A member of Southern gospel singer Kirk Talley’s exgay restoration team sang backup on a song Dolly Parton recorded a few years back, when he worked for her at Dollywood in eastern Tennessee.
Parton has since given that song, Sugar Hill, which appeared on her 2002 project Halos and Horns, to the gay rights group Human Rights Campaign for a Valentine’s Day compilation CD for sale on the HRC website.
Read all about it from Southern gospel music blogger Averyfineline.
There’s no indication that Parton’s backup singers approve of HRC family values — and exgay Melissa Fryrear of Focus on the Family joins the mini-controversy over the CD, warning Christians not to believe tolerance activists when they talk or sing about (gasp) "love" and commitment.
Wow Fryrear really comes out looking like the villain in that Baptist Press article up against some well articulated statements from Mandy Moore.
Oh and I love how they neglect to mention her starring in “Saved.” That girl clearly isn’t afraid to tell other Christians her opinion on hot issues. Bravo to her.
I agree. Mandy Moore is at least speaking up eloquently. I don’t agree with her, or the philosophy and ugly plastering of “Saved”, but she should be commended for having a say.
Sometimes I wish there was a movie or tv-show showing a positive person who’s decided not to pursue same-sex sex. We get a lot of mass media showing the pro-gay equivalent.
The entertainment media rarely show people who opt to pursue celibacy.
Whether the sex is same- or opposite-gender seems irrelevant to me; otherwise, heterosexuals in the entertainment media would enjoy a double standard.
And actually, I think they do. Apart from HBO and Showtime, I can’t think of a gay character on television who is sexually active.
I’d be interested to see that too, Nathan. Unfortunately there has yet to appear a positive role model on the ex-gay front in real life. Until that happens, movies and television aren’t likely to reflect it. Perhaps Chad Thompson will be that person?
Brett
Over the past few years, Mandy Moore has separated herself from the other “pop divas” by being so well-spoken, imo.
Nathan- I do see your point about wanting more ex-gays represented in Hollywood. I’m on the other side of the point, though. As much as Hollywood seems to be “ok” with being gay, there aren’t many mainstream movies with “normal” starring gay roles. Some, but not many.
What I would like even more, though, is to have a young hollywood actor come out as being gay. Many people believe this to be career suicide, and it is hard to find them anywhere, especially in my (and your) generation.
The day Will gets to kiss someone on television is the day that maybe I can see Nathan’s point. But as it is, for all the talk about gay characters, they are mostly portrayed as living apparently celibate lives, albeit not of their choice.
And I would like to echo Mike: When heterosexuals are portrayed as living celibate lives, then having positice ex-gays in the mix would truly be a level playing field.
Jim- I think Will did kiss his boyfriend. No making out, but a peck. I don’t watch the show regularly, but I remember hearing something about it. Not to say that that makes your point moot, though.
On a side note, from Mike’s link to Averfineline:
“They pull off this feat of cognitive dissonance by pretending that Parton the Social Activist and politically progressive star doesn’t exist, that she doesn’t appear on the television show Ellen (which she does), that she hasn’t done a live singer/songwriter special for cable with Melissa Etheridge (which she has), that she hasn’t made repeated and public statements in support of legal rights for same-sex couples (which she continues to do).”
Does the writer believe that Dolly should not even associate with these people simply because they are gay? I didn’t see either showings, but I doubt she was there to talk about pro-gay stuff. I wonder if the blog author is also opposed to Dolly Parton performing with all of the other myriad peformers she has performed with. There are literally hundreds, some not even Christian. I am not sure why Parton shouldn’t be able to perform with these gay people or associate with them simply because they are gay. The point seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Does the writer believe that Dolly should not even associate with these people simply because they are gay? I didn’t see either showings, but I doubt she was there to talk about pro-gay stuff. I wonder if the blog author is also opposed to Dolly Parton performing with all of the other myriad peformers she has performed with. There are literally hundreds, some not even Christian. I am not sure why Parton shouldn’t be able to perform with these gay people or associate with them simply because they are gay. The point seems a bit hypocritical to me.
I think there might be some sub-text going on here, TA. For years there have been rumors that Dolly has sapphic tendencies – evidence includes lack of children and a husband the she rarely spends time with and that people rarely see (not to mention a friendship with the out Lily Tomlin). I wonder whether they are “coding” her as a lesbian here – they can’t do it directly, so they bring up her gay rights efforts to discredit her.
“History as well as media is RIFE with gay people who didn’t pursue same sex sex.”
Really? From the little I’ve read, it looks like Michaelangelo, and even King Ludwig of Bavaria did some experimentation. As for the media, can you name a gay character in a drama role who hasn’t? I’m not buying this “Will is portrayed as celibate”. I admit that I’ve only watched the show once or twice, but you’d have to be master at avoiding reading between the lines to come to that conclusion. Maybe I’m just a little sex-obsessed to be seeing this…?
