No political movement can put a hold on its most extreme members, a truth that Christians right now are having to face. Pastor Charles Worley and his followers in the Providence Road Baptist Church are trying so hard to save lesbians and gay men from hell that they want to put them in pens and execute them; destroy the gays to save the gays.
And boxer/politician Manny Pacquaio got caught in the weeds when he told a reporter that the Law of God instructs him to oppose same-sex marriage. The reporter included the quote from the Bible most famously associated with opposition to homosexual activity, the one from Leviticus, and Pacquaio backed off a bit, retreating to more favorable Bible verses, and hiding what for all the world looks like homophobia behind the usual religious-tinged vagaries.
The reporter certainly went further than Pacquaio had, but if that verse from the Bible is a surprise to Pacquiao, or anyone, that would be news. As the King James Version translates,”If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.” That is the Word of God in a pretty authoritative text. Is Pacquaio saying he both agrees with and disagrees with the Word of God?
That is the question Christians like Pacquiao ought to be asked squarely. If the second part of the verse is incorrect (“shall surely be put to death”), isn’t it possible that the first part might be susceptible to rethinking as well?
Rev. Worley is comfortable with his dogmatism. Both parts of the verse are inerrant, and damn the consequences in the modern world for those who stand up. Same thing for shellfish, I imagine.
So whether the reporter made a journalistic error or not, he got to a true question that professing Christians today need to confront: Who Would Jesus Execute?
I’m not a theologian or any sort of religious scholar. All I know is the Bible I actually read (OK, parts of the Bible). I remember Jesus saying in Matthew 5 that there are some parts of the Old Testament that could use remaining, like taking an eye for an eye. My reasons for believing in a Christianity that accepts lesbians and gay men is based on that sort of thing, and the sermons in the churches (mostly Episcopalian after the Catholics made it clear they had no room for me and my sort) I have gone to as an adult. I know there are plenty of Christians who find the death penalty for anyone, much less lesbians and gay men, not very Jesus-like, and I assume they have the theological chops to defend that position.
But most Christians aren’t theologians. Pacquaio is among them, it seems. Perhaps he should attend Pastor Worley’s church, and see what the consequences of believing the literal Word of God, as it actually appears in the Bible, look like. Does he think Jesus wants gay people killed? If not, which parts of the Bible does he think it’s fair to minimize or absolve?
19 Comments for “WWJE”
posted by Jim on
” That is the Word of God in a pretty authoritative text. Is Pacquaio saying he both agrees with and disagrees with the Word of God?
That is the question Christians like Pacquiao ought to be asked squarely. ”
Actually one did, pretty authoritatively – Paul. He says that the crucifixion obviates the entire Torah and that “Christians” who cling to the Torah are rejecting the crucifixion. And this was not a one-off side note in one text. He took this position at the first council in the history of the Church, and carried the day with it. It is settled doctrine. It’s neither here not there that that heretic in North Carolina is unaware of it.
posted by Jim on
And when I say “obviates” I mena that he insists that the Torah is not a meanas of salvation nor a morally binding law, whatever its other obvious virtues. He clearly says it is even so a good enough general rule to go by as a practical matter.
posted by Mark F. on
Then Paul and Jesus disagreed.
“Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke or a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. (Matthew 5:17-18)”
posted by Jim on
“Do not think that I [Jesus] have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”
No, they agreed. The crucifixion fulfilled the law completely. What did he leave to accomplish?
This is in addition to Jesus’ other comments along the way, where he says that it is not what goes into a man but what comes out of him that defiles him – nullifying the dietary laws; or where he says the Sabbath was made for man and not the other way around when the Pharisees tried to set mobs on him for breaking the Sabbath; or where he comes right out and says “Before Abraham was, I AM” – much less Moses.
This matter of the proper place of the Torah in Christianity – none – is really not some kind of open question for Christians as a whole to respond to; this is an issue within a specific type of American Protestantism. It is not at all mainstream within Chrisitianity.
Where sentiments like the ones the article questions comes up in other branches of the Church, they pretty clearly derive either from pagan custom and law existing in the societies – Rome comes to mind – before they became Christian, or they are echoes of Gnosticism and its rejection of the material world. Neither one of those impulses is normative Christianity either.
posted by Jorge on
No political movement can put a hold on its most extreme members
I think the gay rights movement does okay.
Manny Pacquaio is a Catholic. To use Leviticus to speak for Mr. Pacquaio’s opposition to same sex marriage is a libel, pure and simple, and speaks to a profound ignorance of Catholic theology and reasoning. Mr. Link, you should be ashamed of yourself for endorsing this act.
Just to make sure I’m not sugarcoating things, the Vatican’s 2003 Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Same Sex Unions cites the Book of Genesis, the Gospel of Matthew, the Gospel of Mark, the Letter to the Ephesians, the Letter to the Romans, the First Letter to the Corinthians, the First Letter to Timothy… and that’s it. This was authored by the current Pope, Mr. Link. Do you dare to claim that you can speak for Christianity better than the leader of the most predominant single Christian denomenation in the United States, and of the majority Christian denomination in Pacquaio’s native Phillipines?
It would take a slighty more bookish person than the greatest boxer in the world to parse out the hidden Leviticus references in that document’s secondary sources, if they even exist!
And just to make sure the less bookish have a precedent they can understand, I don’t remember Rick Santorum (who contrary to popular belief, is a Catholic) ever going on record to cite Leviticus or in any way implying that gays face death or hellfire, either.
posted by Jorge on
I’d better triple check that one. Nope, citations of Leviticus.
