SILENCE = CONSENT

Posts tagged “theology

Nature or Nurture (Romans 1)

It’s been argued that the first time homosexuals, or homosexual acts are addressed in the New Testament is in Romans the 1st chapter (mainly verses 26 and 27). That is if you disregard the two occasions that eunuchs are mentioned (sorry, that’s another Bible Study). And like other scriptures, this one has been misinterpreted, taught in error, and caused much spiritual and emotional harm to same gender loving people.

The thing most people who erroneously teach this scripture seem to forget is, when interpreting scripture, you cannot just take one or two verses of a chapter, build a sermon, teach it as “God’s Word” and live it as a doctrine. You have to carefully see what the scripture (and all others relating to it) is saying. It’s been advised that we read the chapter before, and after the chapter we are studying so that we can get some type of contextual view of what the author was talking about. In this case, we are dealing with Apostle Paul’s letter to the Christians in Rome. In fact, the text in verse 7 says it…”my dear friends in Rome” (New Living Translation). Since that’s who he was addressing, we have to infer that he was dealing with their situation. Am I saying that he couldn’t have any relevant truth for 21st Century America? Not at all. I AM saying that if we are going to correctly interpret what is being said, we need to understand that first and foremost, who Paul was addressing was 1st Century Rome. Let’s take a closer look and find out what that truth is.

The first thing we need to address is the cultural climate of biblical Rome. It was a societal norm for people to be bisexual. And with that being the “normal” sexuality that society ascribed to, it was expected for everyone to be that way. Since now we know that all people aren’t bisexual (in fact most are heterosexual), we can understand how pressured a heterosexual or homosexual person would be to engage in acts that weren’t “natural” for him or her. The definition of the word “natural” in this text comes from the Greek word “phusikos”, meaning instinctive or native disposition. If a person is a native to some place, they were born there. So, a native disposition would be how a person is born. The word “nature” in this text likewise comes from the Greek word “phusis”, which means production or lined descent; growth by germination, or native disposition. Just keep “instinctive/native disposition” in mind.

When Paul talks about the “natural use” of the woman, he is coming from several different places. First from a place of male dominance that thought that the only use a woman has is having babies to continue the man’s lineage. That’s all. A woman was a man’s property (paid for with a dowry)…his “baby maker” per se. So any sexual deviation that would produce offspring was not looked upon favorably. In fact, not until this century did some in the church start teaching that sex had more that just a procreative purpose.

Secondly, Paul was coming from a sexual orientation angle. He was not making a blanket statement of what is and isn’t “natural”. He couldn’t have been. Science has proven that in all species of animals, homosexuality is present (ref. “Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity” by Bruce Bagemihl). So, since homosexuality occurs in nature, it cannot be considered unnatural. And since most people are instinctively heterosexual and that is their native disposition, it IS highly unnatural for one to do otherwise. In this scripture, Paul is telling the Romans that it is unnatural for a person to go against their “native disposition” or what is “instinct” for them and do something else with their bodies to fit in. Now, we can jump on the ex-gay and DL thing right here, but we don’t have the space or time. But do you get the point? If your nature is heterosexual, be that. If you are born homosexual, be that. If you indeed are bisexual, then that’s you. Don’t try to change who you are to fit societal norms. It’s like telling God that He made you the wrong way.

Next, Paul was dealing with some religious issues as well. Paul in fact is saying homosexual activity is not a sin, but a punishment for idol worship and faithlessness. It is a result of heterosexuals not worshipping God but His creation. Turning the truth into a lie. Denying God. His argument is, if a man (being straight) is SO confused and faithless that he cannot discern who God is when creation even tells of His existence, then it’s not so far fetched that that same man (being straight) would be confused sexually and do what is unnatural for him to do. These verses couldn’t be an blanket indictment against homosexuality in that most of the most highly anointed, profound, gifted, talented, and FAITHFUL Christians are homosexual people.

Finally, Paul was dealing with what was going on in Rome from the standpoint of a Jew. There were just some things that were not customary or “natural” for a good Jew to do. Not to say that there are no homosexual Jews, there are. But one must remember that Paul was a very well educated and respected man in his time. He was a good Jew who knew and tried his best to live by “the law” according to the Torah. So to be in another land (not native to Israelites) and submerged into another culture (Rome) trying to live according to how Jews “customarily” or “normally” lived, it must have been hard to do since the society was so different.

