Rowan Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

[ted_bloody_maul]

Rowan Williams says anti-gays misread Bible

The spiritual leader of the world's 77 million Anglicans has said conservative Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality are misreading a key passage written by Saint Paul almost 2,000 years ago.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, addressing theology students in Toronto, said an oft-quoted passage in Paul's Epistle to the Romans meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin.

His comments were an unusually open rebuff to conservative bishops, many of them from Africa, who have been citing the Bible to demand that pro-gay Anglican majorities in the United States and Canada be reined in or forced out of the Communion. 'Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage,' Williams said on Monday, according to a text of his speech posted on the Anglican Church of Canada's Web site. 'Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.' The worldwide Anglican Communion is near breaking point over homosexuality, with conservative clerics insisting the Bible forbids gay bishops or blessings for same-sex unions. Its U.S. branch, the Episcopal Church, named a gay bishop in 2003.

In fact, Williams also revealed on Tuesday that he had considered cancelling the Anglicans' once-a-decade 2008 Lambeth Conference, which has the potential to become a flashpoint over homosexuality. 'Yes, we've already been considering that and the answer is no,' he told the Anglican Church of Canada's Anglican Journal. 'We've been looking at whether the timing is right, but if we wait for the ideal time, we will wait more than just 18 months.' In the passage of Romans that Williams referred to in Monday's speech, Paul said people who forgot God's words fell into sin. 'Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion,' Paul wrote. Williams said these lines were 'for the majority of modern readers the most important single text in Scripture on the subject of homosexuality.' But right after that passage, Paul warns readers not to condemn those who ignore God's word. 'At whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself,' wrote Paul, the first-century apostle whose epistles, or letters, to early Christian communities elaborated many Church teachings.

NEITHER SIDE WINS

Williams said reinterpreting Paul's epistle as a warning against smug self-righteousness rather than homosexuality would favour neither side over the other in the bitter struggle that threatens to plunge the Anglican Communion into schism.

It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was 'as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.' This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been 'up to this point happily identifying with Paul's castigation of someone else,' and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added. 'This does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment,' Williams said. But he said a 'strictly theological reading of Scripture' would not allow a Christian to denounce others and not ask whether he or she were also somehow at fault.

Williams warned of the danger of schism. 'The Communion has to face the fact that there is a division in our Church and it's getting deeper and more bitter,' he said. 'If the Anglican Church divides, everyone will lose.' (Additional reporting by Randall Palmer in Ottawa)

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=594462007

 

[ElishevaBarsabe]

'If the Anglican Church divides, everyone will lose.'

Not fast on the uptake is he? It's all over but the formalities.

 

[JamesWhitehead]

'If the Anglican Church divides, everyone will lose.'

I thought they approved of divorces.

His: All those Smells & Bells.

Hers: All those gorgeous frocks.

Sorted.

 

[Quake42]

I do find it bizarre that so many Christians get so exercised about homsexuality. Yes, there are a couple of passages in the Bible which condemn it, but there are plenty others about the evils of pork and shellfish, detailing the correct rituals menstruating women should follow, etc etc. Yet even "fundamentalist" Christians seem happy to ignore these.

Quite why homosexuality should bother them so much is really beyond me.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

I do find it bizarre that so many Christians get so exercised about homsexuality. Yes, there are a couple of passages in the Bible which condemn it, but there are plenty others about the evils of pork and shellfish, detailing the correct rituals menstruating women should follow, etc etc. Yet even "fundamentalist" Christians seem happy to ignore these.

Quite why homosexuality should bother them so much is really beyond me.

Homophobia is so widespread amongst atheists and people of many different faiths that I think it suggests there's something instinctive about it, at least in men. I think it exists to some degree in most men although many will see it for what it is - an irrational fear of something they don't understand that seems to contradict what they see in themselves. As boys grow up and realise that, basically, people will be different to you and it doesn't mean that they're a threat, a bad person or someone you can't get along with then they can get over it.

Religions offers a sort of regression in this respect. It offers a code of principles which reinforce prejudices and fears rather than attempting to address them. I think that explains the popularity of the anti-homosexual lobby within Christianity. Other rules like those relating to shellfish, pork, menstruation etc are so abstract and arbitrary as to be of lesser emotional appeal.

