![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I'm not entirely sure how many Christians who would argue against homosexuality are reading this. However many I have, though, I'd like to give a small but very important piece of advice. Even if you don't believe in condemning homosexuality, you might want to pass this on to other Christians you know who might.
Please, please, please, do *not* quote Leviticus!
Yes, I know it's nice and convenient. But there is a very good reason for this. And the reason is - mildew. I'm sure there are other examples, but mildew is the easiest to pick on. In this day and age, we have much better ways of dealing with mildew than tearing down the entire house and burning the ground it stood on. However, the same justification you use to say that homosexuality is wrong, from Leviticus, can equally be used to say that this ought to be done to mildew. (The shellfish thing that most people quote doesn't hold up half as well, but that's another story entirely.)
It's not as if there isn't anywhere in the New Testament to quote. Try 1 Corinthians 6:9 for a start. I'm convinced there's another one there somewhere too, but I haven't had time to dig it out quite yet. And it's not just that the Leviticus argument undermines the credibility of the argument against homosexuality - when people use it, it undermines the credibility of the entire Christian faith - if people are so easily refuting one part of it, they are less likely to believe anything else they're told.
The trigger for all this ranting is a magazine I read. It's called Third Way, and claims to be for Christians who want to engage with real-world issues. I've only had three issues of it, and so far mostly they've been just as obsessed with trying to deal with sexual sin at the expense of thinking about all the economics of sharing that Jesus advocated, but that's not quite what I'm moaning about. They had an interview with a gay rights activist, who said that he was a Christian but then went on to say that it was more of an attitude than thinking that Jesus actually did exist (annoyance number 1 - they didn't really pick up on this), and asked him what he thought about the biblical prohibition of homosexuality. Now, I expect fairly reasoned debate from this magazine, so I was expecting something along the lines of 'translation errors' or 'cultural context' to be claimed, but no. He trawled out the tired old 'people quote Leviticus at me, but don't obey all the other outdated rules in it, so I'm going to treat this as an outdated rule too' argument. And they let him get away with it, as if there was nowhere else in the Bible it was mentioned! Hence the rant.
If you can think of anywhere else that I could usefully post a version of this rant, please say...
Please, please, please, do *not* quote Leviticus!
Yes, I know it's nice and convenient. But there is a very good reason for this. And the reason is - mildew. I'm sure there are other examples, but mildew is the easiest to pick on. In this day and age, we have much better ways of dealing with mildew than tearing down the entire house and burning the ground it stood on. However, the same justification you use to say that homosexuality is wrong, from Leviticus, can equally be used to say that this ought to be done to mildew. (The shellfish thing that most people quote doesn't hold up half as well, but that's another story entirely.)
It's not as if there isn't anywhere in the New Testament to quote. Try 1 Corinthians 6:9 for a start. I'm convinced there's another one there somewhere too, but I haven't had time to dig it out quite yet. And it's not just that the Leviticus argument undermines the credibility of the argument against homosexuality - when people use it, it undermines the credibility of the entire Christian faith - if people are so easily refuting one part of it, they are less likely to believe anything else they're told.
The trigger for all this ranting is a magazine I read. It's called Third Way, and claims to be for Christians who want to engage with real-world issues. I've only had three issues of it, and so far mostly they've been just as obsessed with trying to deal with sexual sin at the expense of thinking about all the economics of sharing that Jesus advocated, but that's not quite what I'm moaning about. They had an interview with a gay rights activist, who said that he was a Christian but then went on to say that it was more of an attitude than thinking that Jesus actually did exist (annoyance number 1 - they didn't really pick up on this), and asked him what he thought about the biblical prohibition of homosexuality. Now, I expect fairly reasoned debate from this magazine, so I was expecting something along the lines of 'translation errors' or 'cultural context' to be claimed, but no. He trawled out the tired old 'people quote Leviticus at me, but don't obey all the other outdated rules in it, so I'm going to treat this as an outdated rule too' argument. And they let him get away with it, as if there was nowhere else in the Bible it was mentioned! Hence the rant.
If you can think of anywhere else that I could usefully post a version of this rant, please say...
Re: I refuse
Date: 2002-05-19 03:15 pm (UTC)From:Well those two are not described as making the person "unclean", no, they are described as "detestable" (I have a feeling I've seen it described as an abomination elsewhere but I've not been able to find it, somewhere in Deuteronomy perhaps?). Does Paul say doing destestable things is okay?
"Detestable" or "abomination" depending on the translation. The Hebrew root is something like "to`ebah" (look up the relevant verse about lying with a man at Blue Letter Bible and use their Hebrew Concordance (the letter "C" by the verse).
Other things which are abominations include women wearing mens' clothing (so no trousers for you girls) in Deut 22:5, plus dishonest weights and measures and also following other gods. While there are some things in that list which it seems obvious that Christians would not want to get involved in, I hope you will be consistent in your application of your exegesis of the difference between "unclean" and "abomination" and treat women wearing trousers in your church with the gravity that such an a sin deserves.
[I did once hear a sermon attempting to make the point that men should wear different clothing from women using the NT: specifically Paul's teaching in 1 Cor 11. Quite, quite mad.]
Re: I refuse
Date: 2002-05-24 02:12 am (UTC)From:You might want to claim that men wore them first, true, men wore tights first, I put to you that tights are not male clothing.
You might want to claim that more men wear trousers than women do (although women might own more trousers than men do) and I put to you that in the 16th century (and perhaps even today) more men wore crowns than women, this didn't make the crown a male garb.
I put to you that trousers are not male only clothing, they might have been once, but what was once the case isn't our problem.
These days a women wearing trousers isn't in rebellion against God, they aren't claiming "I know better than you which sex I should be". (Perhaps it is in some countries, I don't know for certain, I don't know of any. It's certaintly not that here).
I think this is a passage about transvestives, not about trousers.
(And as one of my elders once said to his wife, the point doesn't even make sense, women wear differently taylored 'women's trousers' (because guess what: the female body is a different shape)).
So I will indeed "treat women wearing trousers in your church with the gravity that such an a sin deserves", and scottish men wearing kilts equally so ;-)
Neil
Re: I refuse
Date: 2002-05-24 07:51 am (UTC)From:The motive for women wearing trousers (I mean the first ones that made it acceptable, not women today) was practicality. They started to wear them because they were more practical than traditional womens' clothing.
This is different from the motives behind transvestitism.