It was sent to me by Jack of Hearts.

Traditionalist Christians settle disputes by appealing to the authority of the Bible. Yet, ironically, the Bible appears to be open to conflicting interpretations, as evidenced by the many diverse denominations all claiming to be "Christian," and all clinging to their particular interpretation of the truth. The fact is freedom of interpretation has always been an integral right of the individual.

Traditional Christians, who resort to proof texts to condemn homosexuality, rely on certain passages that support their interpretations, which are based on assumptions about correct social conventions conveniently cloaked as God's unchanging final word. Systematic interpretations, which are presented as immutable principles, ignore subtle differences in the text as well as the historical, social, and cultural context in which it was written.

The Bible has traditionally been quoted to affirm "social values." To ascertain whether these values are actually are timeless and unchanging, we need only to look back at a few Biblical examples such as slavery, polygamy, and national expansion. In the 19th century the bible was invoked be Christians to condone and justify the enslavement of African-Americans since God, according to the Bible, not only approves of slavery, but instructs slaves as to their conduct. The Bible unabashedly approves of Polygamy. It is indisputable that the patriarchs as well as King David and Solomon had numerous wives. Divine approval is also given to ethnic cleansing. The God who instructs us to "love our enemies" also directs his chosen people to mercilessly kill men.

 

In clinging to the inerrant, inspired Bible, we fail to remember that social patterns are culturally inscribed. They change from one socio-economic approach to another. If not, our society would still approve of defiant, Biblically approved social conventions. If what was acceptable in Biblical days is unacceptable today, is it not possible that was unacceptable in a society 2,000 to 5,000 years ago may be acceptable today? The Bible's stand on Homosexuality is probable due more to cultural accretion (ideas becoming tradition that determine action) than anything else.

Text Address Many Behaviors

As readers, we all bring to a text our own experiences and expectations. The list in Leviticus 18, used to justify the condemnation of homosexual practice, equally condemns having intercourse during a woman's menstrual period. Due to fear of "otherness" and defense mechanisms, we may be reading more into a text than there is. In I Corinthians 6 "homosexual offenders" are listed with the "greedy." Can any human honestly say he or she has never been greedy? The list in Romans 1 used to condemn homosexuality also condemns "gossips," the "faithless," the "envious" the "arrogant and boastful" the "insolent" and anyone who disobeys their parents. One infraction does not appear to be elevated over another. Why have homosexuals been singled out? If the list above was applied to all the teachers in the school system, not one person would be fit to teach our children.

Reading Holistically

In summary, since social conventions do change, the practice of proof-texting to judge and condemn any group of people is an inadequate way to read the Bible and leads to inadequate perceptions of reality. We have allowed our thinking to progress on the biblically condoned issues of polygamy and slavery and murder for national expansion. Unless we admit that God was mistaken, perhaps it is time to think progressively about homosexuality as well.

 

If any text is read holistically we are less tempted to construct harmful meanings where none are specified. Read holistically, the Bible might yield new interpretations that have been overlooked or suppressed simply because they didn't agree with the cultural norm.

 

We also might realize the difference between real values and socially inscribed values. Real values insist on connection, not difference, and prefer mercy to condemnation.

 

Some may argue that Biblical truth does not vary with shifting cultural attitudes and that holistic interpretation calls for subjective standards of truth and moral relativism. It is true that people of religion encounter a constant dilemma in reconciling their convictions with a call for tolerance. Yet does not experience teach us that intolerance usually leads to fanaticism, inquisitions, and acts of violence and terror, all justified by the perpetrators because they are defending a particular point of view? Tolerance, by contrast leads to compassion and understanding.

 

Something of importance may be revealed in the failure and fear of traditionalist Christians to cope with interpretive diversity. Such diversity would appear to be a necessary quality in learning what it really means not to judge another and in achieving true compassion and understanding of ones neighbor.

ABOUT THE ESSAYIST

Lanette Grate, a graduate student working on a master's degree in English at Western Michigan University, was brought up as a traditionalist Christian.

 

As a student at Harding University, in search, Ark., a four-year Bible college, she studied scripture every semester, as required. for a total of 16 semester hours credit. She attended chapel services every day.

 

Later, she studied extensively on her own, focusing on comparative religions.

 

Now she has no religious affiliation.

 

Today's essay grew from the scathing comments directed at Gerry Crane, the gay music teacher in Byron Center, whose wedding to another man touched off controversy that was rekindled when he died of a heart ailment in January.

 

As a traditionalist Christian, she said, "I was disillusioned by the intolerance we practiced."

 

She described herself now, "as a human being trying to do as much as possible in the years remaining."

 

"What helped open my mind was extensive reading," she said. "Reading at first with the opaque lenses of my Christian ideology, my vision gradually became clearer as I realized that bigotry and hatred were too often cloaked as Christian truth. I could no longer deny the great harm done to others in the name of God."

 

She was motivated to write the essay "not so much to make people question their faith as to make them question the way they think."

 

"I feel there is no danger in difference, but there is danger in failing to recognize evil when it is disguised as good," she said, adding, "Hatred and intolerance of anyone in the name of God is evil.

 

Grate, who grew up in Arkansas, met her husband, Marshall, an attorney and native of Indiana, when they were students at Harding. They have lived in Grand Rapids for 10 years and have three children.

Pages and images copyright © 2001, All rights reserved. Certain names, logos, designs, titles, music, words or phrases on this page may constitute trademarks, servicemarks, or tradenames of other entities which may be registered in certain jurisdictions and are copyright © by their respective holders.