Beyond the fact that some people are so chiefly concerned with contrasting their alleged salvation with others alleged damnation, so eager to boost their self-esteem by broadly painting a canvas of unjustified moral superiority like some Boschian nightmare--beyond the fact that this debate is largely about Us versus Them, it is also about Exegesis versus Eisegesis.
Exegesis is a critical interpretation of a text where, as the definition implies, critical thinking is involved. This is a challenge for many in our society--perhaps because we are discovering new media that don't require it. Those who favor an exegesis (as opposed to an eisegesis) are interested in what the author of the text was trying to convey from his or her personal experiences. What is extremely important in forming an exegesis is a detailed historical context, and for that reason exegesis is also referred to as an 'historical-critical interpretation'.
As an example of the importance of exegesis, I offer the phrase 'space cadet' as in, "Jim's a real space cadet." Imagine someone a thousand years from now--presumably when space travel is ubiquitous--reading such a sentence in a text that was written today. What might they conclude from this reading? It should be obvious that for people who are surrounded by astronauts--who might even live their entire lives in space--that they might conclude that the author is saying that this person, Jim, is a real (as in certifiable) astronaut. They would have no idea that the author was actually using common jargon to describe how Jim is incredibly distant, naive, distracted, or even daft. An exegesis of the text would reveal this truth to the reader.
Eisegesis, however, is an interpretation of a text formed by reading into it one's own experiences--by projecting the literal text into our current sociopolitical context and drawing conclusions at face value. This can create a very moving for modern Christians who read about their exodus from slavery in Egypt, or about their faith's perserverence against the natural disasters, illness, and destitution Job suffered. Though eisegesis can be appropriate for liturgical narratives, it is also extremely inaccurate and dangerous when applied to timely epistles or ancient law.
I have already discussed in this thread in detail why these famous passages do not morally condemn homosexuality and I see no need to repeat myself here. I am glad you already realize the narrative of Sodom & Gemorrah has nothing to do with homosexuality, as Jesus himself points this out (Matthew 10:5-15). However, I would like to address your arguments point by point:
The fact that God created man and woman in his image does not necessarily imply only heterosexual marriage is morally right. The premises "God created man and woman in his image" and "The creation of man and woman in His image tells us something about His nature" are not sufficient to deduce that the union of man and woman--these two images of God--is the only acceptable union. For that matter, they are not sufficiently general to conclude that there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality in a vacuum. All that can be deduced is that the union of a man and a woman tells us something about God, or represents some aspect of God. This is not enough basis for a moral judgement.
The passage you cited, Matthew 19, is in fact about divorce. I find it paradoxical, at best, that one can read a condemnation of homosexuality and allegedly invalid homosexual marriage in a passage that rails against the divorce of 'valid' marriages. Though I enjoy reading Biblical scholarism, I am by no means a Biblical scholar myself, and yet I think it's very clear that--without needing to consider that historical context of this passage--despite the translation, the passage consists of Jesus answering the question (put to him by the Pharisees), "Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?" I consider Jesus too honest to obfuscate such an important question with a discussion about homosexuality. It's clearly becoming a matter of opinion now, but the fact that Jesus never explicitly mentions homosexuality or homosexual acts can only imply that Jesus had nothing distinctive to say about it. It also implies that homosexual acts simply didn't concern the early Church, which preserved Jesus' teachings.
Of course I would love to share with you a story in which it is far more likely Jesus confronted the issue of homosexuality. I'm speaking of the story where Jesus healed the centurion's servant, which is told in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Though Matthew and Luke cannot agree as to whether or not Jesus met the centurion in person or whether friends of the centurion conveyed his plight to Jesus. However, it is clearly a possibility, and in either case the language of the centurion--with its timely connotations was preserved for Jesus' ears. Jesus heard the centurion refer to slaves he held in the general sense of slaves (the Greek 'doulos') but he heard the centurion refer to the sick slave as his 'boy' ('pais') who was dear to him ('entimos'). Though it is possible the slave is only dear to the centurion because he paid a heavy price for him, this seems unlikely, for the centurion was wealthy--he had built the town of Capernum a synagogue. The idea that the slave was dear because he was exceptionally skilled also seems unlikely due to his age. The final connotation with this word, entimos, from that time is the implication of an emotional pair bond, and this seems the most likely meaning. Finally, though this connotation still seems inconclusive, it should be noted that an emotional pair bond limited to platonic affection is a thoroughly modern account of such a relationship. It is also out of step with the reality of ancient life in the first-century Roman Empire, a harsh time to be a slave. We know that Romans often kept slaves close to them for sexual functions, and that it was extremely common for a Roman soldier to have a male sexual companion with them during journeys far from home. In this particular case, it is legitimate to assume that the centurion fell in love with his companion. That would mean that Jesus encountered a loving homosexual relationship and had nothing to say about it. After all, Jesus was not an idiot; he knew exactly what was going on.
Even if heterosexual marriage is a metaphor for God's relationship with the Church, this is not a sufficient premise to conclude there is anything morally wrong with homosexuality. That just doesn't follow. Many things in our daily life, and by necessity most things, do not resemble God's relationship with the Church but this does not mean there is anything morally wrong with them. For example, the anointing of the sick, a sacrament (very much) for God's sake, in no way parallels God's relationship with the Church--that is, unless you believe either the Christian Church or God is dying.
