Knowing you, you didn't come up with this idea out of the blue. So what do you use to determine what is right and what is wrong within the Scriptures themselves?Originally Posted by Benjamin Burch
Knowing you, you didn't come up with this idea out of the blue. So what do you use to determine what is right and what is wrong within the Scriptures themselves?
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingPaul DeBaufer - "thanks" for this post
Here is the root cause of any issue you would like to adress in the Nazarene or any other conversation among Christians: "I, however, think the Bible is wrong." This is the sum of 6 years of theological training? Thank you for summarizing our problems so succinctly. I personally would rather be an uneducated fool, accept any topic covered by the Bible at face value, and consider the question settled than to be educated enough to make such a staement, in any context or proof text. For me it doesn't matter how Benjamin decides to determine the difference between right and wrong. His arguments no longer have any merit.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This, Dan, is the post traditional theology forum. The question, therefore, is on topic here. Your dismissal, however, is not.
This forum has been created by me with the specific goal to allow for discussions that go beyond the regular borders. In a forum like this, folks who dismiss that very concept, have no business for they have made their ideas irrelevant on this specific forum.
But you can attack Ben's view to your heart's desire at the regular theology forum.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Dan, the Bible also requires men who've raped a woman to marry her, and condones spousal abuse by portraying YHWH as a spouse abuser. To treat the Bible as a transcendent text which is correct at all times, in all ways, on everything it says, is the scariest thing I can possibly imagine.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Apparently Ben you have a right to your opinion in this forum but I don't. Hans and Steve have made that abundantly clear. So I guess you get to state whatever you wish unchallenged.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Nope. However, it can be challenged from different perspectives/angles. If you'd like to critique and challenge it from your angle, you are more than welcome to start a new thread on the General Theology Forum. It really is not censorship, it is organization.
Some people don't want to have certain conversations. They want to have different conversations without getting continually bogged down in the same conversations they find undesirable. If you wish to have those conversations, there is a forum for that. You are more than welcome to quote my post and drag it into the other forum, starting a thread, just as Hans did. It's a free forum that way. Feel free to do so.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I love this thread and forum! Thanks for starting it!! I agree with Ben (big surprise).
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Hans, I will answer your question sometime tonight or tomorrow. I want to give it the time and attention it deserves.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Ben,
What has led you to see some of these things as "wrong"? Have you come to that conclusion completely on your own, or have you picked up other values in scripture that have led you to conclude that some parts of the scripture are inconsistent with those parts that have contributed to your values? For instance, where'd you come up with a position against spousal abuse? Some of us tend to be against it because of higher values the scripture promotes.
And . . . why have you stooped to do what a lot of hair brained posters do herein: call something pretty simple that just isn't? (I readily admit, that though I enjoy your posts most the time, I can't always follow your sarcasm.)
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
While I promise to answer these questions fully after I am finished with my final paper, allow me to address your final question here.
I will admit that I sometimes do stoop to this, and for that I need to improve, but this is not one of those cases.I apologize for it not being clear. What I meant by "pretty simple" was that I am not going to try and create some twisted, convoluted thing. My position is simple - I think the Bible is wrong.
Does that make sense? Not that my position is "pretty simple" to see that it is correct, just that it is a simple position! I'm sorry for the confusion.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm thinking we might do well to elaborate a little more on what we believe about the bible. It seems like the scripture's primary purpose is first to reveal to us the nature and character of God, and that in conjunction with such revelation as accomplished by Christ - both in scriptural and personal relationship. That revelation can also incorporate Wesley's quadrilateral. As we discover the nature and character of God, our interpretation of scripture must be validated by who He is. Admittedly, my argument is rather circular: let scripture reveal to us what God is like, and then validate scripture in light of that revelation.
I think I'd like to continue this after you finish your paper, and I finish grading a stack.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Thank you, Dennis, for your thoughtful questioning. Thank you Hans, for the question itself. Thank you, to any who are willing, for allowing me to talk through/about this.