With regards to the inconsistency that fundamentalist Christians demonstrate - you can say what you like about the Jews but at least they're consistent:

http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/show.php?ItemID=3078

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

Homophobia is so widespread amongst atheists and people of many different faiths that I think it suggests there's something instinctive about it, at least in men. I think it exists to some degree in most men although many will see it for what it is - an irrational fear of something they don't understand that seems to contradict what they see in themselves. As boys grow up and realise that, basically, people will be different to you and it doesn't mean that they're a threat, a bad person or someone you can't get along with then they can get over it.

...

Or cultural. Chimps don't worry about whether homosexuality is a good thing, or a bad thing, they just do what comes natural.

There are plenty of cultures where 'homosexuality' is pretty well integrated, although it's not been fenced off as a special form of sexuality, or political gender identity.

Those ancient Spartans, that young US manhood seems to be busy identifying itself with, had pederasty as a major part of their warrior apprenticeship system. To such an extent, that even the Athenians used to make jokes about it.

In societies where mixing with members of the opposite sex is made very difficult, close, sometimes intimate, relationships with members of the same sex are more prevalent.

There may be good solid cultural reasons why such arrangements not only exist, but remain unacknowledged. Western culture has politicised homosexuality, this may make other cultures where homosexuality has a different social framework, rather uncomfortable.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Or cultural. Chimps don't worry about whether homosexuality is a good thing, or a bad thing, they just do what comes natural.

As similar as we are in many ways to chimps there's still a great deal of difference between the species and it's difficult to compare aspects of psychology with any accuracy.

There are plenty of cultures where 'homosexuality' is pretty well integrated, although it's not been fenced off as a special form of sexuality, or political gender identity.

True but there are many cultures where it is not and these cultures have existed independently of each other for a long time.

There may be good solid cultural reasons why such arrangements not only exist, but remain unacknowledged. Western culture has politicised homosexuality, this may make other cultures where homosexuality has a different social framework, rather uncomfortable.

Of course, it could be argued that the cultures where 'homophobia' is not evident are so as a result of being politicised in much the same way. Also, it's not only the much maligned western culture which has politicised homosexuality and it's certainly by no means the worst example in the present day.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Which still seems to move away from the idea that homophobia is 'instinctual', rather than culturally defined.

The fact that various organised religions and through them, various forms of Hierarchical Society have found ways to control large groups of people, through the control of their sexuality, by defining social norms and manipulating feelings of guilty, fear of eternal retribution and the threat of divine wrath, is a major factor in instilling beliefs that the Authorities find socially useful into the Public at Large.

After all when are humans at their most vulnerable? Surely, when their biology and their deepest needs bring them up against the customs barriers of socially defined norms?

Isn't that one of the points where God's Holy Customs Officers, can start pulling on the rubber soul gloves and producing their inspection torches of Divine Insight?

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Which still seems to move away from the idea that homophobia is 'instinctual', rather than culturally defined.

Not really. If the argument that arbitrary cultural institutions can determine the limits of social norms applies to cultures where homophobia is rife then it must logically apply to those where it is not.

The fact that various organised religions and through them, various forms of Hierarchical Society have found ways to control large groups of people, through the control of their sexuality, by defining social norms and manipulating feelings of guilty, fear of eternal retribution and the threat of divine wrath, is a major factor in instilling beliefs that the Authorities find socially useful into the Public at Large.

Surely an institution would have more appeal if it allowed people to do as they please sexually? It's the issue of sex and the practise of it which prevents many people from adopting faith in a modern society. It's speculative to suggest that The persecution of homosexuality came about because it was considered an effective means of ordering social control. Where is the evidence that would suggest this is more likely the case than it being a manifestation of personal prejudices represented as the commandments of a god?

After all when are humans at their most vulnerable?

Usually after about eight pints although from what you say I'm not sure that figure applies to men.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Which still seems to move away from the idea that homophobia is 'instinctual', rather than culturally defined.

