Showing posts with label David Gushee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Gushee. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Homosexual Sues God

I'm not quite sure what to make of this. The lawsuit has been filed. Personally I think Fowler offers an interesting argument according to USA Today:
,,,referring to homosexuality as a sin have made him an outcast from his family and contributed to physical discomfort and periods of "demoralization, chaos and bewilderment."

The intent of the publisher was to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group's conclusion to cause "me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence ... including murder," Fowler wrote.
You see, 1 Corinthians 6:9 presents a very interesting conundrum in regards to interpretational history of the Greek malakoi (and arsenokoites). 

For the most part if one studies the history of how the word has been translated throughout history going all the way back to Tyndales 1526 version, it was first translated as "weakling".  In 1609, starting with the Douay-Rheims, it "changed" to effeminate.  Early 20th century, a meaning of male prostitution was adopted (in reference to the shrine prostitution).

It wasn't until the McCarthy era of the 50s that words such as "sexual pervert" or "guilty of homosexual perversion" was adopted.  And this point is important, it was cultural factors that influenced modern translators to inject anti-gay bias into their translation.  But it wasn't until the early to mid 2000s that the word "homosexual" in the derogatory sense was fully adopted.

(Conservative) Translators, and their publishers, are imposing a 20th-21st century cultural meaning on a "word" (text) written in the 1st century. And that is not even taking into account the grammatical issues of the Greek language at the time of Paul's writings. 

Another issue that are often overlooked by modern day agenda driven translators, the use of malakoi in antiquity.  In other words -Plato, Aristotle and Josephus to name a few - malakoi meant soft or weak.  Then there is the  cultural issues, as well as the vice lists.  (I have addressed shrine prostitution elsewhere, but that also needs consideration as well.)

As for arsenokoites, let's just say that Paul was the first to use this term, "a composite word, made up from two previously existing words that do not seem to have been put together before in Greek literature."  In antiquity it was again used only in reference to the "vice lists,"

So to borrow from David Gushee:
Clear yet?

How might the history of Christian treatment of gays and lesbians have been different if arsenokoitai had been translated “sex traffickers” or “sexual exploiters” or "rapists" or "sexual predators" or “pimps”? Such translations are plausible, even if not the majority scholarly reconstruction at this time. And they are at least as adequate, or inadequate, as “homosexual,” a term from our culture with a range of meanings including sexual orientation, identity, and activity, and not a word from Paul’s world.

It might have been nice if in our English Bibles the genuine uncertainty about how to translate Paul's neologism arsenokoitai, or the two words malakoi and arsenokoitai together, at least had been mentioned in a footnote.

But alas — most of the translations we got read as if every "homosexual" person was being condemned — to eternal fire. This overly confident translation decision then shadowed the lives of all LGBT people, most sadly gay and lesbian adolescents rejected by their mothers and fathers (and pastors and youth ministers) as hell-bound perverts. 


Very high-level scholarly uncertainty about the meaning and translation of these two Greek words, exacerbated by profound cultural and linguistic differences between what we (think we) know about Paul's world and what we do know about our own, undermines claims to the conclusiveness of malakoi and arsenokoitai for resolving the LGBT issue.

I deeply lament the damage done by certain questionable and sometimes crudely derogatory Bible translations in the lives of vulnerable people made in God's image.
And that my dear readers is why - as odd as Fowler's lawsuit appears - Bill Muehlenbergher may be eating his words, "Don’t like what the Bible says? No probs, just sue the publishers. Silence all opposition and stamp under foot any contrary points of view. And of course all this homofascism and pink tyranny is being done in the name of tolerance, diversity and acceptance."

Well sir, maybe if the translators and publisher's actually did their jobs and presented a well rounded translation we wouldn't be having this issue. (Ignoring the the fact that - uh, god doesn't exist.)
And that is just what we find. An American guy is not quite suing God, but the next best thing: he is suing God’s Word. Yep a homosexual is suing the Bible. And it is not hard to imagine why. Here is how one article on this begins:
A homosexual man is suing a third national Bible publisher for “mental anguish” after he says the company published Bibles with a negative connotation toward homosexuals. Bradley LaShawn Fowler of Canton, Mich., alleges Tyndale House Publishers manipulated Scripture when it published Tyndale’s New Living Translation Holy Bible and the New Life Application Study Bible by using the term “homosexuals” in a New Testament passage, 1 Corinthians 6:9….