Dan... start that thread in the General Theology Forum. It might be a good conversation. The avenue is available to you. I invite you to take it.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Is it possible that the Bible does not speak to every situation we will encounter and that at times God places difficult circumstances in our path so that we will rely on Jesus for the answer? Certainly the Bible is valid for helping us determine if the message we are receiving from Jesus is consistent with what Jesus taught in the Bible. But what is of greater importance? Jesus or the Bible? If the Bible contradicts what Jesus is telling us today and that same message is consistent with who Jesus was in the Bible, do we follow Jesus or the Bible? What if there are others with the same message from Jesus so that the community of believers can confirm the message?
Not suggesting anything on my end just proposing questions that might reflect where Benjamin is coming from. (Of course it will be clearer when he responds.But his statement did cause me to pause and consider.)
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I agree with the statement you made that led to the creation of this thread. I too would like to hear your rationale. I don't quite have one formulated well enough to express.
You can be right or you can be in relationship
I would surmise his educated opinion is the ultimate guide to right and wrong within and without scriptures. Like every post in any forum it is all a matter of opinion.
Person A says, the Bible is authoritative in all matters concerning XYZ, but in error on ABC.
Person B says the Bible is wrong on many points and cannot be trusted in all matters of faith in God.
Person C says, the Bible is divinely inspired and is inerrant, infallible, and contains absolute truth.
Person D says the Bible was written by men. It is not the written Word, Jesus is the Word so lets just follow Jesus.
See, it is all opinions. No Proofs are needed. Besides, they are untrusted by the other post-modern opinions anyway.
Eventually, it will come down to Jesus coming back seperating the sheep from the goats, the pure from the impure, the holy from the corrupted, the deceived from the discerning and prudent, the faithful from the unfaithful, the overcomers from those that shrink back. Until then it is all just opinion and every one is entitled to thier own. We all choose to believe what fills our hearts desire most adequately. But, this is of course just another opinion.
That we do, you , me, them, all of us whether we want to admit it or not.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Ditto to what Ben replied. You are smart enough, Dan. You can do a lot better than write what you did here.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)
You you are correct, Hans, I am smart enough. I am smart enough to know when discussion is no longer an option. Even in an open "anything goes" discussion one can cross the line and Ben has done so. It one thing to ask "Is the Bible true, given ...?" and quite another to state, "I believe the Bible is wrong?" The latter leaves no room for discussion. There is a phrase in the medical profession that if I hear it uttered, that person will go no where near my patients, any of them, for any reason. The phrase, is "that patient is better off dead" I hear that, you are fired (de-credentialed if I can do it), period, no discussion, no trial. That is a line that will not be crossed in my area of influence. I don't even care if it was a joke. I will not take that risk. Ben has crossed such a line. I will not risk the care and teaching of those I love to him, even if he was joking.
This discussion might be about religion, but it can in no way be construed as a discusion about a Christian religion, or regarding the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. And for that reason; I'm out.
It's actually not even a discussion because you aren't willing to listen. Ben hasn't even had a chance to explain what he means and what led him to say what he said and you're just dismissing him altogether.
Most good things have been said far too many times and just need to be lived. - Shane ClaibornePost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Well, you have to grant it to Dan, he gives a perfect illustration as to why he should not post on this forum. And I understand, he reached that conclusion for himself as well. That is gain and works much better than having to convince people who don't see it. Dan does, for which I am grateful.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
We are all post-modern and post-tradition. It comes with living in the 21st century. Some just go kicking and screaming being reactive to the changes and dealing with the fallout while others light the bombs.
Glad you agree with me. But, I am wondering why Hans and Todd thanked you for agreeing with me....but not me for pointing out....what you agreed with me on.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Because Paul agreed with a portion of your post, not the whole post. I agreed with Paul's statement about your post, but not your post itself. I would think that this would be self evident.We are all post-modern and post-tradition. It comes with living in the 21st century. Some just go kicking and screaming being reactive to the changes and dealing with the fallout while others light the bombs.