Not really. If the argument that arbitrary cultural institutions can determine the limits of social norms applies to cultures where homophobia is rife then it must logically apply to those where it is not.

Exactly. Not instinctual, arbitrary and cultural. Not hardwired, a matter of programming.

The fact that various organised religions and through them, various forms of Hierarchical Society have found ways to control large groups of people, through the control of their sexuality, by defining social norms and manipulating feelings of guilty, fear of eternal retribution and the threat of divine wrath, is a major factor in instilling beliefs that the Authorities find socially useful into the Public at Large.

Surely an institution would have more appeal if it allowed people to do as they please sexually? It's the issue of sex and the practise of it which prevents many people from adopting faith in a modern society. It's speculative to suggest that The persecution of homosexuality came about because it was considered an effective means of ordering social control. Where is the evidence that would suggest this is more likely the case than it being a manifestation of personal prejudices represented as the commandments of a god?

...

The Bible, for one example, is full of prohibitions and compulsory rules, which cover almost every aspect of the life of the individual and the individual's relationship to society. It's not just about sexuality, or menstruation, or haircuts and beards. It is about control, ensuring that the individual stays part of the congregation and accepts the prevalent belief system, without questioning.

There have been belief systems that celebrated licentiousness and freedom, usually more organised and authoritarian belief systems wiped them out, or absorbed them and found ways to use such beliefs safely within the dominant belief system.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Exactly. Not instinctual, arbitrary and cultural. Not hardwired, a matter of programming.

Again, no. You're suggesting that cultures in which there has been persecution have arisen from the forcing upon its peoples of concepts uncommon to them and that the proof of this is the existence of alternative cultures. The exact same claim could be made of those alternative cultures to prove the opposite of your point in this case.

The Bible, for one example, is full of prohibitions and compulsory rules, which cover almost every aspect of the life of the individual and the individual's relationship to society. It's not just about sexuality, or menstruation, or haircuts and beards. It is about control, ensuring that the individual stays part of the congregation and accepts the prevalent belief system, without questioning.

That's not evidence that the basis of the beliefs in the Bible came about through a desire, certainly not a conscious one at any rate, to control society rather than being an example of personal prejudices though, is it? They may have been adopted as such later on but the same could be said of any other popularised ideology or set of prejudices.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Exactly. Not instinctual, arbitrary and cultural. Not hardwired, a matter of programming.

Again, no. You're suggesting that cultures in which there has been persecution have arisen from the forcing upon its peoples of concepts uncommon to them and that the proof of this is the existence of alternative cultures. The exact same claim could be made of those alternative cultures to prove the opposite of your point in this case.

Yes I am and it is also possible that prevailing beliefs have been manipulated by the wielders of power to their own advantage. Cultural belief systems are much more volatile than you seem to think. That's why the descendants of the Aztecs no longer spend a lot of their time sacrificing prisoners at the tops of the pyramids, to ensure that the Sun keeps coming up in the mornings.

The Bible, for one example, is full of prohibitions and compulsory rules, which cover almost every aspect of the life of the individual and the individual's relationship to society. It's not just about sexuality, or menstruation, or haircuts and beards. It is about control, ensuring that the individual stays part of the congregation and accepts the prevalent belief system, without questioning.

That's not evidence that the basis of the beliefs in the Bible came about through a desire, certainly not a conscious one at any rate, to control society rather than being an example of personal prejudices though, is it? They may have been adopted as such later on but the same could be said of any other popularised ideology or set of prejudices.

Personal prejudice, or wilful control freakery, there's even less evidence of them being handed down from God, or based on biological necessity, especially when compared to other dominant belief systems, from other cultures. Arbitrary, seems a good word to describe such beliefs.

 

[ElishevaBarsabe]

His: All those Smells & Bells.

Hers: All those gorgeous frocks.

Sorted.

Other way around with the genders, James.

 

[elvissa]

I picked up a book in the library the other day called Friends & Lovers by Robert Brain. It's a bit ho-hum in places as he seems to be saying we're very naughty boys and girls for suggesting that close same-sex friendships are homosexual, however, he's got some cracking examples of what we might consider to be homosexual relationships in African tribal cultures, but also rural Spanish villages, etc.

