Reactions to my last column regarding depictions of profound same-sex bonds in the Bible were swift, passionate and mixed. I have written an ample reaction piece covering readers' concerns, which can be located on my Web site. Here, I underscore and augment some key points.
The assertions presented in my last column are neither novel nor as contentious as some have judged. In both academic and theological circles, scholars and clerics have rowed over this issue, contending extreme and moderate positions on both sides.
Also, some observers were assured of the Bible's calculated message, while others were circumspect and tentative in drawing definitive deductions. Does a lack of conviction denote debility or a lack of virtue? W.B. Yeats avowed, "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." (Thank you, David.)
Indeed, there is a kernel of truth in Yeats' proclamation.
Daniel Batson and others' research demonstrates that followers of a "quest religious orientation" reliably appear less prejudicial and mulish (using both explicit and implicit measures), as well as genuinely altruistic, than those from other religious orientations. Principally, they recognize that they do not know, and probably will never know, the "final truth" concerning religion. "Still, the questions are deemed important and, however tentative and subject to change, answers are sought," he said.
Moreover, the Bible has been interpreted into many languages over countless generations. (The theory and methodology of interpretation is called hermeneutics.) Interpreting from primary texts requires proficiency in esoteric languages and one's native language, as well as equitably replacing antiquated writing with modern terminology (e.g., neither the words nor concepts of "homosexual," "bisexual," or "heterosexual" existed until the 1890s). Indeed, a sequence of interpretations must be made: first, we translate from a primary text (as best we can) and then afford another interpretation of the translation to derive an overall message.
Human beings, blessed with both reason and prejudices, are fallible. (Indeed, acknowledging our fallibility is a superlative lesson in humility.) Thus, individual differences, as well as cultural influences (e.g., social norms), bias our interpretations, just as they have influenced people's judgments throughout recorded history. Again, people were not always disquieted by same-sex partnership recognition.
Relatedly, the Bible was constructed in and reflects a time when empiricism was not accredited and many condoned slavery, genocide and the oppression of women (which unfortunately still lingers). The world has certainly changed since the Bible was first written, thus we must accommodate for the past in contemporary interpretations.
Being unsure about the Bible's ultimatums demonstrates prudence. The myriad Christian sects advocating diverse interpretations of contentious topics, from same-sex partnerships to stem cell research, evidence the Bible's ambiguity. Yet, this is the essence and appeal of the Bible (and religion in general): People can differentially take comfort in or thump off their chests Biblical extracts.
I said in my last column that I would discuss notorious passages that condone same-sex love, but this dialogue was more pertinent. If you are interested in appraising other interpretations of such passages, my Web site lists sources.
In any case, a professor commented to me that one column cannot change people's minds; yet, if the column makes people deliberate and defend their beliefs, then we have accomplished something. Now there is a kernel of truth in that proclamation, too.
Have a great summer break.
Write to Russ at
rjwebster@bsu.edu
Visit
http://rjwebster.iweb.bsu.edu/index.htm