Glad you agree with me. But, I am wondering why Hans and Todd thanked you for agreeing with me....but not me for pointing out....what you agreed with me on.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If that were true, this forum could be closed.
But there are still many who, with a very modern mindset, try to place everything in systems. Who keep pushing statements to logical absurdities, because they cannot deal with paradoxes. Thereby showing they still think very modern indeed.
Till they have become post modern, there is still a need for this forum.
"No scripture can mean that God is not love, or that his mercy is not over all his works" (John Wesley - Free Grace, 26)Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
That's sort of the point, Dan. This forum was created for people to explain and explore various trains of thought and make their own determinations of agreement or disagreement.
I'm interested in hearing Ben's explanation as he has time to give it, interacting with it critically, and delving deeper into the thought process.
Speaking pastorally, the phrase, "the bible is wrong," is problematic for a lot of reasons - the major one deftly illustrated by your reaction here. As with any simple phrase, there is likely a lot behind it. I want to hear and learn what that is before I judge the content of the argument.
This forum exists mainly so those people who will say, "that's wrong, it just is, and I don't see any point in discussing it," don't have to.
Just from the brief comments Ben made, I don't think I could be persuaded to agree with him - but I'm willing to have the conversation and explore why he's said what he said. This is the dedicated space for such a discussion.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Yes, the phrase "the bible is wrong" leads far too many people to shut off their ears/brains and start reaching for weapons.
Where the Bible gets something 'wrong', our interpretation has to be nimble enough to focus on the truth of the message and not stumble over the secondary details. Such is the nature of ancient texts. Some things are lost in translation (both language and culture), while other things are just plain lost.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us wthout end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. LewisPost Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
wrong
[rawng, rong] Show IPA
adjective
1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2. deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3. not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5. out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.
I would say that Ben does believe the Bible is wrong based on the above definitions of wrong.
He may even have some more definitions of the word wrong to add to the above.
It seems to boil down to the idea that if we take the book in total and if that is the case then Ben sayng it is wrong would be a true statement. If the opposite is the Bible is without error, does not deviate from the truth or is not wrong in facts, is always correct in opinion, action, method, and judgment, is always proper and in accordance with recommended practices, is never out of order, awry or amiss. If we are left with a perfect Bible, flawless in word and translation, or saying it is wrong.....then Ben chooses wrong over perfect.
Perhaps I am wrong but if that is the case then many would actually agree with Ben....more or less.
Flawed or perfect......in all ways? or...
Flawed or perfect in all things necessary to salvation?
Am I on the right track here or the wrong track?
Drumroll please............................................ .................................................. ......................
I probably could have stated this differently/better. I do believe that the Bible errs and that those specific voices which explicitly condemn homosexual behavior and would extend this condemnation to cover even monogamous homosexual relationships are wrong in their condemnation.
That is a better, clearer articulation of my position.
As such, Dennis did a nice job of hearing what I was attempting to say, and translating for me:
Dennis has also started by setting a primer for what I would say, as he asks this question:
To which I would want to clearly answer, "Yes, that is what I have done/attempted to do."have you picked up other values in scripture that have led you to conclude that some parts of the scripture are inconsistent with those parts that have contributed to your values?
There are plenty of things in the Bible - usually in the Old Testament, though sometimes in the New - that we simply don't follow, and we have understood them to be products of culture from which we can move.
The sexual and marital ethic of the Bible as a whole simply is not a healthy one.
There is always this image to illustrate this point. It's a little over the top, sure, but it illustrates the point well. The Bible is a culturally conditioned document in which marriage is understood in an acutely cultural way.
Another problem is the way that the marriage image is used outside of such explicit discussions on marriage, where the metaphor is used by the prophets. These specific texts (Hosea 2, Jeremiah 13, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23) are extremely hurtful and harmful in their portrayal of marriage. The husband is justified in using violence, rape, and even murder as means for punishing the wife for her infidelity.
