by Travis
Update: Comments at HogPro by Bob Trexler and Amy Sturgis are well worth your time.
If you’ve not been exposed to the “Culture War” before, welcome. J.K. Rowling has given you your introduction. I am hoping that after reading this post, you’ll run from the Culture War as quickly as I have. By “culture war,” I’m referring, of course, to the lines in the sand drawn around morality issues, usually involving some version of the Christian faith.
And there is no topic more likely to draw out the culture warriors that homosexuality. What you’re about to read is a stream of consciousness…it represents my developing thoughts on this discussion, and I hope it will be helpful. I try to play the objective moderator for most difficult discussions here…I’ll be stepping slightly out of that role here and there throughout this post and showing my hand a little more than normal. Stick with me, and I’ll be looking forward to your helpful comments and corrections (which I’m sure I’ll need).
If you’ve been following the discussion under my initial post on the subject, you know it’s been pretty heated. We’ve had quite a variety of comments and opinions:
- Adamant assertions of the sinfulness of homosexuality, with accompanying assurances of hellfire.
- Elation at Rowling’s revelation, accompanied by belief that she is making a much-needed move toward the acceptance of homosexuality in our culture.
- Speculation that Dumbledore believes homosexuality to be a sin, and was therefore celibate for the majority of his life.
- Outright anger that anyone would be so dumb or hateful as to think of homosexuality as a sin, with accompanying promises to never return to this website
- Reservations, concerns, and frustration
- Calm, reasoned responses
- Accusations of hypocrisy from just about everyone about pretty much everyone else
- And then there’s that one guy who’s absolutely giddy that he now has what he believes to be ironclad proof that Rowling will be going straight to hell without passing “Go” or collecting $200.
It’s scary in that thread. As someone who wants to run a discussion group where all opinions are welcomed, I’m trying my best not to delete opinions, but to warn about personal attacks. But let me say this to all: Please watch your tone, and do everything in your ability to communicate with grace.
Now, on to the analysis:
Rowling’s Author-ity
Ever since the end of Deathly Hallows, I’ve wondered just how much some of Rowling’s characters had gotten away from her. This happens to authors; as they write, characters take on a life of their own. If the author doesn’t recognize it, s/he can end up writing an incongruent character, and that is troubling to the reader. The discussion immediately after Book 7’s release was surrounding Severus Snape, and I think it is fair to argue that there’s an extent to which Snape ran away from Rowling. This brings up important questions about how we, as readers, should approach her canonical works as compared with her interview statements.
And that brings us to the first point I want to make: What Rowling says outside the canon does not have to affect your reading of the story. As Alastair commented:
One of the things that I most love about a good book is the manner in which it creates a space within which our imaginations can play, the ambiguities giving us the option of reading the book in many different ways. When an author settles ambiguities like this I feel cheated. It is Rowling’s task to write and it is our task to read; I wish that she wouldn’t do our part for us.
So that means this: We do not have to divide over Rowling’s revelation. There is absolutely nothing in the text itself that communicates anything clear about Dumbledore’s sexuality. Even as we continue to disagree on the subject of homosexuality, we can remain Potter fans together and continue to read the books as we see best. It is our task to read. Our imaginations can play.
Dumbledore’s Sexuality: Planned? Publicity?
It’s almost impossible to know whether or not Rowling’s statement about Albus’s being gay is something she thought and believed all along, or another example of her continually shifting views about her characters. (Where does Ron work again? When did Grindelwald die? Is Snape a hero? You get the picture). I think we can at least assume this much: if she did believe Albus to be gay prior to Book 7, she wasn’t going to say anything about it until after.
But the bottom line here is, it’s impossible to know whether she had planned this long ago, if it’s a recent change of mind, or a publicity stunt. And it probably doesn’t matter.
Update: Be sure to read this comment by Amy Sturgis, who was there. She makes it really clear, by providing context, that this was no publicity stunt.
Culture Wars: Navigating the Reactions
All the typical Culture War weapons are in play: Anyone who thinks homosexuality is OK is hell-bound and dangerous to our children. Anyone who opposes it is intolerant and hateful. I have things to say to both groups, but the take-home point is this: It’s never as simple as that, folks.
Note: In what follows, I’m using the terms “liberal” and “conservative” as they are generally used to define the sides of the Culture War. You’ll see later that I call on readers to abandon Culture War categories altogether.
To the “liberal” among us…
I’m starting with those on the side of the Culture War who might call their side the “Tolerant” side. This is the side that believes that anyone who thinks homosexuality is a sin is “hateful.”
I’m going to try to tread lightly on some very sensitive ground here. I think it’s important, though, for a Christian to be able to explain the homosexuality-sin issue in a way that brings understanding. Whether you agree with any of this or not is quite beside the point right now. I’m simply trying to help us understand each other better. Please, please be clear with me about anything in what follows that I’ve written poorly or that bothers you. Let’s all try to understand each other, rather than hiding in trenches and throwing grenades. (One important note: I’m using the term “Christian” in this comment as shorthand for what the Culture Wars call “conservative,” or what might be called “historical Christianity,” which, until very recently in the overall scheme of things, unanimously believed homosexuality to be a sin.) I need to learn as much as anyone else, so I’m hoping to inspire thoughtful, helpful, charitable discussion.
It’s been charged that it’s ok for a Christian to believe homosexuality to be a sin only if that Christians holds the opinion privately. To speak it publicly is to offend, and therefore to be in the wrong, and “intolerant.”
The problem for the Christian is this: to believe something is a “sin” doesn’t just mean, “You’re bad.” Christians believe all of us sin, and are indeed sinners. So to name one specifically isn’t to say, “You’re bad and I’m not.” And further than that, the Christian believes sin to be soul-damaging. If I saw a friend of mine committing adultery, it wouldn’t be intolerant for me to call him on it. If a friend saw me doing the same, I’d need him to call me on it.
So it’s impossible for the Christian to detach belief in something as a “sin” from everything that “sin” means.
Furthermore, the Christian cannot see sexual orientation and race as parallel issues. The Scriptures are very clear on race: Christ died for those of “every tribe, language, and nation.” The central redemptive act of the Christian story was one of racial reconciliation. There is no biblical precedent for racism, nor any indication that being of a certain race can be construed in any way as a sin. Not so with sexual morality. The two issues are vastly different for the Christian who believes the Scriptures are authoritative.
To the “conservative” among us…
I need to ask really important questions to those who have been entirely turned off to this series by Rowling’s recent statements: Why didn’t you turn away from the series when good characters committed sins in the canon itself? Why didn’t you feel abandoned by Rowling, betrayed by someone you thought was on your side?
The problem is this: because of the culture war mentality of American Christianity, whether we admit it or not, we’ve elevated this sin above all the others. While commenters did discuss at length issues like Dumbledore’s lying, Harry’s crucio, and the like, there were no Christians feeling betrayed and wanting to abandon the series altogether as a result of those things. And they were in canon. But as soon as Rowling makes this outside-canon statement, there’s a major blowup.
There’s a major hypocrisy there. We need to step back and spend a good amount of time examining ourselves, to discover the internal sources of this hypocrisy.
Abandon the Culture War
In order to have any genuine, non-hurtful discussion about this, we’re going to have to take a step back, take several deep breaths, and abandon the categories of thinking that our culture has trained us in. We’ve been in Culture War boot camp since birth, and the time has come for you and I to go AWOL. One commenter is so immersed in the Culture War mentality that he was absolutely beside himself with laughter about this whole thing, completely giddy that Rowling has given what he considers ironclad proof that … what? … that he was correct in his assertion that Rowling is not a Christian. Folks, that’s really disturbing. If you genuinely believe that Christ alone saves, and you know the consequences of not believing, there’s nothing appropriate about laughter in that situation at all.
To abandon the Culture War, we have to adopt an attitude of love, despite disagreement about a very highly-charged and deeply personal issue.
Rowling, Postmodern?
As I’ve said before, this revelation comes as no surprise to many of us who have been arguing for years that the Harry Potter books contain deliberate and distinctly Christian elements. While I might be hesitant to call the Harry Potter series “postmodern literature,” it is most definitely influenced by what I might want to call “Pop Postmodernism,” which is usually some form of the tolerance doctrine. Question authority. Don’t be intolerant. Don’t be judgmental.
Christians have a problem of responding to this by saying something arrogant like, “Yes, I’m going to be intolerant, because Jesus told me to.”
Welcome to an exercise in missing the point. Jesus claimed to be the Only Way, but he didn’t tell you to be an ass about it. Quote all the Scriptures about homosexuality. Go ahead. Be a jerk. There was once a group of Pharisees who quoted Scripture to Jesus about the consequences of the woman caught in adultery. Remember how Jesus responded to the arrogant Scripture-quoters?
It’s no surprise whatsoever that Rowling, an advocate for tolerance, and heavily influenced by cultural postmodernism, would be accepting of homosexuality. I don’t believe the explanations that Rowling has given us an example of a person who realized being gay was wrong and so chose celibacy. I think Rowling believes homosexuality not to be a sin. I might even argue that Rowling probably believes that there is great value in other faiths. “Hogwarts is a multifaith school.” Remember, tolerance is key for Rowling.
The problem I’m having with my Christian brothers and sisters is the way in which so many are sitting up nice and high, evaluating and judging Rowling’s version of Christianity, which she freely admits she struggles with, and condemning her for it. Rowling is not a preacher. She is not an ordained minister. She is not writing theological treatises. She is a writer, struggling with her faith, and giving us a story that tells that struggle. She never claimed to be an evangelist, and she’s been quite clear in saying that she was not setting out to do what Lewis did with Narnia.
There is no checklist. Every Christian believes something incorrectly, and every Christian still wrestles with sin, with theology, and with faith. I’d urge my fellow Christians to keep in the very front of your mind that it is always by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Drop the checklist. No Christian has to pass your test.
I’m going to close this with an excellent comment by revgeorge, and then turn it over to you, my brilliant commenters. We’ve worked together through a lot of tough discussions here at SoG before, and this is probably our greatest challenge yet. I’m optimistic we’ll get through it. Thank you, all.
revgeorge:
To say that one cannot profitable read something just because the author is not doctrinally pure is really a stretch. Being a Lutheran minister, I certainly care about doctrinal orthodoxy, but I read lots of stuff that isn’t just from a purely Lutheran background.
To follow the logic of some people here, I couldn’t read anything by Tolkien & extol its Christian elements because Tolkien was a Roman Catholic & thus his theology is deficient. Nor could I read anything by Lewis & extol its Christian imagery because he was an Anglican. That’s just bunk.
Apparently some people think the only book Christians can read is the Bible, otherwise we risk falling prey to some kind of false spirituality. Well, the world is full of false spirituality, which is why we cannot read or watch or listen to anything uncritically. But we can read, watch & listen. Which is why being well grounded in the faith helps to keep us from being lukewarm.
At least Granger & Prinzi critically analyze the content of the HP books. Which stands in stark contrast to how books by Warren & Osteen & the Left Behind series are often treated by evangelical Christians. To listen to some of them talk you’d think those author’s books sprung from the very hand of God Himself!
So, the Harry Haters will never be satisfied. If JKR would espouse a perfect view of orthodox Christianity, live a spotlessly clean lifestyle, & get God’s approval from heaven, people would still criticize her & the books.
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
PotterMom05 on 
Loading ...
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 128 comments }
Travis, I just want to say, that you and revgeorge have articulate so well what I was wanting to say (in the previous post), but as usual, failed so badly in doing so. Can I confess jealously, right now, of anyone who can articulate a common sense answer to such controversial issues?
what a lovely, well articulated kick in the pants. well done, you.
Well done indeed.
It [i]is[/i] pretty scary in the other thread… But there are some thoughtful and gracious responses by Travis, revgeorge, Reyhan, Matthew and others to whom I want to say my heartfelt THANK YOU. Excellent post, Travis!
Brilliant Travis. I agree that we need to abandon the culture war and take a step back and discuss the issues in an attitude of love despite the disagreements as you said. Good stuff.
Travis,
I do hope that you weren’t referring to me as the “one commentator” thinking it is funny that Rowling is not a Christian and the other aspects of this “one commentator.” My amusement is at the whole situation: the original book/posts by John Granger/others like-minded, the subsequent fighting, and now the backpeddling with regard to Rowling, her books, and message, etc. And even that is a nervous laughter — kind of the way people laugh when something is so tragic, terrible, and pathetic that all you can do is laugh to relieve the stress. This whole Rowling thing has been a terribly painful eye-opening experience to me, TBH, and now the “Albus is gay” revelation just caps off the absurdity of what has been a very long, drawn out, ugly conflict among so-called brotehrs and sisters in Christ. If anything is laughable here, it is so many of the actions, words, arguments about Rowling and HP over the years. I, for one, will be very glad when I am old and HP is nothing but a distant memory.
I’ve never commented before here, but this one required it of me. Thank you, thank you, and thank you for addressing the culture war that currently exists and that JKR’s announcement will exacerbate. You’ve blessed me today. This post is a must-read.
Was that who I think it was?
Travis, I’m one of those who argue that the canon stands by itself – the author’s comments before, during and after have little or no significance beside the printed word.
I have also said that Dumbledore’s sexual orientation makes no difference to anything of importance. It just doesn’t matter to the plot, the outcome, or the message.
I would go further, actually, and say that the two interlinked sub-plots: the hallows / Elder Wand, and Grindelwald and the death of Dumbeldore’s sister are fairly secondary to the main story. If I were the screenwriter or editor for the movie version, they are amongst the things I’d think of pruning drastically, in the interests of telling the main story. Sort of like excising Saruman’s death scene in LOTR:RoTK. Christopher Lee was livid, but it didn’t really hurt the story, did it?
So DD’s sexual orientation is not essential, it’s not important, it’s just backstory.
If I had thought about DD’s sexuality at all – which I didn’t because you just don’t think of the Wise Old Man as having a sex life – I would have seen him as asexual, all his energy and interest devoted to war and politics, by disposition as well as because of his age.
I think that the backstory which JKR alluded to is quite consistent with how he came to be the way he is. It is also not entirely without support in the canon.
Let us assume that DD, like C.S. Lewis, could only be sexually attracted to someone who was his intellectual equal. JKR said that at a much earlier point, that DD’s weakness was that being so much superior to others, he had no one to share his thoughts and plans with. Very early on, he finds and becomes infatuated with someone who is his intellectual although not moral equal. We don’t know if his passion was returned. We do know that his passion blinded him to Grindelwald’s weaknesses, and led to a disastrous outcome. The result: DD learns to distrust his needs and feelings. He will not seek power, and he will not seek love, because those things make him less than he must be. So he removes himself from temptation and seeks refuge in academia.
The backstory works.
Whoa, I mean, sure this post is down right fantastic, but that’s no reason for this gratuitous praise =)
I started my previous comment earlier in the day, and just finished it off. But I didn’t want to lose my original question:
Who wrote the second comment on this post? Just after Travis?
Clearly it was J.K. Rowling.
I’m serious.
Yes.
Ha! Just for clarification, “jo” (jkr2) has commented before, and no, it’s not Ms. Rowling.
Awe, it was fun to speculate! I’m still gonna pretend it’s her.
First,I want to thank Travis for the great essay. The struggle with how to understand homosexuality and how Christ regards homosexuals is a huge one. I know the scriptural quotes, and I know individuals whom I think are good people, who are also homosexual.
My oldest daughter told me last night that Dumbledore was gay, according to JKR. I was mildly surprised, because, before the 7th book came out, I had actually thought JKR might put in a gay character because I knew there was a certain element among her readers who were eager to see a gay person-hence all the rumors about Sirius and Lupin, to which I never gave much credence.
My other thought was that it confirmed an aspect of Dumbledore which I think is disclosed in the later books, particularly. The man did not really love, or understand love. Now, I do not mean to write here that a gay person cannot love; but I did think DUMBLEDORE was deficient in the ability to love. We have discussed this previously in other posts, where I argued that Dumbledore was a manipulator, and loved his plans more than any individual. If he loved anyone, he loved Harry.
Perhaps JKR’s explanation regarding Dumbledore’s relationship to Grindelwald is meant to clarify to the readers the reasons for his Machiavellian behaviour, and his inability to believe that Snape could have loved Lily through all those years.