Worth a read if you're fascinated by unusual anthropological facts!

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

I picked up a book in the library the other day called Friends & Lovers by Robert Brain. It's a bit ho-hum in places as he seems to be saying we're very naughty boys and girls for suggesting that close same-sex friendships are homosexual, however, he's got some cracking examples of what we might consider to be homosexual relationships in African tribal cultures, but also rural Spanish villages, etc.

Worth a read if you're fascinated by unusual anthropological facts!

Thanks, for that.

I had to look up stuff about elvissa's reference:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9602(197905)84:6<1513:FAL>2.0.CO;2-R&size=LARGE]

Out of print, by the looks of it, but a timely read.

 

[colpepper1]

I read this thread as 'Robbie Williams says...' Quite what the Bard of Stoke had to say on the matter intrigued me.

 

[GNC]

He's loving angels instead.

 

[decipheringscars]

Many of us "pro-gay" (actually, we try to just be pro-people) Episcopalians in the US have been disappointed with Williams because before he became ABC, his writings were very "pro-gay;" he's toned down a lot and we felt he'd lost his spine. This is encouraging to hear from him.

Still, one has to go a bit further. The Romans text is very exciting to people who want to encode heterosexism into Christianity, because the law codes of the"Old Testament" can be easily dismissed - as the shellfish and similar prohibitions. A reinforcement of one of them in the "New Testament" seems to imply there's some inherent, universal, eternal prohibition here. What this issue in the Anglican Communion is really about is authority and the interpretation of Scripture. (By "authority," in this context, we don't mean who's in charge, but what can you build on, where do you turn for answers, etc.) The article in the OP, BTW, didn't quote the whole text, either; it goes on to say similar things about women, implying that lesbianism is wrong - something the Torah never says.

But if (as Williams is saying, and as I've thought) Paul is basically reciting all the horrible things his audience presumably believes about the outsiders, only to turn it back on them, then what Paul is saying in this passage can't possibly be normative. Paul is also basing his characterization of the pagans on a passage in the book of Wisdom (a.k.a. Sirach), but he adds the homosexuality bit. Maybe it was a current popular complaint against the pagans. He was writing, apparently, to Jewish Christians in Rome. Homosexuality would have never been approved of in their own circles, but it certainly would be seen (and possibly misunderstood) in the wider culture around them.

Even more significantly, there was no such thing as "homosexuality" back then. There was pederasty, and "homosexuality" as we know it now was repulsive to the Romans and Greeks. To them, sexuality was all about control. There were more than 2 genders: there were Men, males, and women. Later when I have time I can look up the actual Greek and Roman words - right now I only remember "vir," from which we get "virtue," which refered to the free adult male heads of households. Other men - slaves, youth, and those who had lost their status as "real men," were a "lesser" gender. Any man who allowed himself to be penetrated (sexually or otherwise - e.g., beaten) was less than a Real Man. So two adult men living in an egalitarian homosexual relationship would have been looked down upon as equivalent to women, who were looked down upon in that culture.

Anyway, I have to go now - I'll try to polish this a bit later, but that's the gist of it. You can't condemn modern-day homosexuality by citing a text that refers to something else entirely, anyway. (I learned all this in seminary, BTW.)

 

[ElishevaBarsabe]

(I learned all this in seminary, BTW.)

Which one? Not CDSP, I hope.

 

[decipheringscars]

(I learned all this in seminary, BTW.)

Which one? Not CDSP, I hope.

Yes, actually! Why do you hope otherwise?

I had a class called "Gender, Sexuality, and the Bible," taught by one of the (then) doctoral students in New Testament, Sean Burke. By "all this" I mean the stuff about ancient sexuality - which my brief post doesn't do justice, of course.

OK, here goes:

The gist is that "man" ("aner" in Greek and "vir" in Latin - sorry, don't know how to do Greek characters here) includes both sex and class. You had to be not only male, but free-born (freed slaves didn't cut it), adult, and a citizen. You also had to guard against relinquishing your masculinity, which, as I said above, involved not allowing yourself to be penetrated, but also by doing manly things - such as excelling in sports, oratory, politics, or battle. These "excellences" were called "arete" in Greek, or "virtus" in Latin -both of which mean "manliness."