We would - and should - have no problem condemning this picture of marriage today. And while we might want to say that the prophets were using real goings on (the awful realities of the Babylonian siege) and speaking accurately about YHWH bringing judgment on Israel for sin. That is fair. However, a metaphor works because there is fertile ground in which for it to make sense, and this image of marriage is endorsed by the use of the metaphor, as well as the portrayal of the righteous YHWH as the violent husband who uses these means as punishment for the unfaithful wife.
If one needs grounds on which to say this is bad, I'd simply point to the revelation of Christ as a whole, as well as John 8 and the woman caught in adultery. I realize that this is a contested passage which some conservative-minded people who don't like the implication would like to remove, but that is now what the Scriptures.
"Scripture" is not a term which refers to some pristine, original texts written by some authors, but instead to the final, accepted, canonical shape in which the Church has declared them to be Scripture. Thus, I accept John 8 as Scripture and see it as standing in direct contradiction to images placed before.
.................................................. .................................................. ........................
**contextual side-note**
(What I say here will help you understand everything else that gets said)
In every Christian Liturgy that I know of, the Gospel reading is set at the climax of the Liturgy of the Word and it is accompanied by words, actions, and symbols which all proclaim an exalted status for the Gospels. These are the texts which reveal Christ to us most directly, and Christ is the one who reveals the father (John 14:9), and it is these words which are the "words of life" (John 6:68).
It is only in light of this that the other texts of Scripture - most notably the OT - can be understood as also revealing Christ. I take this seriously, and the Gospels take priority in my Scriptural hermeneutic.
.................................................. .................................................. ..........................
I also believe that the Bible provides us with a hermeneutic which challenges previous things and reinterprets itself in new places, new times, new contexts.
Now, I warn you in advance, you're getting a very quick run-by of work/thoughts that have been a year in the making, and will be over a year in writing eventually to articulate fully (and probably over 50 pages).
I accept Walter Brueggemann's portrayal of Deuteronomy as not simply a retelling of the Law, but as a reinterpretation of the Law. Instead of the law coming from Sinai, it is given from the edge of the land. A different time. A different place.
It is positioned at the end of the Torah, suggesting that the re-interpretive task taken on by Moses in the "Second Law" is an open-ended task which the people of God must take up and continue.
From here, I would suggest that Matthew attempts to portray Jesus as the fulfillment and continuation of this exact task. Jesus reinterprets the Law for the people from atop the mountain, in a new place, in a new context. Not only does Jesus do this, but OT concepts of marriage are among the items which Jesus challenges and reinterprets and they are also the only topic which was important enough that Jesus in Matthew revisits this reninterpretation later (Matthew 19).
That should be a good start for now. Another post coming, but I want to break it up for people and organize it a little bit.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 10 Thanks, 0 Laughing
To summarize and organize a bit from my previous post, I offer the following points before I move on.
(1) We already freely reject certain concepts of the Biblical sexual and marital ethic before this conversation starts
(2) The Bible offers a hermeneutic of continual re-interpretation in contexts - new times and new places - and calls the people of God into that re-interpretive task
(3) The Biblical marital and sexual ethic is a topic which is open to reinterpretation and which the Bible re-interprets, re-thinks, and even rejects in part as a part of its reinterpretation.
(4) The revelation of Jesus Christ in the Gospels should stand at the center of our re-interpretive hermeneutics, as the lens through which we view all other Scripture
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the New Testament's re-interpretive practice, the ethical codes of the Old Testament are reinterpreted by both Jesus and Paul, and a summary of their reinterpretation is offered as such:
For both Paul and Jesus, to love one's neighbor is to fulfill the entire law. The specifics of the law seem to disappear, and Paul's entire ministry as well as letters seem to suggest exactly this. While those who are transformed and righteous fulfill the law, they do so by truly loving one another - not by following specifics.
In case there was actually any doubt about the fact that this statement by Jesus was meant to challenge and reinterpret the Law in a new time, new place, new context, Luke dispels that doubt immediately with the following:
This is the basis of all discussion of sin, and therefore the question must be asked - and the ground to ask this question has been opened by by considerations 1-4.