Very, very well said! Thank you!
Travis (and revgeorge), thank you again for your guidance and your patience. Now that it’s almost two days past, I’m not feeling quite the same way. More just disappointed that Rowling has made this an issue, which it wasn’t in the books. If she wanted readers to wrestle with the subject, it would have been better to include it in the text, having several of the characters struggle with it, show tolerance, etc. –that would have given readers the chance to do the same. Bringing it up now was just so out of the blue that it seems out of place. After having re-read the Dumbledore portions of DH yesterday, I found that it doesn’t change the way I feel about his character, because the way it’s written is that they were friends. That’s what I saw the first time and still do.
I had a very sweet apology from a poster on my live journal, and wrote back to her there, mainly to let her know the apology wasn’t necessary. Anytime an even slightly controversial subject is brought up on any forum, it seems to bring out the best and the worst in all of us. So my apologies to all if I’ve said something unkind or hurtful. I realize that I might have done that in trying to explain my reaction. And the giddy poster didn’t help anything either with his gloating attitude.
The only part of the Culture War that I’m thoroughly a part of is the “question authority”. Having been in high school and college in the mid-sixties to early seventies that is definitely a path I’ve traveled–and still do to some extent. And to add fuel to that fire, while most people my age were listening to the Beatles and the Beach Boys, I was listening to every folk group, singing their songs and finding old protest songs from the Woody Guthrie era. It’s music that still resonates with me. I think where I fell away from that line of thought was when everything became politically correct and rather than being inclusive as it was originally intended, it became a way to divide. Those who espouse the PC line are welcome to offer their opinions loudly and often, but to disagree with them suddenly classed people as intolerant and narrow minded. *sigh* It was never supposed to be that way. The PC view of everything has just turned it all upside down without the benefit of thoughtful reasoning. (Not so different really, than the ideas put out in the late 60s/early 70s about free love–that if you didn’t go along with it, there was something wrong with you. That was a far cry from the encouragement to question authority and to stand up for those who couldn’t do it for themselves, or to help them learn to fight for their rights through the system, without destroying it.
All that’s a long way off the subject that IS getting rather scary on the other post. But it does fit in, I think, with what you were saying about the Culture Wars. I really hope that when the dust clears that we can all return to discussing what is actually IN the books. As much as I enjoyed the process of reading a book, then hearing Rowling explain little details or give more information, now that the books are done, I’m ready for her to stop talking about them. She doesn’t seem to have a clear picture of what happened to the characters, or I think she would have included it in the books in the first place.
Oh, and one funny thing: when I was re-reading the account of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, I noticed a huge problem with her math (bigger than the ones about how many students, the ages of the Weasleys). She had said at one point that Dumbledore was 150, then he was just a bit over 100. But what I read yesterday means that he was born in 1922, making him 74 when he died.
He defeated Grindelwald 5 years after they met, which was when Albus was almost 18. And all through the books, it’s mentioned that he defeated Grindelwald in 1945. There’s no way Albus could have been over 100 years old. It also presents a problem for him having been Tom Riddle’s teacher–they are nearly the same age, but Dumbledore seems much older. So did he immediately start teaching at Hogwarts after Ariana’s death? No, never mind, don’t tell me. I’ll just read the books and enjoy them as they are.
Pat
I agree with everyone saying basically “big deal.” I find it interesting that he’s gay, but more in a “hmm, ok, I guess that makes sense,” sort of way, rather than “Oh my, he’s GAY?!? What in the world?!?” It’s a neat little morsel of backstory, and for people who actually do read the books and discuss them with friends and online, it does help explain a bit. I wondered why Dumbledore didn’t fight Grindelwald right away when Grindelwald was so powerful, he just kind of dawdled until he couldn’t put it off anymore. At first I thought it was because they were friends, but Dumbledore didn’t seem like the kind of guy who would put a past friendship in front of the well-being of the wizarding world (case in point: how Dumbledore handled the Harry/Voldemort situation). I figured it was something “more” than that, and now that we learn that Dumbledore was in love with Grindelwald, that bit of the story makes more sense.
I don’t think JK Rowling sat at her desk and went “Mwahahaha! I’m going to make Dumbledore gay and piss everyone off!” I think that, when she was plotting out the whole overarching story of Dumbledore’s past with Grinelwald, it just kind of fell into place that there was this unrequited love that Dumbledore had for Grindelwald. No, it’s not essential to the core storyline, but neither is the information that Neville married Hannah Abbot, or that that Harry became an Auror. No one explodes about those extra bits of information, so I don’t see why Dumbledore’s sexuality should be treated so differently.
hahahaha….
sorry – i forgot that it’s so long since i posted here that people would forget i’m just a little ol’ reader in australia who HAPPENS to share jkr’s initials.
not her.
sorry.
Bummer.
I feel like I felt at the end of Dogma when God comes in, and I get all excited, and then realize that it’s only Alanis Morissette.
From Rowling’s website. The latest diary entry reads:
JULY 18th
We are almost there! As launch night looms, let’s all, please, ignore the misinformation popping up on the web and in the press on the plot of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I’d like to ask everyone who calls themselves a Potter fan to help preserve the secrecy of the plot for all those who are looking forward to reading the book at the same time on publication day. In a very short time you will know EVERYTHING!
Well… Surely “EVERYTHING” is a huge stretch if she keeps dropping bombshells.
Why is it hard for her to leave it stand as is? Maybe she should refrain from saying she’ll answer ANY question at readings.
Matthew
I can’t help but think that part of the reason she is unable to just let her books speak for themselves is that she knows in the back of her mind that no matter what project she takes on next and how successful it becomes, she will never have quite this level of popularity again. She wants to give her fans what they want, and what many of them want is answers to all the questions that didn’t get addressed in the series.
Earlier Rowling said that she removed some of the original content from the epilogue because she wanted to leave an element of mystery in the books and make the ending more nebulous and poetic. I just wish she would have stuck with that plan.
Eeyore–
That is a confusing bit about the 5 years.
But I read it as AD waiting 5 years from the start of GG’s active fighting and grab for power, *not* 5 years from when they met. IOW they met around the turn of the century, had nothing to do w/ each other for almost 40 years, while GG gradually made plans and amassed power. He started his power grab in 1940, roughly analogous to the start of the muggle WW2. AD dueled him in 1945.
Well said Travis!
And the best part was this: “I’d urge my fellow Christians to keep in the very front of your mind that it is always by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.”
Amen
Excellent post.
As a non-Christian and someone who believes that even the Hebrew Scriptures contain an often beautiful, sometimes appalling record by a people of their ongoing relationship with the Divine, rather than every word being straight from God, this is not a theological issue for me. (Not that I think all Christians here believe that.)
On the other hand, I have to say that sometimes, in her delight at her newfound freedom to finally be able to TALK about the characters and their backstories (the lack of which I’m sure has been very frustrating to her), maybe she might give us TOO much information.
Personally I think that, rather than being ashamed of his homosexuality and remaining celibate for the rest of his life, Dumbledore was probably appalled by the fact that he had fallen into such a terribly destructive relationship that did so much damage, and, as with his attitude to power, never trusted himself to get into another one. He could have had the same relationship with a “Griselda Grindelwald” and had the same reaction.
Rowling has mentioned that, during production of the most recent Harry Potter film, she noticed a script draft that mentioned a female old flame of Dumbledore’s, and that she dropped the director a discreet note explaining why it had to be cut.
So, this is something she had decided at least before Book 7 was published, not something that just popped into her head in retrospect.
Travis, this is one of the most measured responses to this issue that I’ve read in a long time, from any perspective. Thank you for that. It’s one I’m absolutely certain I couldn’t have written (that sounds far more arrogant than I intend).
But I do think this all sheds an interesting light on the whole relationship between authors and their work…! *wink, wink*
Dave, indeed. I just tried to email you, but my email’s acting funny. I’ve had a request that we open up a specific discussion on the relationship of authors to their work. Any chance you’d be able to make that an essay this week? Tie it to the current discussion.
Matthew, she’s been living with these characters for 17 years. Even after having written seven books, there must be a lot of backstory she hasn’t shared.
Can you honestly say that you don’t want to know any more? Do you really not wish for more, or is it that you don’t like what you already saw?
I can honestly say it makes no difference to me. There are many layers to this or any other story. There are the basic elements without which you would not have this story: Lily’s sacrifice, the resulting unholy bond between Harry and Voldemort, Snape’s undying love for Lily, Dumbledore’s loving but deceitful guardianship, the death of Sirius Black, Harry’s sacrifice and resurrection. Then there are the characters which add to the basic story: the Dursleys, Ron and Hermione, Hagrid, Wormtail, Draco and so on. Without their contribution, the story would lose a lot of its flavour and substance. And radiating outwards from these two inner layers or circles, you have more and more layers of story and detail, a whole universe of detail about who and when and how and why.
My point is, except for inner core elements, all of the elements of the story could have been different. They probably went through many transitions until JKR decided what they would look like and what they would be called. Remember Hermione’s sister who got written out? Remember the awful difficulties JKR had writing Goblet of Fire? A lot of things happened to Harry in the first draft, that never ended up happening to him in the canon.
The story we ended up with is the result of thousands of choices JKR made from the near-infinity of choices available to her. Those details are set in stone, now and forever. But in the backstory we don’t know about, those choices are not set in stone. How could they be? All the things the author has not put down in print are open to change, depending on her feelings, her perceptions, her views of life. If you think about it, would you really expect her to write the same way, or write the same story, now, as she would have 17 years ago? Ten years ago? Two years ago?
What is truly marvellous to me is that the core story she thought out 17 years ago, on that train to King’s Cross, held true and strong for 17 years and through 7 books. It is a testament to the strength of her vision, and also to the strength of the story.
Travis, you write that JKR’s characters got away from her. I think that her characters grew, as she grew. Caricatures became people, simple people became complicated, complex characters became flawed and inconsistent. A beloved teacher became a man running from responsibility, a beloved god father became a surly, immature, risk-taker, a hated, sadistic teacher became a man capable of undying love, and a hapless school-mate became a leader and a hero.
And a beloved mentor became a man who distrusted and fought his capacity for love because it clouded his vision fatally the one time he thought he had found someone he could love.
And of course, it won’t stop there. As JKR changes, the backstory will change. It’s inevitable. If you don’t want to know, don’t ask.
I would like to suggest a re-reading of the truth and confession of Albus Dumbledore in the DH King’s Cross chapter, from the end of(Scholastic) pg. 712, beginning with the paragraph “The Deathly Hallows…”
to mid-page 720.
On page 713 we learn from Dumbledore that “I have no secrets from you [Harry] anymore…
On page 714 that …looking for the Hallows is the one thing, above all, that drew us together [Dumbledore and Grindelwald]
On page 715 Dumbledore confesses love for parents, brother and sister, but I [Dumbledore] was selfish…felt trapped with Ariana after his mother’s death.
Then he [Grindelwald] came…how his ideas caught me…muggles forced into subservience…glorious leaders of the revolution.
Did I know in my heart of hearts what Grindelwald was? I think I did, but I closed my eyes…at the heart of our schemes the Deathly Hallows!
Invincible, Masters of death….Grindelwald and Dumbledore (p.717)
TWO MONTHS of insanity, of cruel dreams and neglect of the only two members of my family left to me…
Reality returned in the form of my rough, unlettered brother. I did not want to hear the truth shouted at me…that I could not setforth to seek Hallows with a fragle and unstable sister in tow…
The argument became a fight…Grindelwald lost control. That which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, now sprung into being….Ariana…dead on the floor….
Grindelwald fled…vanished…he ran while I was left to bury my sister,,,,(and after the infamous duel)…They say he showed remorse in later years, alone in his cell at Nurmengard. I hope that is true. I would like to think he did feel the horror and shame of what he had done…(pg.719)
I find NO reference here to any gay relationship when reading the entire text in context. Where is it? And for two months?? It just doesn’t fit because it isn’t there.
reyhan, yes, that’s another way to look at it. I think a little of both happened. Some of her characters grew and remained consistent. Some got away from her.
It is interesting to hear and learn backstory, but I think Alastair’s comment is correct – it’s her job to write, ours to read. I like having room for imagination. We’ll be able to have some good discussion on this when Dave finds get to get a post up on the relationship of an author to her work. That should be some interesting stuff.
Having read over more carefully the context of JKR’s remark, I suppose that it was a legitimate revelation to make, and it certainly explains some things about the relationship with Grindelwald, e.g. Dumbledore’s hesitation to actually challenge him as well as some of his initial fascination with GG and his ideas.
My initial concern, which I still feel, is the extent to which this will distract from the real merits of the books to, as Travis says, a “culture war” thing. On the other hand, this may be a salutary experience to a lot of people who have little or no experience (as far as they know) with gays. This is the way it happens in real life to a lot of people, when someone whom they like, love and/or admire enormously “comes out” to them, or if the person is a public figure, it is revealed that the he or she is gay. They then have to face the question, especially if they have a negative view of homosexuality, whether this one fact negates all of the wonderful, positive aspects of the person’s life and personality. I would hope that in Dumbledore’s case most people would end up answering no. He is still the same humane, compassionate person we’ve all come to know and love over seven books, despite the flaws in his character that were revealed in DH. He definitely suffered and learned from his mistakes, although not perfectly.
Travis,
Arrogant to quote God’s Word? What an amazing declaration! God is a jerk? I mean, that -is- what you are implying.
How far do you take that? I can tell you aren’t Lutheran, for you deny the first, second and possibly the third uses of the Law!
As to the woman caught in adultery, that passage is late and spurious and that is well-known.
If you read my post on the prior thread, you know that I am not condemning JKR, but urging kindness and prayer.
But I am also not going to be unfaithful to God at “exactly those points where the world and the devil are now attacking” to quote Luther.
Scripture itself urges us to correct fellow Christians as a matter of obedience to God, and to preach the Gospel – including the problem; sin, for which Christ died in the first place. Being convicted in oneself of sin and guilt is painful, but it is necessary, there is no other way to the cure.
Finally, this discussion is not the way I wished for things to go. I’d rather discuss whether this report by Rita Skeeter is validated by the text, and if so, what might be meant by it. I think that revelations about AD in books six and seven, especially King’s Cross, and the whole theme or sub-theme in seven about Dumbledore’s character, character flaws and whether Harry should trust Dumbledore’s plan or not, are more interesting and germaine.
Travis, you wrote a lot of good things in your essay. I hope you will take this criticism in the spirit it is meant, i.e., as a friendly and constructive critique.
In your opening statement, you express a hope that the reader will “run from the Culture War as quickly as I have.” With all due respect, your essay ends up taking a firm position in the Culture War and insults those on the other side. I don’t think you meant to do this, based upon your other posts and the totality of the essay, but that’s how it came across to me. Let me explain why I saw it that way.
1. You drew a line Culture War by the labeling one of the two camps “tolerant” and the other “intolerant”. The labels say it all: the one side practices a commonly recognized virtue (tolerance), while the other side opposes the virtue. The use of scare quotes really doesn’t help.
Hmmm. Perhaps one side could be labeled
the “hedonistic” and the “non-hedonistic.” Or maybe the “moral” and the “immoral”? Would that have been better? I think not, at least not for the purposes of the essay.
I think that, in such an instance, it is better to choose labels which either both reflect the virtues each side is claiming, or both reflect the vice or lack of virtue the other side is opposed to. In this case, perhaps the “tolerant” and the “sexually moral” might work — or (if one has to choose the negative) “hedonist” and “intolerant”.
2. “No personal attacks. Ever. This includes namecalling, insinuations of stupidity, unfounded accusations and criticisms, rude sarcasm, or attempted psychological evaluations of commenters.” A good goal. Yet, “I’m not afraid to use the word ‘homophobia’ to describe” some people’s positions.
The neologism “homophobia” is out-and-out namecalling. It has no relationship to any reasonably objective criticism, but is designed to accuse one’s opponent of having a mental problem. That and associated words function solely as growl words. Labeling someone a “homophobe” is as insulting as to call someone a “nigger” nowadays. I don’t think you meant it that way, but that is how it is often used and usually how it is often perceived as being used.
