Gay and Christian in the World of Today II

[jnov]

religion and politics from another perspective

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/world/europe/14turkey.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[Sandy]

There are many ways in which to read the Bible, as history, as mythology, as poetry, as prescriptive law, as a treaty, and as a complete model of the world, among others. Each has its uses and its shortcomings. What makes it Scripture for Christians is that it is a record of divine revelation, that it is God speaking from eternity to us in history. So we are always confronted with the problem: what is God in his infinity trying to say to us finite beings? One answer that has been floated is that he is trying to bridge and overcome the gap from the infinite to the finite, so we can overcome if only fragmentarily the threat of death nonbeing.

Does our following Mosaic law help us build a bridge over the abyss? The answer in the New Testament is, no. So if following Levitical law cannot lead to our salvation, what is the point in claiming divine sanction for its precepts in the secular sphere?

The social anthropologist Mary Douglas, in a book she published a few years ago, argued persuasively that the book of Leviticus is in fact a verbal construction of the Temple, a poetic rendering of the place in which God is met. We know the Temple was destroyed, and that rebuilding the Temple will help us reach the love of God as much as rebuilding the Tower of Babel. The laws that serve as the bricks of the Temple in Leviticus belong not to God, but to man.

For man to adopt those law-bricks as civil law because they have divine sanction tends toward blasphemy. One could read the Bible as a menu or laundry list of do's and dont's, as many appear to do, but they're reading it outside of the context of the Bible as revelation.

[Osprey]

Wow, what a bunch of well thought out, beautifully put posts. 

Brian,

I hope that you did not think that I was being consdescending in regards to my men in dresses comment.  I was merely pointing out a humorous situation brought about by the collision of tradition and an often confusing modern world.  I too was troubled that the Church would reject him as an ambassador simply because he was gay.  I have a feeling that "heterosexual male" is not part of the job description for the position of Ambassador to the Vatican.  His spiritual qualifications would have been of far greater interest to me. 

To me, the modern world in many ways demands the abandonment of absolutes.  It just isn't that simple any more.  The acquisition of knowledge seems to create the color gray by the bucket full.  Regardless of where the clap trap in the Book of Moses regarding homosexuality came from, it has created a lot of damage down through the centuries in spite of the fact that some of the greatest offenders were the clergy themselves.  In 1890 it was also pretty safe to say that the Native Americans came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C. and have people keep a straight face.  Over a hundred and ten years of stunning scientific advancement have changed the entire picture.  In light of scientific fact, the absolutes contained in Leviticus seem rather silly and the absolute that the Sioux hailed from Jerusalem is little short of hysterical.  So, we have gone from absolutes to something very different in a little over a hundred years. 

The abandonment of absolutes merely means the opening up to the possibility of other ideas in regards to things we once thought were cut and dry .  It goes far beyond Leviticus and the origins of the American Indian.  All this new knowledge forces us to pick up and look at everything on the table, from abortion, to celibacy and so on.  It is a huge responsibility for all who come to the table to learn and grow and anyone who makes mere light of it does so at their peril.  Inherent in picking up these issues from the table and examining them is the responsibility we have for our conclusions.  That is where it gets hard.  Knowledge is not just a precious gift, it is an incredible responsibility.   

[jnov]

There are many ways in which to read the Bible, as history, as mythology, as poetry, as prescriptive law, as a treaty, and as a complete model of the world, among others. Each has its uses and its shortcomings. What makes it Scripture for Christians is that it is a record of divine revelation, that it is God speaking from eternity to us in history. So we are always confronted with the problem: what is God in his infinity trying to say to us finite beings? One answer that has been floated is that he is trying to bridge and overcome the gap from the infinite to the finite, so we can overcome if only fragmentarily the threat of death nonbeing.

Does our following Mosaic law help us build a bridge over the abyss? The answer in the New Testament is, no. So if following Levitical law cannot lead to our salvation, what is the point in claiming divine sanction for its precepts in the secular sphere?

The social anthropologist Mary Douglas, in a book she published a few years ago, argued persuasively that the book of Leviticus is in fact a verbal construction of the Temple, a poetic rendering of the place in which God is met. We know the Temple was destroyed, and that rebuilding the Temple will help us reach the love of God as much as rebuilding the Tower of Babel. The laws that serve as the bricks of the Temple in Leviticus belong not to God, but to man.

For man to adopt those law-bricks as civil law because they have divine sanction tends toward blasphemy. One could read the Bible as a menu or laundry list of do's and dont's, as many appear to do, but they're reading it outside of the context of the Bible as revelation.

i had never heard it put this way before and had never thought of it in this way before.  thanks for a wonderful new perspective!  i'll mull on this awhile. 

