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.
revgeorge on 
Flu-Bird on 
R. Ross on 
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
Loading ...
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 128 comments }
← Previous Comments
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.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.