There. I’ve said my piece for now on the matter. I think that you intended to be more balanced and help bridge this great divide. You said a lot of good things to people on both sides of the divide. Evenso, the preponderance of the criticism went one way, as also did the insults. I am on one email discussion group where I would have liked to post some of your discussion. However, the insults and slant would ensure that the message would not get through. (People who are insulted a lot for their beliefs tend to become rather sensitive even to minor slights in passing.)
I personally don’t see this (Dumbledore as ‘gay’) to be that big of a deal, although I recognize that many people do. It would be nice if people with different views could dialog: even if they still disagree, at least they’d better understand where others come from. Calling one side a bunch of intolerant homophobes doesn’t help.
Now that even just a little time has passed, I find that I’m not half so annoyed with JKR as I was. It just took me by surprise and I didn’t feel good–still don’t, actually.
So I’ve had to remind myself of what I’ve reminded others–it’s her story, her characters, and she had the vision and determination to write it and see it through. To work on something so huge (and wonderful) for 17 years is truly amazing.
Do I want all the back story? I thought I did. But when I finished DH, I found that I didn’t need it. If it hadn’t been important enough to Rowling to put it in the books, then I needed to quit dwelling on things like Madam Irma Pince and whether or not she is Snape’s mother with an anagram name. (I do wish someone would ask her, just for fun.)
Reading the question and answer about Dumbledore in the context of the Q&A part of the evening really shows that it’s the news media, imitating Rita Skeeter, who turned this into something it didn’t need to be. (And I would have loved to hear her read the chapter “The Silver Doe”–it’s one of my favorites in the book.)
Travis, I understand your point about some of the characters getting away from her. There were times that I think we, as readers, were seeing something in Snape, for instance, that she didn’t see. Or perhaps she did and it was just her masterful try at misdirection because we were getting too close to who Snape was.
Pat
I don’t think it’s fair to say that because JKR is wrong about something she isn’t a christian. I have a christian friend who is now completely sold out to god and has grown and changed over the years. She and I had debates about Jesus being the only way, whether or not homosexuality is a sin etc. she was a Christian but believed that there were other ways to God, and that homosexuality was ok. We argure about it until it went round in circles. I resolved to tell her that I loved her and agreed to disagree. Well, I prayed not that I would be shown right, but that god would help her grow in her faith. she is now one of the strongest christians I know and has studied the bible and some of her views have changed. I guess I’m trying to say that saying someone isn’t a Christian because they believe something incorrectly isn’t really fair. I wonder how many things will God have to correct us in when we get to heaven?
Maria
Reyhan,
Of course I want to know lots and lots more… as long as it fits in with all my preconceived ideas!
Matthew
Travis I know you were referring to me when you brought up the group that is ‘Outright anger that anyone would be so dumb or hateful as to think of homosexuality as a sin, with accompanying promises to never return to this website’. As I enjoy your sight and have now taken my avid brake from the HP fandom in general and wish to return to it, and this sight inparticular, I won’t be going any where (those images you’ve been aksing for, for the past six months are in the early stages, BARE WITH ME, I’m more than happy to do anything for you and this sight.)
I admire you coming out and writing this second topic about Dumbledore, and think the article is a very great analysis on the various view points on this sight. I am probably in the minority with my opinions, and that’s fine. I did expect a different general over view but that’s fine as well. What annoys me most is when people come out and say that Dumbledore being gay will effect their views on the series. I don’t know how this piece of information can effect anything, especially when it’s barley even alluded to in the books.
I read some of the other information JKR gave and found that her discussions of her reasons for her scenes, such as why she chose Molly to kill Bellatrix, were also very interesting. Do we need to keep on discussing “Dumbledore is gay?” I thought equally as interesting was her disclosure that she deliberately wanted to shock readers by contrasting the Machiavellian Dumbldore to Snape’s intense goal of keeping Harry alive. She remarked something to the effect that “Who would have guessed that such could be the true situation if one looked back to Book 1?” The background is information she provides helps us to understand why she chose to write the last book as she did.
labrialumn wrote, “Arrogant to quote God’s Word? What an amazing declaration! God is a jerk? I mean, that -is- what you are implying.”
Not in the least! I don’t deny any of the three uses of the law, and if you read the post carefully, you’ll see that I do argue that Christians should indeed call a sin a sin. It’s the self-righteous attitude behind the condemnation of this particular sin, along with the hypocrisy in pointing out this sin and not others that bothers me.
colorless, thanks for your points. I’m giving them some thought, but allow me to try to make some sense of them in context:
The quotes around “tolerant” and “intolerant” – I was using the categories as they are used in the Culture War itself, and then urging folks to abandon those categories altogether. So I have a hard time seeing how those titles are insulting when I’m asking folks to abandon them.
Talking about “homophobia” is not out-and-out namecalling. I’m sorry, but as much as the term has been abused, homophobia exists, and it’s a huge part of the Culture War. I’m urging my fellow Christians to abandon the absurd over-reaction to that one sin above all others.
I’d also say in my defense that of course I’m giving more criticism to one side than the other – that side happens to be my “side,” so to speak. You don’t bridge understanding by spending a significant amount of time criticizing the other side; you spend it evaluating and criticizing your own side first. That’s what I was attempting to do.
I mean, what, really, is the problem here? Rowling made this statement, the media ran with it (they deserve their criticism for the way in which they ran with it), and then certain groups within Christianity had an over-reaction. The over-reaction needs correction.
Let he (or she, I suppose) who is without sin cast the first stone.
I think that quote is a useful one to think about under the present circumstances. I’m not thinking of the religious conservatives who find homosexuality especially sinful, or the liberals who point fingers and say “homophobe” to anyone who doesn’t agree with them on all aspects of what is politically correct. Intolerance is not restricted to one side or the other, I think.
No, what I’m talking about is us, and our attack dogs, the media, who keep asking questions of the author, who aren’t contented with what she’s given us but want to know more: backstory, future story, motives, thoughts, feelings.
I’m also talking about JKR, who feeds the need, who won’t say “That’s all she wrote, take it or leave it, it’s time to move on.”
We, the readers, and she, the author, have this unholy and historically unique relationship. She has allowed us into her working notes, and we have taken up residence there, and assumed squatters’ rights.
Travis has asked Dave to write a post on this, and I think it will generate some fascinating debate.
I just finished reading John Granger’s essay over at Hogwartsprofessor on the subject of “gay Dumbledore” and thought it was excellent. Maybe Travis can set up a direct link to it.
colorless, I decided to remove the word “homophobia” and put in a more general statement about the need to examine ourselves to determine the source of our hypocrisy. While I still think “homophobia” exists, I think you’re correct about the potential of hurting the very discussion I’m trying to get started with the use of potentially inflammatory language. I’ve also added a caveat to the “tolerant” and “intolerant” section.
Well, some time has gone by and I do feel a little better about all this – although honestly I am still saddened by it all. I can definitely relate to Eeyore’s comments. I appreciate your thoughts, too, Travis, well said (although I do think the word “homophobia” is unhelpful).
For some reason it was harder for me to deal with this issue as it relates to Dumbledore than with the people I know in real life. I wonder why. It seems that for me it is easier to hate the sin but love the sinner when the sinner is standing in front of you looking into your eyes. (After all, it’s evident to them that I’m a sinner, too.) At work I have tried never to condone the variety of sinful acts that people bring to my attention – and sometimes even expect me to celebrate – yet they do know that I care about them as people and I have good relationships with them.
But for some reason I’ve had a harder time with Dumbledore. I admit it rather shocked me at first to read about his flaws in DH, but as I thought about it, I appreciated what the books were trying to tell me about human flaws and our choices. The books certainly have powerful things to say about that!
So why am I still disappointed? Maybe it’s because characters in books are more than just people, they represent more. The HP series is so popular, it cannot help influencing young minds. Mostly that’s a good thing – so many good messages there. But I guess I am saddened that the topic of homosexuality will now subtly tinge a story that would have better off without it.
Or maybe my disappointment is just Culture War-weariness. Yesterday in church our youth pastor spoke about how the “in” thing in middle schools these days is oral sex and bisexuality. MIDDLE SCHOOL! The “mom” in me cringes, grieves, longs for it to be a different world.
Yet maybe that’s why we SHOULD be talking about these things. I would give anything to be able to shield my precious, still-innocent daughter from these issues, but I know I can’t. There must be a way to approach them biblically, and in love, but without compromise. I wish it were not so hard. I cannot over-react, and I am rightly corrected, but I also cannot be silent – I must respond to the lies which desire to seduce my child.
Anyway… I think I can go back to my re-read of DH now. It feels good to have been able to unload all of this – and read every else’s thoughts, too. Thank you. I am sure grateful for this web site!
As an atheist, a gay man and no great friend of religion, I have to say I very much admire the essay above. One of my principle problems with the so called Christian conservatives is how they have elevated one perceived sin above all the others. I do not understand what makes homosexuality so much worse than many of the other things the bible condemns (sometimes contradictorily). What gives Christians the right to pick and choose what they deem to be God’s “law”?
View the gay community as sinful if you like. To be frank, many of us are hardly losing much sleep over it. I just don’t understand why it changes your perception of a beloved fictional character to find out a detail of his personality that has little bearing on the story (serving only to flesh out Dumbledore’s character in a more satisfying way). You loved him before, why do you love him less now? What has made him different? Are there no “sinful” parts of your nature? One imagines that these people who condemn, who have had Harry Potter ruined for them forever, could walk right on in to the Garden of Eden–never needed Jesus to die on the cross for them at all.
Perhaps you should spend more time criticizing yourselves and your own communities (because undeniably we have all sinned) and less time throwing stones at people who aren’t even proselytizing, but rather just making an innocent remark. As Travis said, JK Rowling has a post modern, new age philosophy–one that appeals to me more than any messages about intolerance.
In preparation to discuss the separate nature of the author and the work, you may want to refer to an existing essay on Scribbulus, “If the Author Is Dead, Who’s Updating her Website”, http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue9/authordead.
(This comment disappeared, so I am posting again.)
Several have commented that Jo’s characters have gotten away from her and done unexpected things. I don’t think that is the case. For one, she said that she “always” thought of Dumbledore as gay, at least that is the quote by some accounts. Of course, she could have not meant that literally, but here is a better quote:
QUESTION: “During the course of the seven books you’ve written, have any of the characters developed in an unexpected way that has surprised even you, the creator of them?”
JKR: “Ummmm … sometimes characters misbehave a little bit, and want to do their own thing. But I think I know them very very well, so they’ve never really taken me by surprise. Except — I can say this because it hasn’t happened but there is speculation at one point on the internet that Neville and Luna would end up together (audience giggles). And I said, ‘No, that won’t happen.’ But you know what, while writing Seven, I started to feel a bit of a pull between Luna and Neville in a way. I started to see how that could work, but it hasn’t happened. That was an interesting thing. The moment I’d said, ‘Of course, they would never fancy each other,’ I go… I don’t know… You know, I kind of see that.”
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0720-bluepeter.html
Joseph G, thanks for your response. The fact that you found the essay helpful makes me hopeful that we can open up good discussion.
I’d make one clarification in response to your comment: I’d say Rowling has a “post-modern, Christian philosophy” (rather than a “new age” philosophy). As Rowling has said herself, “New age-ism leaves me cold.”
Hello, old friends. It has been very insightful reading all the comments thus far, and I have only one thing to add.
I would have been equally disappointed to learn that Dumbledore (or anyone else, for that matter) had had an adulterous affair, or if Ginny and Harry had decided to live together without benefit of marriage, etc. I love hearing backstory, but I guess what I don’t love is hearing something that would never have made it into the books. One of the things I most love about these books are that the relationships are kept chaste (although she came dangerously close to making Tom Riddle an illegitimate child, but thankfully she didn’t). I remember when we were discussing, way back before Book 7 came out, the “unlikely pairing” JKR had mentioned (and boy, I guess we found out, didn’t we?!), and some people were suggesting Snape and Narcissa, etc. I commented that I hoped JKR would not have anyone falling in love with a married woman in these books, which are, after all, a children’s story. I would have been very disappointed had she done that.
I still love the stories and their message. This “revelation” won’t change that, ever. In the end, though, I’m a mom with young children who, because of these headlines, now has some ’splaining to do, before she thinks her kids are really ready for it. And for something that really doesn’t matter to the story.
It’s been lovely reading about Harry Potter again, even with this contentious subject, and seeing all the familiar names on here. Thank you, Travis.
Travis, I’m glad you thought my one comment was excellent enough to include in your article. I’m just trying to help people keep some balance in all this, even though it can clearly be seen where I stand on the issues.
Other people have been able to do this too, like Joseph above who clearly stands on the other side of the issue yet can find what others say helpful.
The thing that gets me riled up is when people essentially say, you don’t even have the right to disagree with me. That’s way worse than simply disagreeing with each other.
Anyway, great article above. I’ll be happy when the thread on authors & their works gets started. I think that’s way more interesting & possibly more important than the whole Dumbledore is gay thing.
Drat. You took away my comment. I was listening on the podcast.
Thank you because I believe that did not describe what many are feeling about this (and yes I was disturbed by the lying, the crucio etc too! Not to mention Ariana’s story! You had me shouting at my ipod!) Because there is concern about the issue of dealing with same-sex attractions in what is marketed as a children’s book, does not mean one is a homophobe. The media taunts about Christians(made worse for me since this happened right after the desecration in San Francisco was plastered everywhere) are more what I believe people are reacting to. It just makes me tired… that’s why I wish it had not been brought up. Another commentator called it ‘Culture War Weariness.’ That says it all.
often because of the issue in the larger context–does not mean someone is homophobic.
‘While I still think “homophobia” exists, I think you’re correct about the potential of hurting the very discussion I’m trying to get started with the use of potentially inflammatory language. I’ve also added a caveat to the “tolerant” and “intolerant” section.’
Wow, this thread and the one that preceded it are amazing and very telling.
I am a gay man, and I was elated when I found out that Dumbledore was gay. Why is this? Because I believe that this will only help gay people around the world and particularly in the USA. When I mean help gay people, I mean that it will inspire people to see gay men as positive role models and people to look up to rather than sexual freaks who should be shunned, prosecuted, or killed by AIDS. In other words, I believe that it will lessen some of the abuse that gay people receive at the hands of Christians.
What I find very interesting about the responses is that they do, in fact, show the depth of disgust and animus that many Christians feel toward gay people.
For example, labralium wrote, “sin against the infinite God has an infinite price, and there is the depth of depravity against God’s creational intent, and hatred against God Himself” in regards to what gay people do, reminding us that “not all sins are the same”. In other words, being gay is the most evil thing one can do, as it is sinning not only against god but against his “creational intent” and is tantamount to “hating god”.
Carla Lute wrote, “The sin [of homosexuality] occurs when we allow ourselves to fixate on them sexually…and this goes for hetero relationships as well I believe.” In other words, two men loving each other is just “fixating on someone sexually” and has no meaning outside of that.
Johnny wrote, “I admit I was bothered by this news, but we do not know the extent of Dumbledore’s homosexuality.” In other words, he wants to figure out just how bad the homosexuality was. I.e., maybe it was just some experimentation and nothing “serious”.
Trish writes, “If you accept Dumbledore as a homosexual character, you do have to look at much of the story differently, particularly his relationship with Harry in book 6. That isn’t actually pedophilia, incidentally, considering Harry’s age, but it does tend to make one wonder–and puts an unpleasant spin on Harry’s wish in book 7 that Dumbledore had loved him.” If a young girl were to say, “I wish my daddy loved me”, would Trish think impure thoughts about that question? She’s essentially admits to a belief that gay men cannot love male children without wanting to have sex with them.
The whole thing is fascinating and revelatory: Christians do not love gays. Christians think gays are disgusting garbage, and Christians *want* gays to be trash. This is precisely why the Dumbledore revelation is so upsetting to them. A gay man is now being portrayed as a positive role model, and, in particular, a positive role model to children.
That violates Christian morality in a huge, huge way. Christopher Hitches can write a book about god being not great, and Christians can handle that. That’s not such a big blasphemy. But if you portray gay people as kind, loving, and virtuous, then that is like shanking Jesus Christ and will not be tolerated, as many, many comments have shown.