[SilverLake]

A story in one of the Los Angeles suburban papers says that almost half the money supporting Proposition 8 -- which would repeal same-sex marriage in California -- is coming from the Mormons -- Proposition 8 attracts Mormon support ( http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_10714269 ):

Pam and Rick Patterson have always followed teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and tried to live within their means.

He drives a 10-year-old Honda Civic to his job at Intel. She is a stay-at-home mom who makes most of the family meals and bakes her own bread. The couple, who have five sons between the ages of 3 and 12, live in a comfortable but modest three-bedroom home in Folsom.

It's a traditional lifestyle they believe is now at risk. That's why the Pattersons recently made a huge financial sacrifice. They withdrew $50,000 from their savings and donated it to the Yes on Proposition 8 campaign, the ballot measure that seeks to ban same-sex marriage.

"It was a decision we made very prayerfully and carefully," said Pam Patterson, 48. "Was it an easy decision? No. But it was a clear decision, one that had so much potential to benefit our children and their children."

Mormons have emerged as the leading financial contributors to the controversial Nov. 4 ballot measure. Church members have donated about 40 percent of the $22.8 million raised to pass the initiative since July, according to Frank Schubert, campaign manager for ProtectMarriage.com, the primary backer of the "yes" campaign.

"I think anyone would be troubled by any one religion exerting that kind of financial influence in a decision about what our constitution is going to say," said Kate Kendell, executive director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a member of the executive committee of No on Prop 8.

Opponents have raised about $17 million since July, according to Kendell.

She believes reports about the financial role Mormons are playing will motivate opponents of the measure. "Too many people are sitting on the sidelines," she said.



Edited to make quoted portion black italics

[Osprey]

I would like to think that the good people of California would be getting a little sick of the Mormon Church meddling in their affairs.  I have a feeling that come election day, that sentiment will be expressed.  Since when is a California election ran from Salt Lake City? Why it is just plain stupid.  The Mormon Church did the same thing in Massachusetts and they lost there, big time.  They never knew what hit them in Connecticut, never even saw it coming.  The Connecticut turn around is the mark of the future. 

Californians like to think that they are on the cutting edge of new trends and like to point the way to the future and I think that it is very unlikely that at the end of the day they will be swayed by propaganda emanating from Salt Lake City.   The Mormons have always been good at raising money and in this case they have raised money completely out of proportion to their numbers in the state of California.  It should be interesting but I hope to heaven that the people of California are better and smarter than that.

I also have to point out something interesting that I saw this morning.  One of our most prominent Mormon attorneys, a traditional die hard Republican, has a Obama Biden banner displayed proudly on his front lawn this morning, I nearly ran off the road.  The thing that is so amazing is the fact that even if he had decided to vote for Obama or perhaps more to the point, AGAINST McCain, is that he would flaunt it to his whole world that way.  I'll bet you a bag of donuts that his life is going to get interesting come Sunday Morning Services.

Sandy,

Very interesting point, I had also never quite thought of it that way.  The idea of just discarding Leviticus has always bothered me, it never felt completely right to me at all.  I really appreciate you pointing out a viable alternative.  Very interesting.   

[thebriguy]

I addressed my last post to everyone and not a single person in particular.

In a way it was addressed to a climate of ideas which are often bad and have a bad source.

Sorry if anyone was unduly offended.

"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in this evil day, and having done all, to stand. "

Bri Guy

[Sandy]

Rance,

The (re)interpretation of Leviticus stems from Paul's grappling with the notion of the law. He says that without the law, he never would have known what he was. In a nutshell, man is limited, finite. Much of the Old Testament, in preparing for the New, shows that man cannot do what is only in God's power to do, namely grant salvation. Man gets destroyed and saved, given laws, given chances to meet God in the tent of the Holies, but if it shows anything, the Old Testament shows that man cannot get it right by his own efforts. The solution to salvation, or overcoming the threat of death and nonbeing by being united with God, is given to Christians in the revelations of the New Testament.

Of course, the Old Testament contains the seeds of the New. It shows God's continuing concern for man, suggesting that man is perhaps capable of receiving and benefiting from God's grace. Leviticus, the book of the priests and the temple, is a microcosm of man's world with God present in the holy of holies. But even the priests ultimately cannot--through their own efforts or worthiness--control God. It's a lesson in humility as much as anything else. In the face of the New Testament, the vain strivings of the priests almost presage the setting aside of the distinction between priest and layman, but that's an argument for a sectarian debate. 

So Leviticus tells us something about ourselves as human beings. But if we believe it is some Chinese menu of decent and indecent behaviors, or do's and dont's, well, it tells us we're being a bit thick.