Even if the only way God could relate to us outside of the Church was through heterosexual marriage, that still does not necessarily imply anything morally wrong with homosexuality. Let's not forget that holy men and women of the Church are celibate by Church doctrine. Do they fulfill this innovative moral obligation to God simply because they have dedicated their life to the Church; married the Church? But what about celibacy among people who have not received holy ordination? Where is the backlash against single men and women in the prime or particularly in the late years of their life? If heterosexual unions claim moral superiority because of their ability to produce children--which is in fact completely possible for homosexual unions as well--then what of infertile heterosexual couples or, even more damning, heterosexual couples who choose not to have children?
Finally, in response to the gross generalization that 'the Bible has nothing nice to say about homosexuality' (paraphrasing), all I can say is that I encourage you to read what the Biblical scholars John Boswell (Yale University), Daniel Boyarin (University of California-Berkeley), Bernadette Brooten (Brandeis University), L. William Countryman (Church Divinity School of the Pacific), Victor P. Furnish (Southern Methodist University), Saul M. Olyan (Brown University), Robin Scroggs (Union Theological Seminary), Daniel A. Helminiak (Catholic priest, American Association of Pastoral Counselors), and David F. Wright have to say about Bible passages that supposedly deal with homosexuality. If you study the exegesis of these passages, I think you will discover that the Bible makes no moral condemnation of homosexuality whatsoever.
Submitted by Kevin Endsley on Wed, 05/13/2009 - 19:40.
Exegesis versus Eisegesis
Exegesis is a critical interpretation of a text where, as the definition implies, critical thinking is involved. This is a challenge for many in our society--perhaps because we are discovering new media that don't require it. Those who favor an exegesis (as opposed to an eisegesis) are interested in what the author of the text was trying to convey from his or her personal experiences. What is extremely important in forming an exegesis is a detailed historical context, and for that reason exegesis is also referred to as an 'historical-critical interpretation'.
As an example of the importance of exegesis, I offer the phrase 'space cadet' as in, "Jim's a real space cadet." Imagine someone a thousand years from now--presumably when space travel is ubiquitous--reading such a sentence in a text that was written today. What might they conclude from this reading? It should be obvious that for people who are surrounded by astronauts--who might even live their entire lives in space--that they might conclude that the author is saying that this person, Jim, is a real (as in certifiable) astronaut. They would have no idea that the author was actually using common jargon to describe how Jim is incredibly distant, naive, distracted, or even daft. An exegesis of the text would reveal this truth to the reader.
Eisegesis, however, is an interpretation of a text formed by reading into it one's own experiences--by projecting the literal text into our current sociopolitical context and drawing conclusions at face value. This can create a very moving for modern Christians who read about their exodus from slavery in Egypt, or about their faith's perserverence against the natural disasters, illness, and destitution Job suffered. Though eisegesis can be appropriate for liturgical narratives, it is also extremely inaccurate and dangerous when applied to timely epistles or ancient law.
I have already discussed in this thread in detail why these famous passages do not morally condemn homosexuality and I see no need to repeat myself here. I am glad you already realize the narrative of Sodom & Gemorrah has nothing to do with homosexuality, as Jesus himself points this out (Matthew 10:5-15). However, I would like to address your arguments point by point:
Of course I would love to share with you a story in which it is far more likely Jesus confronted the issue of homosexuality. I'm speaking of the story where Jesus healed the centurion's servant, which is told in both Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10. Though Matthew and Luke cannot agree as to whether or not Jesus met the centurion in person or whether friends of the centurion conveyed his plight to Jesus. However, it is clearly a possibility, and in either case the language of the centurion--with its timely connotations was preserved for Jesus' ears. Jesus heard the centurion refer to slaves he held in the general sense of slaves (the Greek 'doulos') but he heard the centurion refer to the sick slave as his 'boy' ('pais') who was dear to him ('entimos'). Though it is possible the slave is only dear to the centurion because he paid a heavy price for him, this seems unlikely, for the centurion was wealthy--he had built the town of Capernum a synagogue. The idea that the slave was dear because he was exceptionally skilled also seems unlikely due to his age. The final connotation with this word, entimos, from that time is the implication of an emotional pair bond, and this seems the most likely meaning. Finally, though this connotation still seems inconclusive, it should be noted that an emotional pair bond limited to platonic affection is a thoroughly modern account of such a relationship. It is also out of step with the reality of ancient life in the first-century Roman Empire, a harsh time to be a slave. We know that Romans often kept slaves close to them for sexual functions, and that it was extremely common for a Roman soldier to have a male sexual companion with them during journeys far from home. In this particular case, it is legitimate to assume that the centurion fell in love with his companion. That would mean that Jesus encountered a loving homosexual relationship and had nothing to say about it. After all, Jesus was not an idiot; he knew exactly what was going on.
Even if the only way God could relate to us outside of the Church was through heterosexual marriage, that still does not necessarily imply anything morally wrong with homosexuality. Let's not forget that holy men and women of the Church are celibate by Church doctrine. Do they fulfill this innovative moral obligation to God simply because they have dedicated their life to the Church; married the Church? But what about celibacy among people who have not received holy ordination? Where is the backlash against single men and women in the prime or particularly in the late years of their life? If heterosexual unions claim moral superiority because of their ability to produce children--which is in fact completely possible for homosexual unions as well--then what of infertile heterosexual couples or, even more damning, heterosexual couples who choose not to have children?