Furthermore, I object to the notion that I have to accept Christian criticism of homosexuality as a legitimate expression of their faith. They can easily reform away that part of their faith if they so desire. The key, of course, is the desire. They *want* to dislike gay people. It makes them feel pure because they can avoid the sin which they aren’t tempted by and thus don’t commit.
Notice that gluttons, liars, and adulterers don’t receive the abuse that gay people get. Do you wonder why? Those *are* sins, after all.
Travis,
Well done.
I wish the defensiveness and polarization of the “Culture War” could give way so we could finally have a counter-culture of unified Christianity–orthodox, sin-correcting, humble, loving, and all things Christlike.
You’ve done a lot to aid that transformation, if even on a small scale.
She obviously made it up to get attention. Why can’t anybody see that?
And anyway, characters sinning in a book, that’s one thing, but the author stating something about a character and pretty obviously condoning it is another (and please no BS about her not condoning it, thanks).
Bob, go back up to the essay and read the link to Amy Sturgis’s comment. This was not a publicity stunt.
Suprkufr, I very much agree with your comments about the hypocrisy of Christians when it comes to the way certain sins are treated (as is evident from my essay).
I can’t agree with your comment that Christians can simply “do away” with that part of our faith, because to do that, we have to “do away” with the central element of biblical authority, and if we do that, we have to abandon our faith altogether.
The ‘revelations’ of the past fortnight should give us a helpful insight into how much we have invested in the Harry Potter series, especially as Christians. One week ago ‘Rowling discusses Christian content!’ and it was high fives all round: we had been vindicated! Take that Harry Haters!
Then all of a sudden: ‘Dumbledore is gay!’ and we gnash our teeth in anguish. Our triumph is so short lived! He-who-must-not-be-named comes out of hiding and lobs smug grenades (Richard! You were so quiet for so long! Where were you?).
If our happiness or otherwise hangs so largely on whatever might come out on this tour we need to take a few breaths and back slowly away from the computer.
SuprKufr, thanks for the telling comments. It makes them feel pure because they can avoid the sin which they aren’t tempted by and thus don’t commit is spot on. As a Christian I am happy to admit I’m a sinner (but the fella next to me is worse!).
‘The LORD is compassionate and gracious,slow to anger, abounding in love.’ May God’s people be more and more like their Father.
‘Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—
of whom I am the worst.’
1 Timothy 1:15
And that means me.
Travis, actually there are a lot of churches and whole denominations that DO change their faith. That’s why you find Christians on both sides of this and other issues. In some respect, this really comes down to the old issue of the infallibility of the Bible. If you believe that the Bible is the very foundation of Truth, then you can not ignore parts of it that condemn homosexuality or pride or lying or any other sins. Many people actively ignore those parts of the Bible. Many more people claim to believe those parts, but live as if they do not.
We are all fallen and imperfect.
That’s sort of what I’m getting at. You can’t change views on the one thing without changing your views on a more fundamental issue of the faith.
But it was probably too much to say, “We have to abandon our faith altogether.” Christ alone is still the key.
No, Travis, you were right to say that we’d have to abandon our faith altogether. Because once you start simply changing one part of what you believe to accommodate other people’s expectations of what you believe, then you’re pretty much left with nothing. We have to get rid of anything that people don’t like or don’t understand, so bye bye any miracles or Jesus’ bodily resurrection or His exclusive claims that He alone is the way to the Father.
Scott, actually people don’t _change_ their faith so much as they ignore what their faith or in this case the Bible teaches. They either have to outright ignore what the text says or they have to rationalize away what the text says.
SuprKufr wrote,
“Furthermore, I object to the notion that I have to accept Christian criticism of homosexuality as a legitimate expression of their faith. They can easily reform away that part of their faith if they so desire.”
Uh, why is it only Christians who have to reform away what they believe? Who made up that rule?
Here’s one of my points again. When people don’t want to debate they automatically go to the default of saying that someone doesn’t even have the right to hold a different view.
SuprKufr, I don’t doubt there are some Christians who are as you described. But you’re really painting with a rather broad brush. Isn’t that the same thing you’re accusing us Christians of doing, painting all homosexuals as twisted, subhuman individuals?
As a person who was raised with 12 years Christian schooling and avidly supports gay rights, I found your article very interesting.
First of all, I would like to argue against the notion that support of homosexuals and Christianity are necessarily incompatible. I suggest “The Church and the Homosexual” by John McNeill who argued masterfully that the bible does not condemn homosexuality. John Boswell makes a similar argument in his works. The arguments are very long and detailed with evidence of Church support of gays including gay marriages up until the 14th century. Without going into the details, it basically comes down to the fact that the words translated as referring to homosexuals in the New Testament have most likely been mistranslated. For example, the word that is translated as “abusers of themselves with mankind,” in the King James version of 1 Corinthians 6:9 and as homosexuals in many other versions is “arsenokoitai” which is not the term that was used to refer to homosexuals at Paul’s time. In fact, the word was used in reference to men who commit the act with their wives.
Most people will simply point to the famous Old Testament verse, but the word that is translated as abomination is To’ebah which refers to a ritual impurity. Other things considered To’ebah: eating fruit from a young tree (19:23), tattoos (19:28), shaving or getting a haircut (19:27), and so forth. Eating lobster is even considered To’ebah and yet Christians do not picket Red Lobster for their sinfulness. Why? Because things that are To’ebah are signs of ritual impurity, not mortal sins. The verse about ‘men who lie with men as they do with women’ can be found in a section about pagan practices. In many pagan religions at the time, there was ritualistic homosexual sex in Pagan temples. This verse, very clearly refers to THAT ACT as a To’ebah but it is an assumption on our part to assume that it also applies to two males who consummate a devoted, loving relationship (of lesbians for that matter).
Anyway, that is just the tip of the iceberg and I don’t want to fill this whole thing up with examples of how each passage is not as straight forward as most of us would assume and that one can be a devoted Christian and accept homosexuality just as one can be a devoted Christian and accept Harry Potter books as harmless fun.
In regards to people complaining about being called intolerant or homophobic, I have two things to say:
First of all, you must understand how many times religion has been used as an excuse to kill or perscute gay people throughout history. Queer history is a very sad subject becuase of how much abuse gay people were subject to and continue to be subject to. In many parts of the world today, open homosexuality can result in death. Even in the US gays were executed or locked in prison for ‘coming out’ or having gay sex until very recently. The famous case ‘Texas versus Lawrence’ centered around a man who had been arrested for having gay sex with his lover in his home. This occurred in 1998 and the only reason they were found is when a police office burst into their home after getting the wrong address. This history of abuse against Queers has been ignored or covered up. We rarely hear about how gay people were exterminated by the Holocaust which is especially tragic because often they were liberated from camps and then sent to other prisons simply for being gay. So, as you can see, queer history, even very recent queer history, is full of death, violence, and arrests which are often justified through religion.
Furthermore, I’d like to argue that many of you who hate the label ‘intolerant’ or ‘homophobe’ because you follow your religion are hypocritical in this matter. I wonder how many of you would respond to someone who argued that you were being intolerant if you opposed female circumcision based on religion. I believe that most of you would have no problem condemning the practice as horrific. What about the people who use the bible to justify sexism? Should they not be labeled as sexist because they are following their religion?
Racism, sexism, slavery, homophobia… many evils in this world have been justified with religion. Many of us who have been victims of these do not accept it as a valid excuse.
Furthermore, you can see the intolerance to homosexuality present in many who object to JK’s announcement with how they react to it. Some talk about renouncing the entire series because of it or even burning the books. Or say that they can’t respect Dumbledore as a character or it makes them dislike him.
However, there is no evidence that Dumbledore does anything other than /be/ gay. Harry lies all the time. Doesn’t the bible say “thou shall not bare false witness”? (to be fair, there are some very good arguments that this only refers to lying in court or accusing someone of a crime s/he did not commit). Why didn’t the people who want to burn the books now burn them because of Harry’s sins? Even if you ignore the mistranslation arguments, the bible does not say that being gay is bad or wrong. Therefore, Dumbledore is not a sinner in that aspect. As far as we know, he never had gay sex. The fact that he automatically becomes a sinner in many people’s eyes simply because of who he /is/ rather than what he /did/ shows how intolerant people are about homosexuality. It is clearly regarded by many Christians as a far greater crime than most others. Harry’s lies don’t have nearly this reaction which tells you something.
Finally, as a Biological Anthropologist who has studied both Queer history and homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, I have to wonder what sort of God would make people gay and then forbid them to consummate their love. All recent scientific evidence suggests that homosexuality is a polygenetic trait which, in the case of male homosexuality, confers an advantage to female carriers by increasing their production of offspring (sisters of gay men are more fertile than sisters of straight men). I am delighted to see the culture shift towards a greater acceptance of homosexuality and a better understanding of its biological origins. I am thankful to JK because I think positive gay role models are lacking in the fictional world, especially children’s literature.
I know some say that children who read these books are too young to know about sexuality, but again, that is confusing who gays /are/ with what they /do/. You can simply say “While most boys like girls, some boys like boys. This is called ‘gay.’” No need to bring sexuality into it.
Thank you for your excellent page.
SuprKufr, I was simply being honest when I said I was bothered by this news, which caught many by surprise. You also misread what I said about knowing the extent of Dumbledore’s homosexuality. JKR only mentions Grindelwald at Carnegie Hall, and she has said in the past that Dumbledore is lonely, detached, without an equal. Grindewald was the closest to that, but it ended in disappointment for Dumbledore. And to make this story more tragic, they fought each other years later in 1945. I think all this adds to the complexity of his character. I was not trying to dance around the fact that Dumbledore is gay.
I work with three coworkers at my job who are gay, and they are awesome people. I do not think they are garbage or repulsive. I’m good friends with one of them and I got him to read the Harry Potter series. He’s now reading Goblet of Fire. You simply don’t know me.
For those who say that they can’t just “do away” with the prohibition on homosexuality, what about the prohibition on divorce, given explicitly by Jesus himself? Even the Catholic Church has managed to weasel its way out of that one by just handing out “annulments” to anyone who can come up with a reason and is willing to jump through enough hoops. How many of you eat seafood? The exact same Hebrew word is used to describe that as is used to describe “lying with a man as with a woman.”
Travis,
I’m glad to see that you weren’t implying what I thought you were implying.
But there must be other causes for you to say that there is hypocrisy and self-righteous attitude where there is none, since an effect cannot exceed the sum of its causes.
There is a progression in Romans 1, FWIW.
The disgust towards homosexuality is simply -natural- as G. K. Chesterton would point out. It is the lack of disgust at what the Creator calls an abomination that is a sign of sickness.
There are all kinds of loves which are not sexual.
The conclusion is also false. If Christians hated homosexual offenders, we would simply say nothing, and let them go to Hell. But we are acting out of love, when we try to help you turn from the error of your ways – as we have been and are being from the errors of our ways, that you might be saved.
I assure you that Christians are not at all at peace with Hitchen;s Christophobic book.
We cannot change our faith to please you, because it isn’t some custom, but reality itself. That can’t be changed. We can’t rebel against God and damn ourselves just to please those who insist on gaining their very sense of self from the sins which they have chosen.
Gluttons, liars, and adulterers don’t desecrate churches and insist that our children should be taught that their immorality right and good.
The culture war was started by the anti-Christians, and came to the fore in the late 1960s. It isn’t really accurate to blame the Christians and observant Jews for being “Culture Warriors” for not simply surrendering.
revgeorge, or don’t even know what it -is- very well. We’ve got council members who don’t believe the Bible and are existentialists, and board leaders who have never heard of the Book of Concord. Learning ceased at 13.
arsenokoitoi refers to males having sex with males. That is what the word -means-. There are certainly people who try to pull the wool over the eyes of the poorly-educated about the Bible.
Leslie, I also hold to the teaching against divorce and remarriage taught no fewer than 5 times in the NT.
I do wish that people who made pronouncements about Biblical exegesis would know what they were doing, instead of quoting someone else who probably couldn’t exegete, either.
labrialumn,
I agree with you up to a point:
Gluttons, liars, and adulterers don’t desecrate churches and insist that our children should be taught that their immorality right and good.
Yes they do. It’s called advertising and network TV. And churches and children are desecrated for buying into it.
We are strangely quiet when it comes to condemning our favourite sins.
I can see this is going to get ugly, and I’m not exactly sure where to draw lines on this one. We’ll play this by ear, I guess.
I really don’t want to get into a biblical exegesis debate here. I can’t tell you how many exegetical comments I completely disagree with, on both sides, that have been made here. But there’s an extent to which an exegetical debate is rather fruitless, since not everyone on this board is a Christian in the first place.
From this point forward, all exegetical debate needs to be taken elsewhere.
labrialumn, a few comments (none of which will be exegetical, in keeping with my comment above).
I’d suggest that in discourse with non-Christians, Christians need to be as Jesus was: incarnational. In other words, in order to love someone and communicate with them, you’ve got to enter into their categories of thinking and speak in a way that shows respect and love for a fellow human being. All the language of the Bible, while inspired and authoritative, is also culturally specific. Jesus wasn’t telling stories about airplanes and cars, because that would have made no sense to 1st century Israel.
My point in all this is that it seems to me you begin your conversation with language that is an immediate turn-off. The Gospel is, by its very nature, offensive to us all, but we shouldn’t be looking to offend, and then justifying it by saying, “Well, the gospel is offensive!”
So when you make comments like, “It’s just natural to be disgusted with homosexuality,” or that Christian beliefs are “just reality” (“So DEAL with,” is the implication), you’re missing loving, incarnational discussion and engaging instead in debate, argumentation, and trying to “win.”
All of this is to show that it is simply not automatically true that Christians are “loving” when they speak about homosexuality. That was precisely my point in the article. Christians can speak about this issue in a non-loving, hateful hypocritical, and judgmental way, and that’s what I’m concerned with when it comes to what I perceive is an over-reaction about this one issue.
Travis wrote:
I can’t agree with your comment that Christians can simply “do away” with that part of our faith, because to do that, we have to “do away” with the central element of biblical authority, and if we do that, we have to abandon our faith altogether.
This is not true. There are many parts of scripture that Christians ignore or “interpret” so that it means something other than what it says. Biblical mandates of poverty and pacifism (“Do not resist an evil person.” Mat 5:39, words of Christ) are two prominent examples. Biblical condemnation of adultery, remarriage, and gluttony are also “politically correct” sins that Christians commit in droves. If Christians can “interpret away” those mandates and sins without doing away with their faith altogether, then why not “interpret away” the notion that homosexuality is a sin?
Honestly, why not? What would you lose?
I believe you would lose the ability of having someone to condemn — a victim over which you can feel superior and thus feel pure despite all of your sinning. I could be wrong, but that is honestly where I think Christian condemnation of homosexuality comes from, because it’s obvious that “sin” isn’t such a big deal for Christians, considering all the sinning you Christians do. (No one talks about living in a sinful, gluttonous lifestyle, do they? Have you seen all the fat people in churches recently?)
“The disgust towards homosexuality is simply -natural- as G. K. Chesterton would point out. It is the lack of disgust at what the Creator calls an abomination that is a sign of sickness.”
Again, I implore you to examine these statements and see how they are signs of hatred rather than reason. There is absolutely no evidence that disgust towards homosexuality is natural. In the majority of human civilization, homosexuals were accepted as regular members of societies and often were highly respected. The current widespread homophobia that is observed is a modern value passed through colonialization. You can see the shift from openness towards homosexuality to hatred as European powers force their views on indigenous peoples.
Among the societies which do naturally have an intolerance towards homosexuality, we can see very clearly that they all are economically disadvantaged and heavily value bringing up their population numbers way more than what is typically done. This is why sex -in general- is very heavily regulated in the bible and early Hebrew society. This is why you were -required- to impregnate your dead brother’s wife if he was unable to produce children with her.
When we examine European history we can see acceptance towards homosexuals wax and wan with social values. If the hatred was innate and a natural reaction, we wouldn’t see this pattern. It is not mere coincidence that when hatred of homosexuality was at its highest, hatred against other minority groups such as Jews also increases. In times of strife, people look to blame anyone who is different from majority for scapegoats.
