all of the ancient Christian translations of the Old Testament were from this Greek text. Only the Syriac and Jerome’s Latin Vulgate included translations from (some of) the Hebrew version shared with Rabbinic Judaism. So from the very beginning Christians have been involved in the project of translation. For many cultures too, ancient and contemporary, their first body of written literature  has been a translation of one canonical version or another of the Christian Bible.

So for Christians, unlike Jews and Muslims, linguistic questions of meaning, equivalence and translation, can become highly fraught theological and political questions.

- Jottings: Homophobia and the Politics of Biblical Translation.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Switch to our mobile site