(a)Does homosexual marriage, in a monogamous relationship analogous to heterosexual marriage, break the law of loving one's neighbor as one's self? No.
(b) Does it break the law of loving God? Only if we say they are disobeying God.
However, I do not believe you can say they are disobeying God because all of God's ethical commands regulating relationships between people exist to ensure [a]. Also, the grounds for questioning whether this is really against God's commands has already been laid by 1-4.
From here, one more point needs to be considered: Natural design.
The Church often resorts to this as its go-to reasoning for why homosexuality is sinful. It violates the "natural order" which God intended. However, this fails on 2 different points.
(1) We do not use this reasoning for any other sin. Homosexuality is the only sin for which we use this reasoning. Therefore, this is suspect at best.
(2) God did not, in fact, design heterosexuality into the way the world was created.
- God did not create a primeval pair "Adam and Eve."
- God utilized evolution as a means of creation, which has produced natural homosexual behavior in some 2,000 different species, including every great ape, of which humans are included.
- It seems that there are those for whom, in fact, homosexuality is their natural design.
Therefore, monogamous homosexual marriage does not appear to violate the great command by which Christians determine sinful and righteous behavior and "natural design" as a fall-back reasoning is faulty, ultimately failing on both of its central claims.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The later epistles continue this re-interpretive task specifically in regards to the marital and sexual ethic.
Both 1 Timothy 3 and Ephesians 5 present a different model of marriage, whereby polygamy which was once considered acceptable by all of the Bible's religious patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, David), is now rejected and considered unacceptable for every class of religious patriarch in the Church, Bishops and Deacons.
I will let you all catch up, and start another post where I do a little more organizing and summarizing before continuing. I'm not confident in how clear and coherent I have been to this point.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 7 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Wow Ben!
This is very interesting and thought provoking. I was a bit taken back by the original wording and this post is helping see your point. It is always interesting how we pick and chose which laws are cultural and which are universal. It is especial harsh to look at the Law and see how a young woman who is raped is stoned for not crying out for someone to hear. Where do we draw the line?
My Friends Call Me Stew!Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Good post Ben. At the end of the day it does not persuade me but you put forward a strong arguement and demonstrate the value of this forum. Listening.
Thank you
Fear not those who argue but those who dodge. -- Marie von Ebner-EschenbachPost Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Again, some summary of where we've been so far:
(1) We already freely reject certain concepts of the Biblical sexual and marital ethic before this conversation starts
(2) The Bible offers a hermeneutic of continual re-interpretation in contexts - new times and new places - and calls the people of God into that re-interpretive task
(3) The Biblical marital and sexual ethic is a topic which is open to reinterpretation and which the Bible re-interprets, re-thinks, and even rejects in part as a part of its reinterpretation.
(4) This re-interpretation, re-thinking, and rejection extends throughout the whole of the New Testament, Gospels, Pauline Epistles, and Pastoral Epistles
(4) The revelation of Jesus Christ in the Gospels should stand at the center of our re-interpretive hermeneutics, as the lens through which we view all other Scripture
(5) Within this revelation of Jesus Christ, the specifics of the Law are replaced with a summary of them, the Great Commandment, whereby Christians are told following is righteous and not following is sinful. --- This move is seconded by Paul.
(6) This re-interpretation is explicitly portrayed as such a re-interpretation.
(7) Within the light of our task, and the basis for this task, it appears that homosexuality does not violate the Great Commandment, and the "Natural Design" rational fails on both of its central claims.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would not like to pick back up on this re-interpretive task and offer a hermeneutic for going about it. I would suggest that the Bible has already, based upon the above re-interpretive realities within the text, presented us with multiple voices on the topic and has suggested to us that there is more to be said than what has simply been said explicitly. There is a conversation to be had.
Thus, I would suggest the technique of Mikhail Bakhtin as a proper hermeneutic whereby we honor these dialectic voices and place them in dialogue with one another.