Yeah, there’s hidden Leviticus references in it. The document also refutes them.
(“Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10)…. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.”)
(“Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.)
posted by Houndentenor on
LOL. I’m not Catholic. I was raised Baptist and therefore believe that yes indeed ANY Christian can speak with equal authority to the pope on matters of Christian doctrine. He holds no special place in any hierarchy for the rest of Christendom and moreover most Catholics seem to ignore him him whenever they want. It doesn’t help that Herr Ratzinger was heavily involved in the coverup of hundreds (at least) of child rape crimes in multiple countries. He really has no moral authority as far as I am concerned. You are welcome to consider his remarks or not. The total number of Catholics worldwide does not make his statements any more or less true. That’s a logical fallacy (appeal to numbers).
posted by Jim on
“He holds no special place in any hierarchy for the rest of Christendom and moreover most Catholics seem to ignore him him whenever they want…”
Way to miss the point, and then to mischaracterize it.
What place the Pope holds for the rest of Christendom is beside the point in reply to a comment on Pacquiao. He is a Catholici, so the Pope does set doctrine for him. (One reason I’m not a Catholic.)
“I was raised Baptist and therefore believe that yes indeed ANY Christian can speak with equal authority to the pope on matters of Christian doctrine. ”
Which by definition menas yu cna’t speak for any other Christian on matters of doctrine. and by the way, what you lay out there, “soul competence” is a very good translation for “haeresia”. The English form of that is “heresy”. I happen to think it is a very sceptical and rigorous approach to the faith.
“It doesn’t help that Herr Ratzinger was heavily involved in the coverup of hundreds (at least) of child rape crimes in multiple countries. ”
The formal name for that kind of non-refutation is the ad hominem fallacy. You don’t have to be Catholic to use Latin.
posted by Houndentenor on
Sorry but the obvious fact that someone who pretends to be an authority on moral issues was in fact the architect of a massive cover-up of a child rape scandal is hardly an out-of-bounds personal attack. It goes to character. Pretty much anyone else would be doing hard time for such an offense. And failure on such an easy moral question is indefensible.
As far as theology goes. I have, for what it’s worth, read the entire Bible cover-to-cover (in English translation) twice. Anyone who claims to be interpreting it literally obviously hasn’t read the whole thing. I certainly don’t claim to be an expert. Just enough to call bs on people who are taking things completely out of context or clearly don’t know what it says (or worse, attribute quotes from other sources to the Bible).
And no, I don’t claim to speak for anyone else on matters of doctrine, nor do I think anyone should. If someone’s ideas are valid, they should be able to make their case to prove their point. Their title or status is irrelevant. Plenty of very smart and well-regarded people have been dead wrong. Your ideas must stand on their own.
posted by Jorge on
LOL. I’m not Catholic. I was raised Baptist and therefore believe that yes indeed ANY Christian can speak with equal authority to the pope on matters of Christian doctrine.
Uh-huh. What about Catholic doctrine?
Since you’re not saying anything to refute my central point, I take your post as agreement: the reporter who interviewed Pacquaio libeled him. Using Leviticus as a reference to the Catholic theology and doctrine on gay marriage was completely inappropriate and ignorant on the part of both the reporter’s and Mr. Link’s part. It is unacceptable.
It doesn’t help that Herr Ratzinger was heavily involved in the coverup of hundreds (at least) of child rape crimes in multiple countries. He really has no moral authority as far as I am concerned.
I will take this as agreement with me that this blog post and the reporter it cites have misused their credibility and moral authority by mischaracterizing Pacquaio’s religious beliefs and the teachings of his religion.
Pope Benedict is, of course, a good person with considerable moral authority. It’s great that he’s here.
posted by Jorge on
(That should read “Nope, no citations of Leviticus.”)
posted by Mark on
There is no escaping that all biblical literalism is selective. Those who take such noisy pride in their allegiance to every word of the bible make a joke of the whole thing. The contradictions of scripture (such as the conflicting accounts of the creation and Ascension) are glossed over in the most casual and thoughtless way. Biblical literalism: “I’m agin’ it!”
posted by Jim on
At bottom it’s really just a kind of idolatry.
posted by Jorge on
Someday, I’d like to have the chance to use Genesis to make the argument it really is Adam and Steve.
It’d be facetious but it’d do a lot of damage in the process.
posted by Mark F. on
So Jesus fulfilled the law by actually abolishing part of it, but that doesn’t really count as abolishing it. Okay. And there is one god, but 3 persons, etc. , etc.
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
I was raised Catholic. Love the faith, but think that the Vatican is just plain nutty on several issues, gay rights be one of them (birth control is another).
The often cited Lev passage is interesting because (1) women are totally ignored (2) it is probably only referring to anal sex (possibly rape, which was the norm for dealing with prisoners) and (3) it was actually very, very, very difficult to implement the death penalty under traditional Jewish law.
I am dating this Jewish dude right now and he says something like three men would have to witness the act and then a panel of 12 Jewish rabbis would have to gather and come to a universal agreement.
posted by Jorge on
Fascinating.
I am dating this Jewish dude right now and he says something like three men would have to witness the act and then a panel of 12 Jewish rabbis would have to gather and come to a universal agreement.
Is there a biblical citation for this tradition, or did the Grand Poobah sit on the chair of St. Moses to dream that one up?
If it’s neither, it’s Heresy!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Is there a biblical citation for this tradition, or did the Grand Poobah sit on the chair of St. Moses to dream that one up?
Ah, traditional Christian respect for Judaism continues unabated, I see …
It never ends.
posted by Jorge on
That was a crack at Catholicism.