Finally, there have been several psychological studies done which have shown that hatred towards homosexuality is not innate in human children and there is vast evidence in the animal kingdom that homosexuality is perfectly natural and normal. I study how homosexual behavior can reduce inner group conflict and promote bonding of same-sex individuals in non-human primates.
And here I was thinking we were discussing the Harry Potter stories…
Matthew
revgeorge wrote:
Uh, why is it only Christians who have to reform away what they believe?
I want Christian abuse of gay people to stop, and I do not think that is too much to ask.
I presume you disagree, and I completely understand your point of view. It must feel very good to demean and denigrate gay people, and I don’t think you’re willing to give up on that without a fight.
I don’t doubt there are some Christians who are as you described. But you’re really painting with a rather broad brush.
Try to imagine something for me.
Try to imagine living in a different world where 75% of the people believed in a religion that said your heterosexual desire was immoral, evil, hated by God, similar to murder, and akin to child rape. Imagine living in a world where millions of your countrymen would happily vote for laws which would sentence you to prison or execution for your love. Imagine living in a world where millions of your own countrymen would be shocked, embarrassed, and disgusted if someone like you were portrayed as a positive role model.
Imagine growing up as a child with this horrible secret of heterosexual love — one that, if your parents were to ever find out, then they would stop loving you and kick you out of the house. And they would consider that to be holy and right, and they would be supported by millions of your countrymen.
It’s hard for you to know how it feels because you’re on the giving end of Christian abuse, not on the receiving end of it. That’s why I want you to try and imagine it. Maybe then we can find some common ground.
But what’s in it for you to find common ground with me?
Johnny wrote,
SuprKufr, I was simply being honest when I said I was bothered by this news, which caught many by surprise.
I think you were being honest when you wanted to find out how bad Dumbledore’s homosexuality was.
I work with three coworkers at my job who are gay, and they are awesome people. I do not think they are garbage or repulsive.
Do you think that their homosexual love can be just as real and valid as heterosexual love can be?
SuprKufr, I don’t have the time to go into great detail right now (I’m at work), but it’s just not that simple. Christians do still preach against those things. My problem is with the hypocrisy of freaking out about the one sin while ignoring others.
There are also legitimate differences of interpretation. So it’s just not as simple as, “Why don’t you just give up this part of your faith?”
I often wonder what Islam, Hinduisn and Buddhism have to say on this.
Matthew
I don’t think the two sides are going to see eye to eye on this one. Agree to disagree and live and let live, or at least seethe in silent disagreement might be the best we can do.
May I suggest a different approach: a poll asking commenters how much difference Dumbledore’s sexual orientation makes to their enjoyment of the story? Without commentary, preferably.
I did learn a new word: exegesis and exegetical. I kind of enjoy the exegetical debates. And I don’t think they’d cause too much problems, if it weren’t for the hermeneutics.
Got to learn Greek.
Herman Yutiks… who’s he? He sounds like an Eskimo.
Yes, it’s really difficult for Christians to know what it feels like to be ridiculed, mocked, beaten, tortured, and killed…
Sorry for the sarcasm, but a little perspective is needed on all sides here.
On the one hand, Christians in America are indeed privileged, and we’re really ignorant of just how privileged we are and how much we tend to use our privilege to hurt other people. We need some serious lessons on this.
On the other hand, we are vitally linked to brothers and sisters who are being persecuted and killed around the world at a higher rate than ever before in history, simply because they are Christians.
That said, SuprKufr is right to make the point that we are bad at taking the time to realize the pain that homosexuals in our culture have had to endure because of outright hatred. More than that, you’re right to put homosexuality in the context of so many other sins and demonstate, once again, the over-reaction to this one in particular.
And yet, there has to be a fundamental difference between what might be “abuse” and a Christian belief. Christian “abuse” of gay people can stop without our abandoning of the belief itself. We probably disagree here, but I believe that Christians who honestly say, believe and live the following: “I’ve sinned, you’ve sinned, we’ve all sinned and we need Christ; there are things about you that God does not like, and there are things about me he does not like, but we can all run to Christ,” are not “abusing” anyone.
He’s a first cousin to Sam Iotics.
Yes, it’s really difficult for Christians to know what it feels like to be ridiculed, mocked, beaten, tortured, and killed…
Sorry for the sarcasm
Apology rejected. I don’t understand how you can claim any “persecution” of Christians when, in the next paragraph, you admit that Christians in the USA “are indeed privileged”. You can’t have it both ways.
That said, SuprKufr is right to make the point that we are bad at taking the time to realize the pain that homosexuals in our culture have had to endure because of outright hatred.
That’s a step in the right direction, but I would have appreciated it more if you took more responsibility for the harm that Christians do to gay people. Something like, “We Christians have to admit that we’ve been really rotten toward gay people, and it’s time we stop being so cruel and abusive.”
Christian “abuse” of gay people can stop without our abandoning of the belief itself.
I notice you put abuse in scare quotes because you do not want to admit that the way Christians treat gays is, in fact, pretty rotten. I’ll admit it’s better than it has been in the past. That said, if sodomy laws came up for a vote, do you think it would be the Christians who would come defend gay people? Get real.
And I’ve already shown your claim to be false. You can interpret away the denigration of gay people without abandoning the belief itself. Haven’t you noticed there are gay churches with gay people who believe in Christ? They interpreted it away and worship God just fine. Why won’t you do the same thing?
I believe the reason you won’t is because having gays as someone to look down on is very, very valuable to you, and you’re not going to give that up easily.
Travis wrote,
Christians do still preach against those things. My problem is with the hypocrisy of freaking out about the one sin while ignoring others.
There is a BIG difference between “preaching against” and “sinful lifestyle” and you know it. Gluttony is a politically-correct sin, whereas homosexuality is a not-worthy-of-being-in-church sin. That’s why there are fat people, adulterers, and remarried people in churches whereas gay people are completely rejected if they continue in their “sinful lifestyle”. If you “preach against” a sin yet allow the sinners in your church without repenting, then you’re just paying lip service to the notion. It’s window-dressing.
And while your problem may be Christians not treating all sins as the same, it’s clear that the body of Christ views gay people’s existence and improving lots in life as a HUGE problem. Christians have mobilized task forces (Focus on the Family, Family Research Council) with millions of dollars devoted to ensuring that the lives of gay people do NOT improve.
I watch not what you say. I watch what Christians do. By your fruits shall I know you, and all that.
There are also legitimate differences of interpretation. So it’s just not as simple as, “Why don’t you just give up this part of your faith?”
Christians routinely and breezily ignore “Do not resist an evil person.”, which is a direct command of Jesus Christ himself. I think the reason why that’s simple whereas interpreting away “hate gay people” is so difficult is because you have something to gain from self-defense whereas you have something to lose from treating gay people with kindness and respect.
Matthew, on a more serious note, the link I gave on the other thread:
http://www.procon.org/
talks about the approaches of the different religions to homosexuality.
On another site, I gleaned the information that in some Islamic countries which follow the Sharia (religious law), if you’re gay, you get to choose between being flung off a tall building or having a wall pulled down upon you. Sort of a literal re-enactment of Sodom, I guess.
Are my comments being suppressed?
Hi Everyone
I have been following this debate with interest. The posts I have read have run the gamant of personal opinions.
I think it is incredibly important to have these discussions even if the conclusion is to agree to disagree. I do agree with Travis that understanding each side is the better goal.
I wanted to add some insight from JKR’s side, the archbishop of edinburgh anglican church was interviewed on cbc
radio program ideas; how to read the bible.
http://a.cbc.ca/redirector.mp3?hb=DM560316P3
ZN71EN3&cv.c2=http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/
ideas_20071022_3613.mp3&cd
=1&hec=1&vjs=HBX0201R&target=http://podcast.
cbc.ca/mp3/ideas_20071022_3613.mp3
It is fairly long program (about an hour) but the homosexual topic comes up in the first half hour.
I thought this was interesting as conservative christians are not the only religious leaders and certainly have no
role in JKR’s church.
my personal opinion about dumbledore being gay is “shrug”. While I do think it is much more interesting that romantic love can make someone lose themselves. I wonder if there is a lack of maturity to that type of obsessive love. The type of lovesick that seems typical with a person first love. The overwhelming power of that love has made many teenager do insane things. Does this love mature? Do we become more aware of ourselves as we age? hopefully everyone’s first love was a nice person, we have so many example of what happens when the partner is not kind.
SuprKufr,
It’d be really nice to have a discussion with you, except it’s rather impossible when everything is taken back to the level of “all you Christians want to do is feel good about abusing someone else.”
I could go through & debunk all your claims, as Travis has attempted to do in some small ways, but what would be the point? You’re not going to be convinced.
So, I submit that this is another thread who’s time has come to end, as Matthew & Travis have strongly hinted at over on the first Dumbledore is gay thread.
I hope we can get back to discussing the HP books themselves, and the other comments JKR made, regarding Draco, Molly, Bellatrix, etc.
SuprKufr
I don’t understand how you can claim any “persecution” of Christians when, in the next paragraph, you admit that Christians in the USA “are indeed privileged”. You can’t have it both ways.
But you could at least imagine being part of a group that is being persecuted and murdered at a greater rate than any other group on earth, right? Even if you were not experiencing it yourself? Are you saying Christians can’t possibly feel and relate to those who hold the same beliefs who are being killed for those beliefs?
That’s a step in the right direction, but I would have appreciated it more if you took more responsibility for the harm that Christians do to gay people. Something like, “We Christians have to admit that we’ve been really rotten toward gay people, and it’s time we stop being so cruel and abusive.”
I’ve both written and said this.
I notice you put abuse in scare quotes because you do not want to admit that the way Christians treat gays is, in fact, pretty rotten.
No, no. I’ve admitted over and over again that the way Christians have treated gays is rotten. Spent several paragraphs on it, even.
And I’ve already shown your claim to be false. You can interpret away the denigration of gay people without abandoning the belief itself. Haven’t you noticed there are gay churches with gay people who believe in Christ? They interpreted it away and worship God just fine. Why won’t you do the same thing?
I’ve told you, it’s just not that easy. It’s not what I believe the Scriptures say, so I’d have to change a much more foundational belief in order to change that one, and without that belief, I’d have no basis for the faith whatsoever.
I believe the reason you won’t is because having gays as someone to look down on is very, very valuable to you, and you’re not going to give that up easily.
This is taking things a step too far. While this is true for some Christians, it’s not true for all Christians. You don’t want to be broadbrushed, so it’d be good not to do the same to others.
Suprkufr, in your following comment, I’m not exactly sure what you’re arguing against. I’m arguing the same thing: Christians are being hypocritical, and should be firm and loving in denouncing the sins of gluttony, adultery, and others, and there has been a complete over-reaction to homosexuality that is, as I’ve said, “outright hatred.”
If you’re waiting for perfect Christians in order to find a Christian you’d be willing to listen to, you’ll be waiting a long time. A huge part of what we believe (though we sometimes act like Pharisees and fail to be honest about this) is that we all sin, we struggle, Christians and the church are often weak and hypocritical, but we’ll keep seeking Christ and learning to trust in him and hopefully, by grace, to become more like him. But we all look forward to eventually being delivered, for good, of the tyranny of sin that still wars against us.
Your example of what you consider Jesus’ pacifism is a key example of it just not being as simple as you want it to be. St. Paul says the government bears the sword as a messenger of God. Now what do we do with those two passages?
So, not all Christians breezily ignore Jesus’ personal ethic of pacifism. It’s just that the Scriptures contain more complex, more nuanced positions when it comes to person and governmental retribution than you’re allowing in your analysis.
Mary Jo, we will, soon! There’s going to be another Lovecraft post later tonight, but that will be following by a few more Potter posts, so stay tuned. I think there are some interesting things to talk about concerning the other revelations as well.
revgeorge wrote,
It’d be really nice to have a discussion with you, except it’s rather impossible when everything is taken back to the level of “all you Christians want to do is feel good about abusing someone else.”
I think that’s an overly simplistic view of the charge I’ve leveled against you. To be fair, it is this:
I think that Christians demean and denigrate gay people because they want to feel pure by criticizing people for committing the sin that they aren’t tempted by and thus don’t commit. Christians don’t criticize gay people for the sake of resisting sin because there are all sorts of sins that Christians not only commit but embrace. All I want is for Christian abuse of gay people to stop, and I do not think that is too much to ask.
If you would like to challenge any of those three points, then I invite you to do so.
If you would like to challenge any of those three points, then I invite you to do so.
I’m sure revgeorge will have things to say, too, but I’ll answer.
Point #1: I think that Christians demean and denigrate gay people because they want to feel pure by criticizing people for committing the sin that they aren’t tempted by and thus don’t commit.
Agreement: Christians have often had Pharisaical tendencies, criticizing others for “bad sins” while ignoring their own. This is a huge problem, and there are many Christians who recognize it and are trying to change things.
Problem #1: This is not true of all Christians. It’s oversimplification, and it’s a broadbrush remark.
Problem #2: It’s simply not true that Christians aren’t tempted by homosexuality. I am good friends with many who are. They believe it to be a sin, and they are striving to live according to the Scriptures. Sometimes they fail. It’s just flat-out wrong that many Christians who struggle with this aren’t allowed to share that stuggle openly in church, where they can find support and forgiveness.
Point #2: Christians don’t criticize gay people for the sake of resisting sin because there are all sorts of sins that Christians not only commit but embrace.
Agreement: There is often terrible hypocrisy here, and many Christians confront homosexuality not out of love at all, but out of fear and hate (which I’ve already argued here multiple times).
Problem: There are very few “sins” that “conservative” (for lack of a better word) actually theologically embrace. There are LOTS of sins that Christians commit, including homosexuality, and the ones they do actually embrace (meaning, they call what the Bible calls sin “good”), they are wrong to do so.
Point #3: All I want is for Christian abuse of gay people to stop, and I do not think that is too much to ask.
I agree.
Problem: I think that our definitions of what falls under the category of “abuse” will differ, however, since my guess is you would put calling homosexuality a “sin” to be “abuse,” whereas I would not.
Travis,
Thanks for your reply and for your patience with me. I know I am taking you to task, and I also know that’s not a position that many people are comfortable being in.
But you could at least imagine being part of a group that is being persecuted and murdered at a greater rate than any other group on earth, right?
You can certainly imagine it. But you aren’t living the horrific experience of Christians persecuted in Sudan. You also aren’t living the experience of gays persecuted (by Christians) in the USA. You can only imagine it, which, if you remember, is precisely what I invited revgeorge to do.
I’ve admitted over and over again that the way Christians have treated gays is rotten. Spent several paragraphs on it, even.
My bad. Thank you for your kindness.
I’ve told you, it’s just not that easy. It’s not what I believe the Scriptures say, so I’d have to change a much more foundational belief in order to change that one, and without that belief, I’d have no basis for the faith whatsoever.
Interpretation is not about what the scriptures say; rather, interpretation is about what the scriptures mean.
Take, for instance, the following words of Jesus Christ:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” Lk 14:26
What does Jesus mean when he says this? Does he mean exactly what he says, or does he mean something else? Something more, shall I say, nuanced?
This is taking things a step too far. While this is true for some Christians, it’s not true for all Christians. You don’t want to be broadbrushed, so it’d be good not to do the same to others.
I wasn’t broad-brushing all Christians when I wrote, “I believe the reason you won’t is because having gays as someone to look down on is very, very valuable to you, and you’re not going to give that up easily.” Instead, I was accusing you personally. I invite you to defend yourself if you think my accusation is without merit.
If you’re waiting for perfect Christians in order to find a Christian you’d be willing to listen to, you’ll be waiting a long time.
I don’t ask perfection of Christians. I repeat: all I want is for Christian abuse of gays to stop. The only reason I bring up gluttony and adultery is to show that Christians’ oft-repeated excuse for their abuse of gay people is that they have to “stand up against sin” and showing that they embrace the sins of gluttony, remarriage, and adultery shows that they are lying when they claim that. Do you agree with me that such claims are, in fact, convenient lies?
Your example of what you consider Jesus’ pacifism is a key example of it just not being as simple as you want it to be. St. Paul says the government bears the sword as a messenger of God. Now what do we do with those two passages?