Therefore, I have already set up and suggested that Jesus' words in the Gospels are a direct conversation partner with the OT regulations considering marriage, fidelity, and punishment, and that the Pastoral Epistle's regulations for monogamy are a direct conversation partner with OT voices which propagate polygamy.
Both of these new, re-interpretive voices function fundamentally as rejections of prior Scriptural modes of understanding, offered by Scripture itself, as the voices of the People of God found themselves in new times, new places, new contexts and with new knowledge within which to (re)understand marriage.
The last conversation partners are the marriage metaphor utilized by the prophets in Hosea 2, Ezekiel 16, Ezekiel 23, and Jeremiah 13, which are engaged in conversation by the marriage metaphor utilized by Ephesians 5, which, again, functions fundamentally as a rejection of the prior metaphor and mode of understanding which produced it.
In Hosea 2, the husband is permitted to shame the wife, taking her before the authorities and stripping her bare, in a display that would have involved violence. The woman does not have a voice, only the man, and the woman is at the mercy of the man. From here, after this abuse, the husband "speaks tenderly" to the wife so as to bring her back as his wife, in an image which can be described as nothing other than emotional abuse.
In Ezekiel 16 and 23 a husband (of a minor, who raises that minor and thus assumes power over her) is justified in bringing violence, destruction, and even death upon his unfaithful wife in language which conveys an image of gang-rape by her enemies.
In Jeremiah 13, the husband of the unfaithful wife is again justified in bringing violence and destruction upon his unfaithful wife, directly allowing her enemies acces to anally rape her.
In each of these, the stark contrast between male and female is maintained, the strict "other-ness" is central to the metaphor, while utilizing and endorsing an understanding of the female of the one who is always unfaithful, and is illustrated as so specifically through her sexuality and her parts by which she practices and displays this sexuality... and the husband who is always righteous, even in his violence.
In conversation with these, Ephesians 5 offers a different version of marriage, a different metaphor:
A new vision of the husband has been cast, as one who cares for his wife, one who loves her, and even serves her. This husband, instead of lashing out violently at his wife's unfaithfulness, is a husband worthy of her faithfulness, who works to help her stay holy.Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Saviour. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, in order to make her holy by cleansing her with the washing of water by the word, so as to present the church to himself in splendour, without a spot or wrinkle or anything of the kind—yes, so that she may be holy and without blemish. In the same way, husbands should love their wives as they do their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hates his own body, but he nourishes and tenderly cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, because we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church. Each of you, however, should love his wife as himself, and a wife should respect her husband.
This husband even gives his life up for his wife, in a radical reversal of the previous image offered by the prophets.
What is most important here is that a new image of "husband and wife" emerges. Instead of "male and female" where the sexual parts of the woman are magnified and explicitly noted so as to create her otherness, we are given a new image, one of "Christ and Church." While the author speaks in terms of "her" and "his", the actual sexuality of the two parties which is so clear in the prophetic metaphor has been removed, and replaced with modal representations, without consideration of sex.
Instead, a monogamous relationship is offered which is to mirror the relationship of Christ to the Church. The vocabulary of "him" and "her" has been subverted by the author's own image/metaphor, and this metaphor continues to subvert this sexual construal by assigning the designation "her" to that which is clearly represented as a unit which comprises both male and female (Church). Thus, the gender of the wife is not sexual, based on sexual organs like in the prophets, and what she does with those, but instead it is ambiguous, based on relationship to the husband.
Lastly, the drastic "other-ness" of the prophetic metaphor is also subverted by the author of Ephesians' mixed metaphor. That is, while the wife in the prophetic metaphor is completely other from the husband, unholy, unfaithful, and evil, in need of a husband to raise her up the right way, Ephesians' metaphor refuses to allow us to stay here. The author once again attempts to use such language, but is subverted by the fact that the husband's body is the wife herself, The Church is both wife as well as Body of the husband. The otherness is removed, and once more replaced with ambiguity, as the husband and wife move in and out, past and through each other, as one in the same, with one being members of the other.