As WND reported, Fowler, who had a blog on Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign website last year, filed his initial complaint against Christian publishers Zondervan and Thomas Nelson Publishing. Fowler, who represented himself in both lawsuits, said in his complaint against Zondervan that the publisher intended to design a religious, sacred document to reflect an individual opinion or a group’s conclusion to cause “me or anyone who is a homosexual to endure verbal abuse, discrimination, episodes of hate, and physical violence … including murder.” He told the Grand Rapids’ WOOD-TV in 2008 that he wants to “compensate for the past 20 years of emotional duress and mental instability.”
Well, he got the ‘mental instability’ part right at least. This guy is a real nut job. This is just one big sick joke. Unfortunately however the mindset behind this is becoming more common and more serious. For years now the militant homosexual activists have been claiming that the Bible is a book full of “hate speech”.
Homosexual Sues God

Saturday, November 1, 2014

ADDENDUM::What David Gushee’s change of heart really means | Denny Burk

So the other day I posted about David Gushee's defection in regards to the acceptance of LGBT individuals and Jonathan Merrit's reaction. There was one specific point that Merrit made that I keyed in on, that I also feel is important.
"While other pro-LGBT Christian activists — including Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network and Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” — have been dismissed in some circles as wet-behind-the-ears youngsters without formal theological training, Gushee, 52, is a scholar with impeccable credentials. He can add intellectual heft to what has largely been a youth-led movement, and is not someone who can be easily dismissed."
But as I stated in the previous posting, not everyone agrees with the above characterization of Gushee's news. One such person is Denny Burk who writes:
This is actually backwards. Pro-gay revisionist readings of scripture have been around for decades, and they were pioneered by “Christian” scholars. Evangelical scholars have decisively answered those revisions going back at least three decades. The conversation among religious scholars has gone under the radar of the larger public, but it has been there. And all of those old arguments are now showing up in the work of popularizers like Matthew Vines and Justin Lee. This has not been a “youth-led” movement. It’s been a “youth-led” warming-over of discredited heresies. Gushee doesn’t add any scholarly gravitas. We’ve had scholars advocating this heresy for decades.

I get the feeling that Jonathan Merritt regards Gushee’s defection as some kind of bellwether for evangelical views on sexuality. If that is what he intends, I think he is mistaken. Gushee is not the future of evangelicalism. He is the future of ex-evangelicalism. He joins a chorus of others who have left the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3) and who no longer represent what evangelical Christianity is all about. Anyone who looks to figures like Gushee to understand evangelical piety and faith will be inevitably misled.
"Discredited heresies" and "ex-evangelicalism" interesting choice of words don't ya think?

What David Gushee’s change of heart really means | Denny Burk

Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Leading evangelical ethicist David Gushee is now pro-LGBT. Here's why it matters. - On Faith & Culture

The other day when I initially posted this story in one of the groups I follow, my reaction was, "This is huge!!" And it still is, in my mind anyways. You see, there is one specific point Merrit makes that I agree with,

"While other pro-LGBT Christian activists — including Justin Lee of the Gay Christian Network and Matthew Vines, author of “God and the Gay Christian” — have been dismissed in some circles as wet-behind-the-ears youngsters without formal theological training, Gushee, 52, is a scholar with impeccable credentials. He can add intellectual heft to what has largely been a youth-led movement, and is not someone who can be easily dismissed.**

I have been out of the faith for over 20 yrs now and to be honest the whole "gay christian" debate was over for me in my early 20s long before my de-conversion. It hasn't been till recently that it has emerged as a topic of interest where I was willing to put any energy or continual thought into the subject. Though as a non-believer it is more from a counter-apologetic POV and my views haven't changed all that much; maybe just a bit more nuanced when necessary.

That aside, I will very very curious as to Gushee's theological reasoning and how he supports it (I will be purchasing his book ASAP). In all actuality, if one studies the 6 standard clobber passages in the proper historical, cultural and sociological context, homosexuality as we know it the 21st century is not in the Bible. What is, cultic temple prostitution and worship of Ashteroth (OT) and Cybele (NT).

What the subject ultimately boils down to in regards to the Levitical passages, unless one accepts every OT law or prohibition and punishment as authoritative for Christians in the "leteral" (not a jot or tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law), manner in which it is written, what alternative hermeneutical principle is to be employed?


**This statement has its detractors, something I will hit in another post as it is an intriguing aside.

Leading evangelical ethicist David Gushee is now pro-LGBT. Here's why it matters. - On Faith & Culture