I would assume that Jesus’ mandate takes precedence over Paul’s. Do you disagree?
“Do not resist an evil person.”, commanded Jesus Christ.
If an evil man entered your house and tried to rape you and kill you, does Jesus permit you to resist him? (Yes/No)
So, not all Christians breezily ignore Jesus’ personal ethic of pacifism. It’s just that the Scriptures contain more complex, more nuanced positions when it comes to person and governmental retribution than you’re allowing in your analysis.
Jesus tells you to do something and it’s suddenly his own “personal ethic”? I can claim that everything Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount was “Jesus’ personal ethic”! Where do you draw the line? Perhaps you believe that Jesus’ mandates which are inconvenient or painful are “Jesus’ personal ethic” whereas the other mandates are binding. That’s kind of what it looks like from here, but I invite you to disagree and explain further.
Furthermore, I don’t think scripture is “nuanced” in this regard. Jesus Christ, whom your religion regards as God himself, commanded DO NOT when it comes to resisting an evil person. I didn’t think that the mandates of God himself could be “nuanced” by the words of lesser, human prophets, but perhaps you can explain further.
Finally, you’re correct to say that not all Christians disobey Jesus when it comes to pacifism. The Amish stand out as an example of this kind of bizarre behavior. Outside of those tiny, obscure Christian sects, it is a widely and militantly ignored mandate.
Travis,
Thanks for your response.
Christians have often had Pharisaical tendencies, criticizing others for “bad sins” while ignoring their own. This is a huge problem, and there are many Christians who recognize it and are trying to change things.
All I want is for the abuse of gay people to stop. Whether Christians stop being hypocrites is their business, not mine.
Problem #1: This is not true of all Christians. It’s oversimplification, and it’s a broadbrush remark.
Yes, and so what? If it doesn’t apply to you, then it doesn’t apply to you. Obviously you don’t do it. Obviously the Metropolitan Community Church doesn’t do it. But are we not in agreement that the #1 opponent of gay people’s lives improving in the USA is Christians? Broadbrush comments are not the problem here. The problem is Christian abuse of gay people, which is much worse than any careless generalizations I can make. Stop making mountains out of molehills. “You’re generalizing!” is an argument I usually ignore altogether, and, going forward in this conversation, I will do exactly that.
Problem #2: It’s simply not true that Christians aren’t tempted by homosexuality.
Agreed. I was certainly tempted by it when I was a Christian. If the shoe fits, wear it. I would think that the majority of Christians would NOT be tempted by gay sex under any circumstance. Okay, I broke my word by failing to ignore a “You’re generalizing!” argument. Really, after this, no more of those.
Problem: There are very few “sins” that “conservative” (for lack of a better word) actually theologically embrace.
Well, sure, they “interpret” those sins away. Gluttony and remarriage are the two big ones. Gay Christians interpret away the sin of homosexuality. Conservative Christians say of them that they are ignoring scripture so that they can engage in their sinful lifestyle without any guilt. Can I not make the exactsame argument about chubby Christians and Christians who divorce and re-marry?
I think that our definitions of what falls under the category of “abuse” will differ, however, since my guess is you would put calling homosexuality a “sin” to be “abuse,” whereas I would not.
Let me try and draw up an analogy.
Suppose I drew up a new religion whose primary tenet, its greatest good, was to humiliate and deride Christians. When I had the chance to talk to you, I would tell you, “When you follow your religion then you commit a revolting abomination. When you pray to your god, that’s like raping children. If I was your boss, I’d fire you when I found out you were a Christian. My god hates you, and I think you should be arrested and sent to prison.” And I would say these things whenever I had the opportunity because I considered it my religious duty to stand up against evil.
1. Would you think of those things as abusive things to say to you?
2. If I told you that it was religious expression, would you then respect it?
3. If I had all of those thoughts, but chose never to express them to you in any way, then would you feel less abused by me?
Instead, I was accusing you personally. I invite you to defend yourself if you think my accusation is without merit.
Oh! Well, that’s much easier…sort of. I mean, you’d have to actually get to know me. But I don’t think you can really talk about the “merit” of your argument when, in the first place, you don’t actually know me well enough to make such an accusation. You either have to assume that all Christians are against homosexuality for this reason, or you’re making a bald assertion about me for which you have no evidence.
Do you agree with me that such claims are, in fact, convenient lies?
For some, it’s a “convenient” lie. For some, it’s a dysconscious prejudice. In any case, we’re in agreement that the abuse hypocrisy needs to stop. Our solutions just look different.
I would assume that Jesus’ mandate takes precedence over Paul’s. Do you disagree?
Based on what I believe about the nature of the Scriptures, the dilemma simply doesn’t present itself. The two are not in disagreement. There is harmony between the two, and the context in which each was speaking is the key to understanding that.
If an evil man entered your house and tried to rape you and kill you, does Jesus permit you to resist him? (Yes/No)
Honestly? I don’t know. Can I be honest in just saying that I don’t have a good answer to this prepared and would need to give it more thought? Would that mean I’m not meeting your standards for a Christian who can or cannot make statements about sexuality?
Jesus tells you to do something and it’s suddenly his own “personal ethic”? I can claim that everything Jesus said on the Sermon on the Mount was “Jesus’ personal ethic”! Where do you draw the line?
You’re misunderstanding. Jesus was talking to individuals about a personal ethic when approached with interpersonal conflict. St. Paul was talking about governmental issues.
I didn’t think that the mandates of God himself could be “nuanced” by the words of lesser, human prophets, but perhaps you can explain further.
But what do the mandates of God mean? In what context were they spoken? To whom did He communicate and why? All of those are questions we ask when approaching a certain text. We don’t lift one command out of a verse and say, “Here is the Eternal Law for all time” when there are various other passages that address the same theme from different angles.
After all, Jesus was very clear that He’d be returning to make war and resist all sorts of evil people.
So, given what I believe about the Scriptures, I need to take every passage on a given subject into account.
But are we not in agreement that the #1 opponent of gay people’s lives improving in the USA is Christians?
Depends on what you mean by “improving,” and this is where we’ll disagree and probably part ways. Again, if I believe homosexuality to be sin, I cannot divorce that word from its meaning and consequences. Homosexuality, gluttony, divorce & remarriage (except for when God allows for that), sex before marriage, pride, lying, legalism, refusal to do anything God commands us to do, and doing those things He has commanded us not to do – all things I call sin.
The problem we’re going to run into here is that I think all of these things are against God’s will, including the sins I struggle with, and that therefore the open approval of those things is not a good idea.
“You’re generalizing!” is an argument I usually ignore altogether, and, going forward in this conversation, I will do exactly that.
Hey, that’s really convenient! It works really well for when you decide to generalize.
Well, sure, they “interpret” those sins away. Gluttony and remarriage are the two big ones. Gay Christians interpret away the sin of homosexuality. Conservative Christians say of them that they are ignoring scripture so that they can engage in their sinful lifestyle without any guilt. Can I not make the exactsame argument about chubby Christians and Christians who divorce and re-marry?
Yes, you can, and you’d be correct…but those Christians would be wrong to have done so. They’re all sin, and they’re all dealt with at the cross.
Your analogy is helpful – quite helpful – for getting readers here to understand where you’re coming from.
First, let me say that I, and many other Christians, would not want to deny you work or throw you in prison for being gay. Those of us who would not want to do that are utterly appalled at those who do, and we’re calling on our fellow Christians to change (very much one of the purposes of my initiating this discussion).
Second, despite the culture war and the nonsense from Focus on the Family and so on, Christianity itself is not a religion whose primary purpose is to deride homosexuals – not in the least. It’s a religion whose primary purpose is to point to Christ, and his crucifixion, for the forgiveness and healing of the sins of the world. American Christians have distorted this.
Third, all of those things have been said about Christians and more, and the historical testimony of the church has been to bear it silently, pray for those who persecute, love enemies, and die for Christ. Whenever we’ve attained power, we’ve distorted all these things, and we need to repent. But Christians through two millenia have suffered abuse and died silently.
I’d like to answer the three questions, but the primary problem I’m running into when I try is the beginning of your illustration… “Suppose I drew up a new religion whose primary tenet, its greatest good, was to humiliate and deride Christians.”
If you think that’s the historical origin of the Christian church (We “drew up a religion whose primary tenet, its greatest good, was to humiliate and deride” homosexuality, which is the parallel to your illustration), then I’m not sure what to say.
But let’s do this parallel…suppose in your religion, you knew for a fact that because I was a “Christian,” because I was a fallen human being just like everyone else, that there was hope for me if I would turn from myself, my desires, and turn to your God, who has given himself up for me, for us all, so that we could be reconciled to him, though none of us deserved it…would it be loving of you to keep silent out of fear of hurting my feelings?
My point is this: there are options other than “abuse” and “Christians shutting up.”
Travis,
I’ve think you’ve responded very well to SuprKufr. I don’t think there’s anything I would or could add to your responses.
You’ve pointed out the main problem in this discussion: No matter what you or I or anyone else says, SuprKufr’s primary supposition, which is driving all his arguments, is that Christians just want to hate gays & they’ll do anything to achieve that end. At least that what it seems to all get back to.
Travis,
Thanks for your response.
Oh! Well, that’s much easier…sort of. I mean, you’d have to actually get to know me.
That will be difficult to do on a dinky internet message board, so maybe you can just tell me if what I’ve said about why you want to uphold condemnation of homosexuality is true for you personally. You’ve already indicated to me that interpreting away the condemnations of homosexuality would be tantamount to abandoning your entire faith, so I can tell that it’s very, very important to you.
For some, it’s a “convenient” lie. For some, it’s a dysconscious prejudice. In any case, we’re in agreement that the abuse hypocrisy needs to stop. Our solutions just look different.
A “dysconscious prejudice”? Interesting … what is that?
And, to be sure, I’m not concerned about Christian hypocrisy. All I want is for the abuse to stop. So I don’t think we quite agree on what exactly the problem is.
Honestly? I don’t know. Can I be honest in just saying that I don’t have a good answer to this prepared and would need to give it more thought? Would that mean I’m not meeting your standards for a Christian who can or cannot make statements about sexuality?
I think that shows that you recognize that there is a problem which requires your thought, and I think that’s very honest of you. Remember, calling you to respect Jesus’ mandates is only useful to me insomuch that it helps the abuse to stop. That’s my goal here, nothing more.
You’re misunderstanding. Jesus was talking to individuals about a personal ethic when approached with interpersonal conflict. St. Paul was talking about governmental issues.
My bad!
But what do the mandates of God mean? In what context were they spoken? To whom did He communicate and why?
Those are all very good and valid questions! In fact, you’re describing the very act of interpretation in which we impute a different meaning to what the scriptures actually say.
In fact, that’s the very reason why I asked you about this troublesome verse:
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.” Lk 14:26, words of Christ
I hate to repeat myself. And I particularly hate to twist the knife because I think you have been very kind and very respectful toward me. But this point is crucial and I can see that you didn’t address it.
What does Jesus mean in Lk 14:26? Does he mean what exactly what he says, or does he mean something else?
All of those are questions we ask when approaching a certain text. We don’t lift one command out of a verse and say, “Here is the Eternal Law for all time” when there are various other passages that address the same theme from different angles.
Agreed! That is precisely what the Metropolitan Community Church has chosen to do with their theology. They didn’t take the condemnations against homosexuality and say “Here is the Eternal Law for all time”. They interpreted it to mean a condemnation of temple prostitutes and, consequently, their churches are filled with gay people and they didn’t abandon their faith, either.
My question to you: why can’t you do exactly the same interpretation regarding homosexuality that the MCC did?
After all, Jesus was very clear that He’d be returning to make war and resist all sorts of evil people.
That doesn’t erase what Jesus told you that you can and cannot do. Correct me if I am wrong, but your God isn’t bound by the rules that he gives to humanity.
maybe you can just tell me if what I’ve said about why you want to uphold condemnation of homosexuality is true for you personally.
No, it’s not true for me personally. I could tell you stories, but I’d be betraying trust.
A “dysconscious prejudice”? Interesting … what is that?
Uncritical thought, tacitly accepting the norms as a given. It’s from Joyce E. King’s essay, “Dysconscious Racism.”
I hate to repeat myself. And I particularly hate to twist the knife because I think you have been very kind and very respectful toward me. But this point is crucial and I can see that you didn’t address it.
Sorry…I’m at work, and I’m bound to miss stuff, ’cause I’m writing quickly in breaks. Please do keep me posted if I’ve failed to address something you’d like me to answer.
I don’t think this passage is difficult, especially since we have a parallel to it in another passage. Jesus regularly used hyperbole to get a point across. That’s what’s going on here. He means, “He who loves his father or mother more than me,” which is how a different gospel writer states it.
My question to you: why can’t you do exactly the same interpretation regarding homosexuality that the MCC did?
Because I think that interpretation is a huge, huge stretch, and I honestly can’t, in good conscience, accept it. Now hear me (I’ll get in trouble for this from some of my Christian brothers and sisters): I can’t accept it, even though I want to. I don’t like Hell, and I don’t like people who honestly love those of the same sex being told there’s something wrong with them for that, especially when there are murderers and rapists. But I can’t deny it’s what God said, and I can’t put myself in the place of being wiser than God. All I can do is believe what he says, even when it goes against some of my inclinations (I’m fallen, frail, and weak; he’s holy and pure and perfect), and trust that in the end, He’ll do what is just.
That doesn’t erase what Jesus told you that you can and cannot do. Correct me if I am wrong, but your God isn’t bound by the rules that he gives to humanity.
Correct. God is allowed to take and give life; I am not, unless He has commanded me to specifically (God-ordained capital punishment and war in the OT).
SuprKufr wrote:
“What does Jesus mean in Lk 14:26? Does he mean what exactly what he says, or does he mean something else?”
This is a rather fundamentalist position, isn’t it? That Jesus has to be either speaking literally or if He’s not, that means you can take His words any way you like. Jesus is allowed to use hyperbole, a deliberate exaggeration to prove His point.
What’s His point? He’s talking about the cost of discipleship. If anything gets in the way of Jesus being the most important thing in our life, even our own life, it must be hated & put behind Him. It’s a 1st Commandment issue, you shall have no other gods before Me. Jesus is exaggerating here to get the crowd to see the seriousness of following Him. Brief exegesis.
Quick tips on exegesis:
Scripture, although God’s Word, is written in human language, thus one can & to an extent must, use human grammar to understand it.
Context, context, context.
More clear passages interpret less clear ones.
Travis,
Thanks again for your reply.
Depends on what you mean by “improving,” and this is where we’ll disagree and probably part ways.
I’m not willing to give up on you just yet. When I speak of improving, I mean that an individual should not feel badly about being heterosexual any more than they should feel badly about being a homosexual. They are both completely amoral concepts. The fact that homosexuality is seen as an immoral concept causes gay people all sorts of harm. The worst harm that comes to gay people happens when they are children and in school. The worst harm that Christians to go gay people is when they find out their own children are gay. They are often times taken to Christian pray-the-gay-away centers (which do more harm than good) or, worse yet, made homeless and shunned by their parents forever. I will easily state that my being a gay adult is much easier than my being a gay child. Everyone knows what the worst insult a guy can be called in high school. If I had come out in high school, I would have been assaulted for it. So I hid in fear.
Yes, this is personal. I would like gays to have an easier time as children and not have to hide in fear of being expelled from the family, to be treated like they were mentally ill, or to have to live in fear of being assaulted. Let me try to make it personal for you. When I think of Jesus Christ, I think of the divine inspiration behind all those kids who called me a “fa**ot” (and it stung because it was true) and who would have kicked my a** for it had they known the truth. That’s the face of Jesus Christ.
So I hope you understand what I mean when I say “improving”. I want the abuse to stop, and Christianity, so far, is more the problem than it is the solution. Kids who abuse gay kids have plenty of justification for doing so.
First, let me say that I, and many other Christians, would not want to deny you work or throw you in prison for being gay. Those of us who would not want to do that are utterly appalled at those who do, and we’re calling on our fellow Christians to change (very much one of the purposes of my initiating this discussion).
That’s a step in the right direction. I thank you for it.