Thus, Ephesians 5, I believe, is not only fundamentally a rejection of prior modes of marital understanding, but also subverts its own vocabulary with its dominant metaphor, leaving the parties ambiguous, and inviting the Church once more into the task of re-interpreting and re-thinking marriage in a new time, new place, and new context in which we now find ourselves today.
Thus, I would say again....
I think that where the Bible explicitly addresses homosexuality, it condemns it. Not only does it condemn it, but I believe that these condemnations extend to cover even that which we would understand today as monogamous, homosexual marriages. However, I believe that these explicit voices are wrong. I believe this because I believe that we have been given not only explicit voices, but also implicit voices if we listen hard enough to hear them. I believe the Bible has consistently carried on the task of re-thinking and re-interpreting marriage, re-imagining it in new contexts and I believe in its doing so it has already asked us to reject other voices in the text of Scripture, even explicit voices.
I believe this to be a position that is both faithful to Scripture while at the same time stating unequivocally that some of the voices contained therein are - and can be - wrong.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You'll have to read the 3rd post to get the full thing!
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If nothing else... I hope this displays that I have been thoroughly and sufficiently thoughtful, careful, and honest in my interaction with the Biblical text.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
The natural design argument is one that I find particularly compelling. If a certain lifestyle or behavior results in the destruction and shorten lifespan of another, then I have to consider whether or not the actions and behavior that brought that reality about are loving. I think there is enough medical opinion to make this a valid concern. I will say it again, men engaging in sexual acts with other men are simply abusing their bodies. The body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. Yes, heterosexual acts of physical intimacy can be unhealthy too. Not making excuses. But men and women are designed for each other. More later.
Bob, I wonder where you get your information? Is there a particular study you can refer to? I just don't agree that your statement regarding sex acts (not your argument because it fits with obesity, smoking, drinking etc - all of which are not mentioned). Sex acts can be many different things with men/men just as they are with men/women. For pro-creation purposes, yes, men and women do "fit" together however, that's not truly the crux of what is being discussed here.
Thanks for pointing me to your source(s).
Heidi
Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I would point you to my critique of this idea here.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Heidi,
There is no hiding it. Gay men are at higher risk. I can't dig too deep, because my time is limited, but here is something made available by the department of Health in New York state:
http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/ai...h_concerns.htm
Notice the terminology; higher rate, higher risk, increased risk, etc. I could give you more, thanks for asking. Not a hard task.
I reject the argument that animals are homosexual therefore, we can be. Animals are not humans! I lived on a farm, and I can tell you that while a female heffer may get humped by another female, at the end of the day when the Bull shows up, lo and behold the real thing happens whether it produces a calf or not! When heffer's hump, it is shortlived and usually not welcomed by the heffer on the receiving end. I learned a lot on a farm, I will not buy that argument!
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
To be clear, that is not the argument. Of course they are not. The question is, what is the natural design? The answer to that question does not appear to be, by any credible means, "exclusively heterosexual."
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I hope you noticed the terminology of "may" before most of the terms you quoted. Also the key terminology seems to be "unprotected." Therefore you could conclude with the logic you are proposing that it is unnatural to be African American or Hispanic since African Americans have a higher risk of high blood pressure and Hispanics have a higher risk of diabetes. The site you gave did not in anyway offer and conclusive evidence that shows that homosexuals have a higher risk than heterosexuals who engage in unprotected sexual activity with multiple partners just check with the CDC. The only issue with any merit is the issue of depression and higher suicide rates which has nothing to do with the lifestyle as much as the way people are treated in society. People who are bullied have higher rates of such issues as well.
My Friends Call Me Stew!Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Ben, I thank you for your research and conclusions reached. It really does keep coming back to interpreting through Jesus and His great commandments: Love. Thank you. I will have to print your 3 posts out for friends, if that is alright with you.
You can be right or you can be in relationshipPost Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