There were different words for men who did not qualify as "aner" or "vir" but I only seem to have the Greek in my notes: "arren."

Pederasty was an accepted system. It was part of becoming a man for the youth, and part of performing masculinity for the adult. But two adult men would not have engaged in a homosexual relationship without calling their manhood into question. Which is not to say it never happened, only that the persons in question would have had to keep it under wraps or accept their lower social status (so men whose birth already excluded them from full manhood didn't have as much to lose, I'd guess).

Now, however one chooses to apply that to biblical exegisis is another matter. The point I think is relevant is that sexuality, including homosexuality, was constructed differently back then, and St. Paul wasn't magically using the language the same way people 2,000 years later would. And if you want to make the "plain sense" reading of Paul normative, even ruling out Pseudo-Paul (which most biblical literalists would say was actually Paul), you'd have to accept that Paul accepts slavery, as is very clear in the letter to Philemon. If you want to apply the ancient context to that book but not Romans, you have to come up with a really good reason that method.

(PS - I mean the generic "you" here. I'm not directing this whole post at ElishevaBarsabe, just the first line.)

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

On a similar theme:

The BBC, a gay Mass and the nuns' transvestite bingo nights


The BBC is to relay a 'gay Mass' from San Francisco this Sunday, the first time such a service has been broadcast.

The 50-minute Mass at the Most Holy Redeemer Catholic Church in the predominantly gay Castro district of the city will feature prayers and readings tailored for the gay community.

The church has been described as an 'inspiration' to gay and lesbian Christians around the world because of its ministry to homosexuals. Its parish priest, Father Stephen Meriweather, blesses participants in the San Francisco's annual gay pride march.

But it has also infuriated many Catholics in the U.S. who have complained about such activities as transvestite bingo nights during which sex toys and pornographic DVDs were handed out as prizes.

Last night a media watchdog said Sunday's radio broadcast was 'bound to cause offence' to mainstream Christians.

John Beyer of Mediawatch UK, an organisation which campaigns for standards in the media, said he thought it was a mistake to broadcast the service. 'Religious broadcasting, apart from Songs of Praise, tends to focus on the out-of-the-ordinary and having this particular service I think will cause offence to people who feel that such practices are wrong and are taught as such in holy scripture,' Mr Beyer said. 'The BBC really ought to be focusing on mainstream services which are more in keeping with the public service requirement that it has.' However, Father Donal Godfrey, the U.S. Jesuit priest celebrating the Mass, said he was delighted the BBC was 'exploring how gay people fit into the perspective of the Christian narrative'. 'Being gay is not special,' he said. 'It's simply another gift from God who created us as rainbow people.' The recording will go out at 8.10am to two million listeners on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday Worship programme.

The preacher will be James Alison - a homosexual British Catholic theologian and author of 'Is it ethical to be Catholic? - Queer perspectives'.

Weeks after the BBC finished recording the service last October, it emerged that a transvestite group calling themselves the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence regularly staged lewd and irreverent bingo nights on the church premises.

The San Francisco archdiocese-stopped the events when it was discovered that prizes of a sexual nature were being handed out by the group, who dress as nuns.

In the past members of the group have paraded naked through the city advertising a 'hunky Jesus' contest. Their motto is: 'Go and sin some more.'

A spokesman for BBC Radio 4 said: 'The strength of Sunday Worship is its diversity. It aims to reflect a variety of Christian spiritualities, and for that reason, when editorially appropriate - on average about once a quarter - comes from outside the UK. 'Taking the theme 'Finding a place in the Christian narrative' this programme comes from the largest and oldest predominantly gay area in the world, from a Catholic community which has an experienced and developed understanding of the issues of being gay and Christian. 'As far as we know this is the first time the subject of being gay and Christian has been explored by the programme.' The Roman Catholic Church holds that sex belongs in the context of heterosexual marriage and that gay sex is 'objectively disordered'. However, it also teaches that homosexual orientation is not in itself sinful and that gays and lesbians must be treated with respect and be free from unjust discrimination.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770