Second, despite the culture war and the nonsense from Focus on the Family and so on, Christianity itself is not a religion whose primary purpose is to deride homosexuals – not in the least. It’s a religion whose primary purpose is to point to Christ, and his crucifixion, for the forgiveness and healing of the sins of the world. American Christians have distorted this.
Whether or not that is a distortion is an opinion. I call Christianity as I see it. And what I see right now is Bob Jones University endorsing a Mormon as a presidential candidate most worthy of endorsing and supporting Christian values. What values would those be, exactly? I know enough about “Christian love” to know what they see in Romney: anti-gay and anti-abortion. And that apparently trumps heresy!
Whenever we’ve attained power, we’ve distorted all these things, and we need to repent. But Christians through two millenia have suffered abuse and died silently.
I know this is an important fact to you, but I hope you understand that it doesn’t help me in any way at all. It sounds self-congratulatory to me. “Look how much we’ve suffered!” Perhaps you should walk a mile in my shoes?
I’d like to answer the three questions, but the primary problem I’m running into when I try is the beginning of your illustration… “Suppose I drew up a new religion whose primary tenet, its greatest good, was to humiliate and deride Christians.”
I don’t think of Christianity in that way that I’ve implied, and I know “hating gays” was NOT any kind of a central tenet in the history of Christianity, either. I was only trying to form the analogy in a way such that you would regard abuse of Christians in this hypothetical religion as a matter of religious duty that could not be removed without destroying the religion itself.
So, will you permit me to erase and rewrite my analogy such that that will be more fair and more representative of your position? (And will you accept my apology? I don’t think that you regard “hating gays” as the highest good, so please forgive me!) If so, here it is:
Suppose I drew up a new religion which contained as an inextricable tenet the mandate to humiliate and deride Christians. When I had the chance to talk to you, I would tell you, “When you follow your religion then you commit a revolting abomination. When you pray to your god, that’s like raping children. If I was your boss, I’d fire you when I found out you were a Christian. My god hates you, and I think you should be arrested and sent to prison.” And I would say these things whenever I had the opportunity because I considered it my religious duty to stand up against evil.
1. Would you think of those things as abusive things to say to you?
2. If I told you that it was religious expression, would you then respect it?
3. If I had all of those thoughts, but chose never to express them to you in any way, then would you feel less abused by me?
But let’s do this parallel…suppose in your religion, you knew for a fact that because I was a “Christian,” because I was a fallen human being just like everyone else, that there was hope for me if I would turn from myself, my desires, and turn to your God, who has given himself up for me, for us all, so that we could be reconciled to him, though none of us deserved it…would it be loving of you to keep silent out of fear of hurting my feelings?
That question depends solely on the definition of “love”. When I was a teenager and a Christian, a very wise Christian preacher once told me, “The word ‘love’ is a word that is in trouble.” I think many Christians do whatever they want and feel like they can call it “love” simply because they “know Jesus”. By their fruits shall I know them.
Also, do you notice how you trivialize potential harm as “hurting my feelings”? Let me illustrate: If a fifteen year old gay kid gets kicked out of his house by his Christian parents who reject him forever, do you think that would that hurt his feelings, similar to a preschool child calling another child a “meanie” and hurting his feelings? (Yes/No)
Travis,
We’re finally getting to the meat of the matter. I have to reply later, but I really, really am interesting in continuing the discussion. I have further questions for you that I really want you to answer, and since you’ve been so kind thus far, I hope that you will indulge me further. A bientot…
This conversation is dominating the entire site. Can it be moved to private emails now?
Matthew
‘ You also aren’t living the experience of gays persecuted (by Christians) in the USA. You can only imagine it, which, if you remember, is precisely what I invited revgeorge to do.’
Well, there is Christian persecution here. Try being a Catholic for a week. It is not uncommon for our churches to be attacked, especially statues–one was beheaded at my local parish. Masses have been attacked or interrupted often. Many in my family remember the ‘good’ ol days when the Klan practically ran the Midwest. There’s always a bit of fear when one puts up any Catholic symbols, which are often graffitied, or nasty things are written on your car. Many refugees from the places where Catholics, especially priests, are those sitting next to me in the pews. They have seen Christians murdered in cold blood in front of their eyes and escaped with their lives. I spent a good deal of my childhood overseas. It wasn’t pretty. My fathers are being killed all the time and beheaded. Yes, I know what it’s like.
I agree that there is biggotry among Christians. I have seem members of all denominations having a hissy fit over homosexuality, but have no issue with fornication or artificial contraception–both condemned by the Bible and Christians from day one.
That I believe is Traviss’ point chatising the Christians who only react to ‘this’ sexual issue.
But to claim only homosexuals here are persecuted is not a valid statement.
(Here’s a double whammy–friends of mine who are Catholic and African-American. Trust me they know it from all angles!)
p.s. I know that many Protestants are also persecuted, but I wished to only speak of personal experiences.
Actually, I’m considering a third option…SuprKufr, I’m wondering if you’d be willing to hold off on continuing for a day or two, give me time to set up another blog (probably something simple on wordpress.com), transfer this whole conversation over there, and we could continue what is becoming a very helpful discussion in a public realm, but not here, to prevent it from eating this Harry Potter blog alive?
Let me know.
I only have one thing to add. SuprKufr, I’m sorry that you’ve experienced such hatred at the hand of anyone. (I’m really not convinced, though, that it’s only Christians who are at fault for such hateful behavior.)
Several years ago, there were two different girls–well, young women by that time–who came out. Their parents have not disowned them. They love their daughters and though they live outside the area now, the young women do come for holiday services when they are visiting their parents. The one girl usually comes with her partner. There is no one in the congregation saying they can’t be there or attacking them in any way. Both girls, when they were college age, worked with the youth group, so both my daughters know them better than I. I like them both–they were good role models for my girls and the other kids at the church as they were involved with church activities, went on mission trips, spoke about their experiences, etc.
So what you’ve experienced is just not true for everyone.
From being in a Women’s Bible Study class with the one mom, I know that this is something that has been very difficult for them as a family. After all, every parent hopes their child will have an easy path in life and every parent hopes that someday they will have grandchildren. That will not be the case for this mom. Their son is schizophrenic and is just barely able to function on his own. Getting married and having a family is likely not on his horizon. I don’t think their daughter has any plans or intention of adopting, either.
So, no, I’ve not experienced the sort of bigotry that you want stopped–and I agree that it needs to stop. But please don’t put me in that category. I’m not there. And Bob Jones Univ. is backing someone? You can bet I’ll be voting for someone else. Being originally from Kansas I heard more than enough about them.
I really hope that you are able to find some peace of mind. I think it’s sad to see anyone hurting as much as you seem to be.
Pat
SuprKufr,
You keep saying “I want the abuse to stop”, but from the context of the rest of your posts, that is not at all what you are asking for. It seems that you are really asking for Christians to suddenly say that homosexuality is not a sin, even though the Bible says it is.
I do agree that there are a lot of Christians out there that do act really rotten to gay people. That is in fact abuse. But merely calling some actions “sin” is not abuse. It seems like that is a fundamental sticking point between you and Travis. The problem is, he has built a bridge much more than halfway across the divide, but you don’t seem willing to meet him halfway. The only thing you seem willing to accept is if Christians, and Travis in particular, fully embrace something they can not. With respect to Travis, he is not abusing gay people. He just respectfully disagrees with some of their actions.
(Sorry Travis, didn’t mean to speak on your behalf. Feel free to tell me to shut up.)
I would like to jump in just a bit, as well, SuprKufr. Oftentimes, people who aren’t so much Christian will commit horrible, hateful acts that stem from their bigotry, and these people will simply excuse it all away using Christianity, thinking that will hide or excuse their hate. Christianity is used as a shield by some who never pray, never read their bible, and have a closer relationship with George W than they do with Jesus Christ. I am not saying whether these people are or are not Christians, but I seriously doubt anyone who has ever physically assaulted someone based on sexual orientation has done so purely in the name of Christ. Rather, they wear Christianity as a badge when it is a convenient excuse. I, too, wish that this excuse could be ripped from those who abuse it. Unfortunately, I doubt it would end the violence because Christianity is often not the cause, just the excuse.
Travis,
I accept your offer to move this to another blog. But since we finally got to the meat of the matter, I must mention it here because it is so important.
Let me try to recap:
1. I asked you to interpret scripture such that homosexuality was not prohibited.
2. You indicated that doing that would “have no basis for the faith whatsoever”.
3. I pointed out that the MCC interprets scripture such that the prohibitions on homosexual behavior and, consequently, their churches are filled with gay people who obviously have not lost their faith. I asked why you could not interpret scripture in precisely the same way in regards to homosexuality.
4. Your answer to that (why not?) is as follows: “Because I think that interpretation is a huge, huge stretch, and I honestly can’t, in good conscience, accept it.”
My question: what do you mean it is a “huge, huge stretch”? A “stretch” from what? I can’t see why it is any worse than any of the following:
1. Lk 14:26, in which Jesus states that you can NOT be his disciple if you don’t hate your family hand yourself, is interpreted to means that you should NOT hate your family and should NOT hate yourself.
2. Mat 5:39, in which Jesus commands you to NOT resist an evil person, is interpreted (not necessarily you, but by hundreds of millions of other Christians) to mean that it is ACCEPTABLE to resist an evil person.
3. In Mk 9:43-47, Jesus mandates self-mutilation as a means of avoiding sin, and this is interpreted to mean that you should NOT self-mutilate as a means of avoiding sin.
In each of these cases, the words of Jesus Christ himself are interpreted to mean the exact opposite of what they say! They are negated in every instance through the power of interpretation!
My question to you: why is interpreting scripture to mean the opposite of what it says in terms of homosexuality forbidden, yet interpreting scripture to mean the opposite of what it says when it comes to Jesus’ mandates acceptable? Why are the three instances I mentioned (above) NOT, in every case, a “huge, huge stretch”?
I think the reason it’s not is because for you, scripture itself is not the authority. The “authority of scripture” you speak of is actually a common interpretation of scripture held by your culture. In other words, Christian culture, not the Bible, and certainly not God, is the authority for Christians, and scripture itself is used to bolster your culture when it needs support or “interpreted away” when it is inconvenient. Let me know if I’ve pegged it correctly.
SuprKufr, as I’ve already asked that we not turn this blog into a debate on biblical exegesis, I’m going to refrain from an explanation as to why I think you’re missing the point on all three of those passages.
While I can agree that for some Christians, American Sub-cultural Christianity has become the dominant interpretive force for our faith, and for that, we need to repent (again, one of the reasons I wrote this article in the first place).
I cannot say that is true for Christian theology itself, especially when looked at from a historical point of view. When we’re talking about homosexuality in specific, we’re talking about a near-universal agreement from the Early Church Fathers, doctors of the church, pastors, teachers, theologians over the course of 2,000 years.
I’ll let you know soon if we’re going to do the other blog thing in a couple days. Things have been really hectic on my end. Thanks for your patience (and once again, for your interaction here).
Travis,
Thanks for your reply. I’ll be happy to read your “exegesis” (I think that’s merely a fancy term for interpretation, or perhaps a fancy term for “justification for a particular interpretation”) on another website. You can contact me in e-mail when it’s ready.
While I can agree that for some Christians, American Sub-cultural Christianity has become the dominant interpretive force for our faith, and for that, we need to repent (again, one of the reasons I wrote this article in the first place).
When you interpret something, you are changing what it says so that it means something other than what it says. This means that you have to interpret according to something else; meaning, you have to have a baseline by which you understand a written work. I think this baseline for interpreting scripture is culture, and you seem to agree with me to some extent. And yet, you also say that Christians need to repent of that behavior. If Christians were to do just that, then they would lose the baseline by which they interpret scripture. And if that were to happen, then by what will you interpret scripture? If “by nothing”, then scripture means what it says and it says what it means, which means you’re not interpreting at all. Instead, you would be reading it literally (which is what I do, since I am not a Christian and thus have no pressing need to interpret it).
I cannot say that is true for Christian theology itself, especially when looked at from a historical point of view. When we’re talking about homosexuality in specific, we’re talking about a near-universal agreement from the Early Church Fathers, doctors of the church, pastors, teachers, theologians over the course of 2,000 years.
This is because, in Western culture, there has been a long-standing cultural norm of opposition to homosexuals. Keep in mind that there are other cultural norms which have existed in the past 2,000 years. To name a few:
1. The cultural norm of one man, one woman marriage (held by almost all Christians except for a few fringe Christians, as scripture advocates polygyny in the OT and assumes it in the NT)
2. Slavery (supported by many Southerners before the War between the States and by a few, modern pro-South extremists, justified in both the OT and in the NT)
3. Male dominance over women (waning except among very conservative Christians, mandated in both the OT and in the NT)
4. Teetotaling (used to be supported by conservative Christians, whereas alcohol consumption is advocated in both the OT and in the NT)
And so on. On one hand, the cultural norms of monogamous heterosexual marriage and male dominance over women are still powerfully held (the latter to a smaller extent) among conservative Christians. On the other hand, the norms of slavery and teetotaling have died out. As we can also see that whatever cultural norm in question persists in dies in spite of what scripture says, not because of what scripture says. Scripture is merely the tool used to justify or oppose the cultural norms because it is culture, not scripture, that rules Christianity. This is also why people say, “You can interpret scripture to mean anything you want it to mean.” Of course you can! That is precisely what interpretation is for!
So you are arguing my point, not yours, to claim that homosexuality has been condemned by Christians for a long time. So what? That’s just another cultural norm which, as it is, happens to be changing as Crunchy Christian Codgers (CCC) continue to die off. Gay rights have expanded in ways that would have been unimaginable in our grandparents’ generation. In other words, your side is losing. And, pretty soon, people will find that scripture stands up for gay rights (despite what scripture says) in just the same way that it stands against slavery (despite what scripture says): through the awesome power of interpretation.
And that’s why I think it’s a “huge stretch” for you to interpret scripture in a way that would make the lives of gay people easier: it flies in the face of your culture which tells you what right and wrong is. Normally scripture is a lot more malleable and forgiving, but, on the issue of homosexuality, you receive a clear and unambiguous “NO!” from your culture.
I think I have a way where we can find out if my suspicion about you is correct. Let’s try an experiment.
Tomorrow, get away from your computer and tell your family, your best friends, and your church that you have now realized that the correct interpretation of scripture is the one which no longer condemns homosexuality as a sin.
How do you think they would respond? You don’t really have to do it. I imagine that you know them well enough to be able to predict what their reaction would be.
Would they tell you that you were no longer a Christian?
Would they accuse you of being gay?
Would they condemn you to hell?
Of course, they’re all different individuals, and I’m sure they’ll all have different responses. What I’m curious about is the degree of social rejection that you would face from the people in your family and in your culture if you were to suddenly become pro-gay and proclaim that scripture supported your point of view.
SuprKufr, there’s no such thing as “just reading what is says.” There’s no such thing as reading without interpretation. Interpretation is not “changing what it says into something else.” It’s trying to understand what it says.
Saying that you read it “literally” is vapid. You wouldn’t read poetry without attention to metaphor or simile. You wouldn’t read a scientific text as you would poetry. Reading always involves entering into the genre of that text (and its culture).
The rest of your post is so full of the oversimplification (you’ll ignore that charge) of the issues involved, I’m not even sure where to start. That the Bible describes polygamy in the OT doesn’t mean in condones it, and where on earth you get NT polygamy is beyond me. I don’t even see where teetotaling fit in, as that was nothing more than a brief insanity on the part of Christians, with its actual origins in 19th century feminism and second great awakening holiness movements.
But again, I can’t respond specifically to your four points, because this isn’t a place to debate biblical texts.
But I’ll answer your last challenge:
They’d take me to Romans 1, explain what the text means, and demonstrate my position to be biblically incorrect, and I believe they’d be right. If I experienced social rejection (I’m sure I would in some quarters), that would be wrong, and they’d need to repent. But that wouldn’t make them less correct about what Romans 1 says; they’d just need to learn to speak truth in love and mercy, rather than in arrogance and hatred.
I’m still having trouble with the overall argument that keeps running through your comments: Christians have been inconsistent and messed up a lot, therefore they should just give on the homosexuality issue.
