For the next few weeks, we will get to listen to a chorus of quotations from the Bible (especially Numbers and Leviticus). Not to mention a huge amount of moral indignation from the various groups that have a problem with gay marriage.
Of particular interest to me is the following observation of the Supreme Court's ruling:
In a non-binding decision released Thursday morning, the court also said religious groups opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.In very simple terms, what the Supreme Court seems to have stated is that the marriage exists on two levels in our society - one is as a legal concept, the other is as a spiritual and religious concept. This is more or less what I have been arguing for quite some time.
On the legal front, marriage does change how a couple relates to each other, both in life and death; as well as the relationship with the government (taxes, pensions etc.).
The court has ruled, as I would expect, rather sensibly that the religious bodies are not bound to perform marriage ceremonies for homosexual couples. Churches have always reserved the right to refuse to marry any given couple. When it comes to a matter of interpreting their spiritual doctrines, that is the domain of the churches, and they remain quite free to exercise those perogatives. (That isn't to say that there will not be pressure on those churches to change their position, but that becomes an issue for discussion within the body politic of the church itself)
I've often been somewhat troubled by the way the most vocal of the 'anti-gay-rights' movement like to quote from Old Testament scripture, and interpret it in a most literal, legalistic manner. First of all, the New Testament is supposed to largely supplant the Old Testament, so it seems somewhat convenient that the prohibitions thrown in our collective faces are all Old Testament. Certainly, the words of the New Testament leave the door open to apply aspects of the Old Testament, but to me it seems quite rational to question a literalist approach to the words of Leviticus and Numbers.
A further dig around on the web, finds this little gem about Leviticus that further reinforces my suspicions about taking its words literally. If, as asserted, Leviticus is aimed primarily at the priesthood (which makes quite a bit of sense to me), then many of the strictures in the book are suddenly much more rationally understandable. In the era in which the Old Testament was written, the priesthood was held out as "near deified" in the first place - they were the keepers of God's word, and were held to a higher standard (after all, we wouldn't want our "lifeline" to eternity corrupted now, would we?) Written much later, the New Testament begins to reflect a changing reality in the social fabric of the world.
I'm not saying that all of this invalidates the content of Leviticus, or any other book. Merely that the literalist interpretation of it is at best suspect. Society has changed dramatically in the millenia that have followed the writing of those books - it seems to me that our interpretation of them should also take that into account.
3 comments:
It would also appear that most of the people who quote Leviticus to back their position also pick and choose the parts of the book they want to follow. For example, most will pick the anti-gay parts, but ignore the how to eat and dress parts. On the old Fido-net echo Holysmoke, we used to call these people "smorgasboard Christians".
JN
Selective interpretation of the books of the "Old Testament" is an enormous problem. Not enough of the world seems to understand that like all documents, the Bible reflects the era in which it was written.
In failing to recognize that problem, the 'Banquet Christians' as you call them make a significant error in their interpretation.
And just how many interpretations are based on translations which are not true to the original? Take for example the King James version of the bible - it is beautifully artistic - as a matter of fact it was originally was a translation commissioned to be prosaic and a work of art.
Yet, if we base our interpretations on THIS version, rather than the original Hebrew, we are deluding ourselves as to the validity of the translation. I point the reader to a thought-provoking work by Douglas Hofstadter - "Le Ton Beau de Marot : In Praise of the Music of Language?"
(As a matter of fact - I would recommend any of his works, a bit of a heavy read, but truly rewarding).
Brings to mind the old joke... of one monk to another... "Celebrate? I thought it said Celebate!"
Post a Comment