So, is Romans 1.26-27 a blanket indictment against homosexuals? With the information we have, we can say no. Paul was more than likely addressing cultural, religious, and orientation issues in this scripture. Contrary to popular opinion, the theme of this text isn’t homosexuality. In fact it isn’t about sexuality at all. It’s about people keeping in mind who God is. It’s about understanding that humanity is without excuse when it comes to reverencing God in that creation itself tells of His glory. It’s about understanding the truth and the fact that it comes from God. And lastly, it’s about not being judgmental or hypocritical. Remember when we said that one should study the chapter before and after the text being focused upon? Well, Romans Chapter 2.1-7 Paul gets on people who are pointing at those who have forgotten God and saying how wicked they are, yet are doing the same things. Bottom line, God judges sin. It doesn’t matter who you are. Make sure you are right with God for yourself. Let God handle the rest in His own way.

Advertisements

Liberating Oppression???

I really have issues with church people who always thumping their Bibles, because they come across as morons.  They just go about spouting whatever they’ve heard their pastor say, and it’s often without the benefit of scholarship.  Meaning, they take scripture at face value without thinking.  They call it “walking by faith”.  For instance, if they’re reading the book of Romans, they take no account of what was going on in Rome.  They don’t consider who wrote the book to see if what was written was due to an eye-witness account or if they are writing about what they were told.   They often don’t seek God for the spiritual application of what they’ve just heard or read.  Unfortunately in most churches it is “the Bible says, the Bible says, the Bible says,” and that’s it. Is it not the responsibility of the pastor to equip their people with the tools necessary to not only study the good book, but to think critically about what they are reading?  Isn’t the preaching of the Gospel supposed to evoke a hunger and thirst for the truth and righteousness?  Shouldn’t the preaching of the Gospel challenge one to seek knowledge of the truth for themselves?  In other words, question everything!  Nothing should be above questioning.  I mean, if you’re going to try to live you life according to what you are being taught, doesn’t it make sense to have a good understanding of those principles?

The church should be teaching people how to know GOD for themselves.  The church should teach people that GOD’s Word is relevant to their personal lives, and the Bible is a map that if used properly, can lead them to the truth.  It shouldn’t be forced on people and crammed down their throats like the so-called “Christian” founding fathers did to the Native Americans and African slaves.  Yeah, I said it!  The Bible is a book that was forced upon people in order to keep them afraid and under control.

It’s like this, when America was “discovered” and slaves brought over from Africa, the Native Americans and Africans had their own language, culture, and understanding of God.  But white supremesists felt their understanding of GOD was better than that of the “savages” they both kidnapped and were colonizing. So with their guns and whips, they punished or killed people publically in order to convert the “savages” so they could easily steal their land and rob them of their resources.  Eventually, the witnesses of this brutality decided to not accept this new religion, but said, “Okay Mr. white man, I’m going to make you believe that I believe what you’re saying about this person named Jesus even though I’ve never heard of Him, nor do I have proof that he existed.  I just want the beatings and killings to stop.”  Upon their profession of Jesus,  magically the beatings stop, and the scary white man isn’t so violent. That’s how the “good Christian colonizers” got the Native Americans and Africans under control.  That SAME agenda is being pushed on Africans today.

So let’s approach the Bible with the understanding that it (and Christianity) was forced upon Native Americans and Africans who accepted Christianity as a means of survival and obtaining freedom from enslavement, not necessarily because they really believed it.  And ANY and ALL documentation of the Native American or African cultures or religions were destroyed in an attempt to obliterate the fact that they existed as credible faith based systems.  Is it really okay to take a book that doesn’t speak very favorably about anyone but “white people” as the cornerstone of how we live our lives?  Is this really a credible reference to lead us to GOD or lead us to a better understanding of who GOD is?

The Bible itself says nothing clean can come from  unclean things.  Jesus said a tree is known by fruit it bears, and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit.  So if what was forced upon us was oppressive in nature, can we really have liberation or salvation?  Or is this really just an oppressive system that we we bought into just to “make the beatings stop”?

If Christianity is all about liberty and freeing people in Christ, I think it is safe to say one  can’t honestly call themself a Christian if total liberation it’s not the fruit of their labor.  And not just liberation from sin, because Jesus took away the sins of the world when he died and rose again.  I think we need to talk more about being saved from poverty.  What about being saved from abuse?  What about being saved from oppression?  We can’t talk about those issues because the church system as we know it, by its very nature is oppressive.   We say we believe that there is freedom in Christ, but we don’t live it.  We don’t really believe it.  That’s why the so-called “lost people” see our lives and call us hypocrites. Our lives don’t speak liberation.  At the very core of our spiritual walk is opression.