Yes, Christians have been inconsistent on issues. We’ve failed. We’ve been wrong. We’ve allowed our culture to dominate our thinking at times, and twisted Scripture to fit that culture.
But if you want to argue that Christians have primarily done this, as opposed to the other way around (affecting culture based on Scripture), then once again, I have no idea what to say. A look at the way belief in the Scriptures changed and shaped sexual norms in the Roman Empire would demonstrate that Scripture set the tone there, counter to culture. The over-aching, dominating story has been that Christian belief has run counter to culture and transformed it (and sometimes even against a formerly “Christian” culture that had been corrupted, some of which needs to happen again in our own day).
So, yes, welcome to the history of Christians who fail. This is why Christ and the cross, not Christians themselves, the church, or any particular systematic theology, is at the center of our faith.
One more quick thought: I can hardly buy the reasoning that, as a Christian, I’m unable to just read what the text means and have to impose all sorts of cultural implications onto it, but you, as a homosexual non-Christian, can just “read what it says,” or read it objectively. You’ve already said that your primary goal is to “get the abuse of gays by Christians to stop.” You hardly come at the Scriptures neutral and agenda-free, since by far the easiest way to accomplish your goal is to convince Christians that they have no basis for their belief that homosexuality is a sin.
Not sure if this is the proper point to inject this observation into the conversation, but I missed the opportunity earlier during the argument of who is more persecuted, gays or Christians.
If you really think gays are treated so poorly in America, try living in one of the many fundamental Islamic nations. I’m quite sure there are very few people in the US that call themselves Christians that would literally want to kill you because you are gay. But in the radical Islamic nations like Iran and Indonesia, the entire nation of people would not hesitate to kill you on the spot for being gay. That is serious persecution. Incidentally, they treat Christians the same way.
Related to earlier comments, in Jo’s recent interview at the Toronto press conference, she states that she knew Dumbledore was gay from very early on. When pressed, she said that she probably knew before the first book was published.
In my opinion, Jo looked very sullen, especially every time she is asked a Dumbledore question. I think she may be quite upset by having to constantly defend her character, especially after the last questioner had finished with her.
Travis,
I want to thank you for your sensitivity and honesty in this post. You are right, I am a hypocrite. I am just thankful that now I can pray and ask God to help me see things His way, and not the world’s way. Again, thank you!
::standing ovation::
We Christians could all use a large helping of the humility you espouse here. The war – and there is one – is against ideas and attitudes, not people. Rowling has said more than many people admit, that she struggles with her faith. Don’t we all! Yes, I think she’s wrong on one point, but that doesn’t mean I can deny that she’s given us one of the most beautiful pictures of biblical sacrifice I’ve ever found in fiction.
Thank you for your thoughts. They were well-put, and carry a lot of truth.
I noticed something else from the recent Toronto interview. Jo said, in response to why she had not previously outed Dumbledore, “Ummm… because I was asked a very direct question at Carnegie Hall and the question was, which I have never been asked before… do you… given that one of the biggest themes in the books is love, did Albus Dumbledore ever find love? ” http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/1022-torontopressconf.html
However, I was certain she had been asked that question before and gave a vague response. From just prior to the release of DH:
ROSE: My question is did Albus Dumbledore ever fall in love?
JKR: Ummmm… Well, in the course of a long life, I think nearly everyone falls in love, but you probably shouldn’t read too much into that answer.
http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0720-bluepeter.html
Of course, believing that Dumbledore’s infatuation was a key plot point, she would not want to out Dumbledore just before the release of the final book. But she must have forgotten that she had been asked this question before.
Ginevra, great find! Thanks for sharing it here and linking to it.
Travis,
I consider you to be a very kind, thoughtful, and considerate person, and I have appreciated the attention that you’ve given me thus far. Your most recent reply, however, is not of the same generous spirit which you have given me earlier. I sense that I’m getting under your skin and your patience will soon run out.
SuprKufr, there’s no such thing as “just reading what is says.” There’s no such thing as reading without interpretation. Interpretation is not “changing what it says into something else.” It’s trying to understand what it says.
Interpretation is trying to understand what what something *means*. You already know what something *says* because you can just open your eyes and see the words written on the page!
But how do you know what something means if it doesn’t mean what it says? I maintain that you use your culture as your compass in that problem.
Saying that you read it “literally” is vapid.
Vapid to you, I’m sure, because that would mean that the Bible means what it says and that’s something that no Christian can bear. Sometimes the Bible says some weird, ambiguous, disgusting, inaccurate, and wicked things. I am not a Christian, so I have no incentive to “interpret” it to mean anything else. When the Bible is ambiguous, stupid, or wrong, then, to me, it’s ambiguous, stupid, or wrong. I don’t think Christianity is true, so I have no compelling reason to interpret scripture to harmonize the Bible with what I know is true.
The rest of your post is so full of the oversimplification (you’ll ignore that charge) of the issues involved, I’m not even sure where to start.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with simplifying something. Was I obligated to write a detailed treatise on this blog? If I misrepresented something, then please let me know and I’ll attempt to clarify my position. Perhaps you “don’t know where to start” because my arguments have overwhelmed you and you’re employing the accusation of “oversimplifying” as a defense mechanism. Since you failed to indicate any invalidity in any of my numerous examples of Scripture being a crude tool to enforce cultural norms (or blithely ignored when it violates cultural norms), it’s hard to know whether or not you are truly crushed by my argument.
That the Bible describes polygamy in the OT doesn’t mean in condones it, and where on earth you get NT polygamy is beyond me.
I can provide chapter and verse for all my arguments (whereas you will fail at providing chapter and verse showing that bigamy is a sin), but I’m getting the feeling you won’t appreciate my quoting scripture here. Perhaps you can set up that other blog where I will school you in your lack of Biblical knowledge? I look forward to it.
I don’t even see where teetotaling fit in, as that was nothing more than a brief insanity on the part of Christians
I don’t see how it DOESN’T fit in, considering that it was a Christian movement and justified by Christians with scripture. That’s because teetotaling was a cultural norm, and Scripture was used to uphold it. That’s the point I’m proving that you don’t want to see.
But again, I can’t respond specifically to your four points, because this isn’t a place to debate biblical texts.
But you went ahead and debated them anyway, albeit very poorly. I think the reason you can’t respond specifically is because you haven’t thought about this issue very much and thus you have nothing more to offer me than angry whining. Perhaps if you set up that other blog you can go about proving me wrong, but you’re looking pretty defeated to me at this point. My guess is that you won’t set up that other blog, but time will tell.
I think you use scripture like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not for illumination. You are exactly like me in that regard — the key difference being that our goals are very different.
But I’ll answer your last challenge:
They’d take me to Romans 1, explain what the text means, and demonstrate my position to be biblically incorrect, and I believe they’d be right. If I experienced social rejection (I’m sure I would in some quarters), that would be wrong, and they’d need to repent.
Take the experiment a little bit deeper. What if you refused to believe they were right and stuck to your guns about your interpretation. Suppose you continued to do that for years and years. What kind of effect would that have on your friends, family, and church?
I’m still having trouble with the overall argument that keeps running through your comments: Christians have been inconsistent and messed up a lot, therefore they should just give on the homosexuality issue.
I don’t think you should “give up on the homosexuality issue” because “Christians have been inconsistent and messed” up a lot. I need to repeat this to you because it seems like you aren’t hearing me: I do not care if Christians are inconsistent, hypocritical, or mess up. All I want is for Christians to stop abusing gays, and I do not think that is too much to ask. Clearly, you disagree, though you will deny that it is abusive for you to tell me that if I don’t abandon the love of my life and forsake him forever then I deserve eternal torture in hell. (Let me know if that is not actually your belief.)
But if you want to argue that Christians have primarily done this, as opposed to the other way around (affecting culture based on Scripture), then once again, I have no idea what to say. A look at the way belief in the Scriptures changed and shaped sexual norms in the Roman Empire would demonstrate that Scripture set the tone there, counter to culture.
There is not one single culture, even among Christians. When I speak of your culture, I’m talking about your Christian culture. I’m not sure which particular Christian sect you happen to follow. But whatever it is, its a group of people with shared beliefs and customs that are called norms. And that tells you what is true as it has for all people. We are social creatures, after all, and we find our truth and meaning from others around us. Not from scripture, and certainly not from “god”.
I can hardly buy the reasoning that, as a Christian, I’m unable to just read what the text means and have to impose all sorts of cultural implications onto it, but you, as a homosexual non-Christian, can just “read what it says,” or read it objectively.
I wouldn’t go as far as to say that you’re “unable” to do that. After all, I’ve met a few Christians who admit that the Bible supports bigamy in spite of our own cultural norms which forbid it. That would be an example of a Christian who is certainly able read what the text means without imposing cultural norms onto it. Whether or not you go against your own culture for scriptural reasons is something we’d have to examine on a case-by-case basis, and I don’t think either of us is interested in that.
The fact remains that Christians use or ignore scripture as their culture tells them to. (I notice you didn’t complain about my bringing up how the Bible “describes” slavery or how it “describes” the subjugation of women.)
You hardly come at the Scriptures neutral and agenda-free, since by far the easiest way to accomplish your goal is to convince Christians that they have no basis for their belief that homosexuality is a sin.
I don’t think I’ve ever portrayed myself as either neutral or agenda-free in this discussion. Your problem with me isn’t that I’m biased or following my agenda, but rather that my biases and agendas don’t match yours. Unsurprisingly, that’s also my problem with you, so we have another thing in common.
Send me an e-mail when you want to set up that other blog. Fair warning: my primary weapon against you will be the Bible.
If you really think gays are treated so poorly in America, try living in one of the many fundamental Islamic nations.
This is presently Christians’ most frequently-employed “out” for their horrible treatment of gays. “At least we aren’t as bad as the Muslims!”
Islam is worse than Christianity in every way possible. Christians are my allies in the fight against jihad and Islamic supremacism.
None of that has anything to do with whether or not Christians should stop abusing gays (they should).
“I can provide chapter and verse for all my arguments (whereas you will fail at providing chapter and verse showing that bigamy is a sin), but I’m getting the feeling you won’t appreciate my quoting scripture here. Perhaps you can set up that other blog where I will school you in your lack of Biblical knowledge? I look forward to it.”
But see, the problem is that you are providing a single verse that seems to support your point. In almost every case where you’ve listed a verse and said “See?? See what the Bible says about this??”, you completely fail to consider the context of that verse. And in reading the Bible or classic literature, context is very important. It’s not about interpreting something to fit your preconceived notions. It’s about understanding that words mean different things in different contexts.
For instance, say we’re at a high school football game, in the locker room before it starts. The coach is trying to get his team revved up for the game. Among other things, he says “Okay guys, we’re going to go out there tonight and kill the other team.” Now, is he meaning they literally are going to kill the other team? Of course not. The context of the culture, the slang, and the situation tells you that they are expecting to win the game decisively.
To use one of your previous examples of the verse talking about hating your parents, siblings and friends or you can’t follow Christ, the context is fairly important. The verse is not suggesting we should hate everyone. It IS saying that our commitment to Christ should be so important in our life that BY COMPARISON everything else falls by the wayside. It means that our commitment should be such that if we were ever called to choose between Christ and our other relationships, we would not hesitate to choose Christ. The Christians back in Roman times faced choices like that a lot. They were frequently arrested by people like Nero. They were put into an arena with hungry lions, and told that their lives would be spared if they renounced their belief in Jesus. If they did not, they were thrown to the lions. That is what the verse means when it talks about hating your own life relative to your commitment to God.
And that is where context is important. Sure anyone can find verses that seem to support all kinds of things. The church has been doing that for centuries. It’s how they justified things like the Inquisition. That does not mean the Bible is really supporting that.
Context, context, context.
“This is presently Christians’ most frequently-employed “out” for their horrible treatment of gays. “At least we aren’t as bad as the Muslims!”
None of that has anything to do with whether or not Christians should stop abusing gays (they should).”
I don’t think anyone here has argued that Christians should abuse gay people. That quite simply is not what the Bible teaches. But going back to one of my other posts, I think you are stretching the definition of abuse. It is not abuse to think someone’s actions are wrong.
What I said before has a lot to do with this issue. I was saying that there are places in this world where there is horrible abuse taking place. Here in America, you are not subject to that kind of thing. Yes, maybe you run into some people who throw verbal sticks and stones at you. No denying that those can in fact hurt sometimes. But this is also a free country. If people in one area of your life cause you problems, you have the freedom to get yourself away from that. You can change jobs, move to a different neighborhood, city or state, or just choose not to think of yourself as a victim. Some of those things are difficult and maybe impossible in your present circumstances, but you have the freedom to try to change things.
That is what is great about America.
It seems to me, SuprKufr, that you are determined to pick on Christians, any and all of them, no matter what their views or actions are. Has anyone here actually bashed you because you are gay? If so, I missed it.
The frustration that some of us have with you has to do with your lack of willingness to see anyone’s point of view about the Bible than your own. And that makes it very difficult to have any kind of discussion or open exchange of ideas.
Travis, my friend, you have a whole lot more patience than I do.
Pat
SuprKufr,
I am quite sorry that my previous comments came across as less kind than our interaction thus far. I’m just as sorry about the nature of your recent comment to me. I thought we were seeking to better understand one another. You’re seeking to “win” and to “school” me concerning my “lack of knowledge of the Bible” (what? I don’t generally like to say things like this…but I was known in my last church as the “walking Bible encyclopedia;” I had a 4.0 in my M.A. in theology; at one point, I could read NT Greek, but I’ve lost the practice over the last 7 years).
Look, there’s a LOT to respond to in your comment, but presently, I have an insanely busy schedule. I WANT to continue this discussion, but I have no interest in discussion/debate in which my “opponent” pulls the tired, old technique, “You haven’t responded to X,Y, and Z, and it must be because you can’t handle my arguments.” Please, let’s avoid that kind of thing. Let the arguments themselves do the talking, and not the accusations about my “tone” (which is often SO misread in online text discussion) being some sort of proof that I’m crumbing under the weight of your arguments and so have taken to whining.
I’ll give you what my schedule looks like right now – for what it’s worth, I’m just buried in work at the moment.
One point in particular, because it gets at the nature of your entire line of argument right now:
You’re still not accurate to say there can be a distinction between what something “says” and “interpretation” of that text. It is literally, philosophically impossible to read something without interpreting. Interpretation is a necessary first step to discovering what something “says.” The question is not whether or not we interpret; it is how we interpret. You, for example, seem to employ a “proof-text,” Book, Chapter, Verse sort of interpretation. This verse flatly says this or that. No regard is given to the genre of the text, its cultural implications, or its relation to everything else in biblical history, nor the trajectory of redemptive history.
I take a different approach. What did this text mean when it was written? What historical and cultural considerations from that time must be given to the text? What is its place in the overall trajectory of the biblical story?
I don’t think I’ve ever portrayed myself as either neutral or agenda-free in this discussion. Your problem with me isn’t that I’m biased or following my agenda, but rather that my biases and agendas don’t match yours. Unsurprisingly, that’s also my problem with you, so we have another thing in common.
Agreed. But you have portrayed yourself as a more neutral reader of the Scriptures, which was my point; and I think that’s false.
Fair warning: my primary weapon against you will be the Bible.
Can we put down the “weapon” language? I am more than ready to discuss the Bible with you on this.
Update: I’m creating the blog now. Here’s the plan. Over the next week or so, a day at a time, I’m going to post the dialogue as it’s happened so far. Once we’ve reached the point that we’re at in this comment thread, we’ll move forward from there. I’ll email you with a username and password when we’re ready to go.
I’m going to post notices to get publicity, and start the posting in a couple days.
The ongoing discussion between myself and SuprKufr will continue at The Dumbledore Dialogue. Our interaction here will be reposted over the next several weeks (so folks can catch up), and then we’ll keep going.
At this point, I’m closing comments for this thread. This is not something I usually do, but the potential for trolls and really angry people is quite high on this sort of subject matter, and I think it best to let the conversation stand as it is, let each one consider the discussion presented here, and if interested, continue following over at The Dumbledore Dialogue.
Comments on this entry are closed.