Beliefs

Gays and Lesbians and

the Bigotry of Bible Literalists

Letter to the Citizen, Rev. Brian Kopke, January, 1999

There is a difference between scholarship and faith. Good scholarship applied to Levicitus 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death . . . " is not a condemnation of homosexuals. A narrow faith, leading one to believe the Bible is the word of God, may bring about such condemnation. Let's get to the core of the issue.

When Paul said that faith is the proof of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen, he did everyone a favour. He separated faith, as a proof, from all other sources of authority. I never argue with people who take the Bible literally. They are people of a faith I do not share. The difficulty with believing that the Bible is the word of God, rather than a complicated book of history and faith as recorded by inspired people, is the righteousness that most often comes with saying you have the once and for all answer to everything. Life, faith and the Gods and Goddesses are just more complicated than that.

When a literalist quotes Leviticus 20:13 as proof of God's damnation of homosexuality, it is not good scholarship. I am sure that even the editors of the Citizen would agree that one should not blithely believe all that makes it into print. Literalism can feed fear and prejudice and is based on a willingness to ignore the context, cultural setting, ask questions, and come to a best guess about what the words meant then. Application to today is another matter.

The words are part of the ancient Holiness Code, perhaps over 3000 years old but not written down until about 2500 years ago. The code sets out the way of life to be followed by the Israelites as people living on the frontier with unfaithful influences all around them. Much from round haircuts to wearing garments made from two types of material is disallowed. The basic reason for all this is to maintain purity and cultural identity. Death was the penalty.

Neither Jesus nor Saint Paul paid attention to the laws of the Holiness Code. Why? Because these laws laid out steps to be taken to achieve ritual purity on the frontier. Ritual purity was a way of focussing and strengthening the community. Everything had to add to the community. A man sleeping with a man was ritually impure - an abomination. It did not add to the community - presumably - children. The word ‘abomination' was reserved, usually referring to things that were ritually impure, that is, things that the Gentiles might do.

Scholarship requires that items are placed in context, not taken alone. I have no quarrels with people who are Biblical literalists until the point arrives when their faith hurts other good people. Gays and lesbians are often on the receiving end of cultural and religious prejudice concocted by churches.

Given the literalist's condemnation of homosexuality (the sin) but not the sinner, why does he neglect to embrace the homosexual as Jesus did the lepers? The lack of loving and understanding acceptance seems filled with demonic righteousness. That is downright dangerous in society. To be fair, one can be so liberal and accepting that there is a complete loss of critical judgement. I am sure literalists wonder if I have strayed that far. A fair point which readers will decide on their own.

Application of the words to today are problematic. Jesus and Paul chose not to carry them forth in any significant manner. They do not appear in the 10 Commandments or in the Summary of the Law. It was only later church interpreters, who joined shame and sex, who looked more closely at men sleeping with men. If one is going to be a literalist, those words came too late!

The selective nature with which the laws are treated create a problem. Why are gays and lesbians singled out? There is no good reason. Why are other tenants of the code neglected - wearing cloth made of two materials - Do you wear a drip and dry shirt? Why are you not condemned? Does you child have a round haircut? Why is he or she not condemned. It becomes foolish when we seek such consistency reminding us of the saw, "Consistency is the hobgoblin of foolish minds."

The request of the Ontario government, this week, for changes in federal law regarding homosexual couples goes a long way toward undoing a nasty legacy some churches have built. There is no place in this world for bigotry toward gays and lesbians. If one must look to religious authority, it is good just to take Jesus' injunction to love your neighbour. He did not say, " if they are straight."

A final note. Too many straight people have said to me that they wish gays and lesbians would not wear their sexuality on their arms. It is to the credit of some gays and lesbians that they have trashed the shame church fathers attached to sex. We would all be better off without most of it. No one would have to flaunt their sexuality if others treated them with respect, with love, and gave them a full measure of dignity. Till that day arrives, I will continue to believe that fighting prejudice where ever it appears is the right path.