Sandy

[SilverLake]

The No on Prop. 8 folks have released a new television ad, which you can read about and see here -- http://www.noonprop8.com/articles/2008/10/15/prop-8-opponents-release-new-ad .  If you haven't made a contribution, you might prayerfully think about doing so.  The "Donate Today" buttons are located for your easy convenience!   

[jnov]

I addressed my last post to everyone and not a single person in particular.

In a way it was addressed to a climate of ideas which are often bad and have a bad source.

Sorry if anyone was unduly offended.

"Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in this evil day, and having done all, to stand. "

Bri Guy

hey brain,

i wasn't offended, i just strongly disagree.   but i respect your right to your views.   they are always articulate and eloquently expressed!   

[brokebacktom]

The G0P are NOT pro-life, they are pro-birth. There is a huge difference! What they do not advocate is the real pro-life issues: childcare, women's rights, health care, education, clean energy, and ending the war. The religious right are wrong. They stand for the false mantra that every conception should result in a birth - even in the case of rape or incest. If they were truly pro-life, they would not have squandered over a trillion dollars on the war. If they were truly pro-life, they would not support torture or killing animals at close range from a helicopter. If they were truly pro-life, 46 million Americans would not be without health insurance.

Yup, here we are again. Discussing the one issue that the Right wants to discuss.

I think the Democrats and Obama have it correct; there needs to be Choice rights, there needs to be Abortion rights. But for God's sake and for the country's sake, get out in front of this issue and try to reduce the number of abortions by good family planning, teen sex education. Abstinece only is a disaster in terms of an education strategy; options for those who do find they are pregnant and low cost day care for mothers who want to keep their child and still get a good education and a good job.

Jeez Louise we have been on this issue for 40 freakin years. Can we move forward??? Please!!!

[Osprey]

Bri,

We are not all here to agree with each other.  As jnov says, your ideas are always beautifully written and beautifully expressed and your point of view is respected.  It is always wonderful to have you here. 

Sandy,

Thanks again for the continuing insight into Leviticus.  I would have to lump myself with the many  in a lot of ways as only seeing the silliness on the surface of Leviticus.  It is sort of like seeing only the outside of a house, not the actual construction that holds it in place.  I know that few of us have really thought beyond the obvious.

Tom,

I also wish there was some way we could deal finally and effectively with the problem of abortion.  Due to the fact that it deals with the creating of life it is never going to go away in any sort of definitive way.  It is far to complicated and complex I am afraid.  You have a huge range of very bright people who are all over the place on this issue.  I see "balance" as the only hope.  Every decision we make results in consequences, right, wrong, or indifferent.  I my eyes, a baby is probably not viable in the first tri mester and if an abortion is going to take place, it should take place in that time frame.  That is not much to ask.  Three months is not exactly what you would call a snap decision.  Once you are out of the first tri mester then it ceases, in my eyes anyway, of being merely an issue regarding someone's body and becomes something beyond that, a human life, that should be protected and nurtured and brought to term.  Then if the child is not wanted by the birth mother, then give it up for adoption, pure and simple.  There has to be a balance between the rights of a woman and the rights of a human life.   I think that it is pretty safe at this point to say that Roe V Wade is not going to be overturned in many of our lifetimes and by then birth control will be to the point that it will be pretty much a moot point anyway.

Has any one noticed that the gay marriage issue is pretty much off the screen in this years campaign?  I suppose that it seems like pretty small potatoes compared to the meltdown of the Republican economy, the mortgage markets and other hideous issues that now face our nation.  That could well work in our favor to be honest with you.  I have a feeling that it is going to be a little rough for prop 8 to get any real traction considering the staggering problems California is having on the other fronts but I would encourage everyone to give something to the cause.  I am going to do so this morning.   

[brokebacktom]

Rance

I agree with you about gay marriage, its on the back burner this year. I feel people are getting tired of these wedge issues. About abortion I'm still not sure what to do? The thing is I'm tired of hearing about it every election cycle. 

[Osprey]

I have a feeling that these wedge issues are going to be with us forever.  These are the issues that create the texture in our society and they are therefore important.  I think we all get sick of hearing about them but the roar over abortion is fairly muted this election cycle compared to cycles in the past.  There are just to many other issues that are taking the stage.

This is without doubt the most important election in the last fifty years if not the last one hundred.  So much is riding on it.  It is going to be alright.  Obama is going to win this thing just the way I knew he would, big time.  I doubt that in the annals of American History has one party so utterly immolated itself the way the Republicans have  done over the last eight years.  It will go down in history.  The destruction of the Republican party has been nothing short of stunning. 

[thebriguy]

My enemy is the Devil and not any human being, as I suggested by my quotation of Paul.  I am not contending against flesh and blood.

Peace.