As for being ladylike, one of the greatest women I knew when I was younger was an elderly Christian medical doctor. For her era, this was quite amazing. Nor did she have a problem using her brain in the presence of men, though she rarely seemed to feel the need to show it off as many men do. I also know many young women my age who are MDs, accountants and a range of other professions – one has a Bachelor of Philosophy under her belt. None of these women are unladylike, as far as I can see. They are generally kind and thoughtful. I should add, though, that most of these women are Australian-born-Chinese, which is a sub-culture that often emphasises education and successful career-making.
TA,
“As much as Hollywood seems to be “ok” with being gay, there aren’t many mainstream movies with “normal” starring gay roles.”
Actually I agree. There’s very few “boring” gay people on TV. I actually think this shows that our society is still not really settled with the various phenomena of sexuality. We are happy to love “gay” people, but only if they’re put in a special box (preferably pink) and it’s clear what they are. We’re definitely not happy with the the more loose bisexuality sometimes seen in European cinema, where people choose sexual partners of whatever gender regardless of their “orientation”. I think this is also why we have trouble with the issue of how to deal with children who begin to experiment.
I think Mike has the best point here. The mainstream media can’t make much money out of characters who choose celibacy. I still haven’t seen a movie or TV show deal compassionately and positively with someone who has chosen celibacy and is still living in a powerful and life-giving way.
I don’t believe Averyfineline is antigay. The blog has criticized the Southern gospel music industry for its hostility and inept handling of singers’ sexuality.
I understood the blog to be saying it’s old news that Dolly Parton promotes tolerance and good will. Therefore, those who perform with Parton and seek to capitalize on her fame are either insincere or in denial if they complain when their work is subsequently employed to promote equality and fairness.
Re: “I’m not buying this ‘Will is portrayed as celibate’.”
I guess I brought this muddied mess into the thread, so I’ll try to clear it back up. It’s a bit of hyperbole to say that Will is portrayed as celibate. For accuracy’s sake, I’d like to point out that I said “apparently celibate,” although I wasn’t at all clear what I meant by that. Let me explain.
When I come home from work, I greet my boyfriend with a tender kiss on the lips. On television, when Grace meets whichever boyfriend she happens to be seeing that week (talk about promiscuity!), she greets him the same way or even more passionately. We even sometimes see her in bed with her romantic interest of the week.
On the other hand, we waited years for Will to even get a boyfriend (his luckless love life was a constant source of jokes on the show), but when he finally got one the most Will got away with were a few very quick pecks on the cheek. Many years ago there was one famous kiss, but in that storyline it was portrayed strictly as a prank.
In the popular media, gay characters in programs like Will & Grace, which is widely cited as being sympathetic to gay men, nevertheless continue to rely on tired stereotypes and — I’ll repeat this — apparently celibate (although certainly not asexual) portrayals of gay men, at least when compared to heterosexual characters on the same program.
I think this pretty much jibes with what you suscinctly observed: “We are happy to love ‘gay’ people, but only if they’re put in a special box (preferably pink) and it’s clear what they are”
I’m also glad that you and I and Mike all agree: “mainstream media can’t make much money out of characters who choose celibacy.”
We did a little something on this issue a few weeks back. https://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2005/02/love_rocks.html“ rel=”nofollow”>Check it out, if you’d like.
Thanks!
I love your faux album artwork.
“But if that’s what you are-progress has no use for you.”
My goodness, well if you put it like that, I think progress is something pretty sad, not something to be looking forward to. Progress has “no use” for a living, breathing, human being? There is, of course, good progress and bad progress. There’s the progress towards peace between nations and environmental awareness, and there’s the blind “progress” of empire-building, overfarming and fossil fuel burning.
I would say that, with regard to human sexuality, there can be seen the same kinds of positive and negative progress in society.
I’m not particularly interested in whether everyone likes me. All I said was that celibate persons with same-sex attractions who no longer identify as gay do not seem to have a place in the media. There are all number of dramatic conflicts I can see, particularly on the very issues we argue over here at XGW. I don’t seem to be avoiding conflict with you.
Nathan, I have to agree with Regan about storytelling. I teach film and creative writing at the university level. Students say all time why don’t we have positive stories. Well, the reason is that all stories require conflict. If someone is happy, that does not push the story further. Sex has inherent conflicts, so it is going to be used for narrative purposes. There is a possibility that a story could be done (and it has) for a celibate person who is trying to preserve virginity against all pressure, but to be honest, that type of story would probably end badly (or else that person would give in). I hear Christians tell me all the time they do not like Christian movies because someone may drink or show some type “non-Christian” behavior (not my words), but no one would see a movie or TV show without conflict. Also, to be honest, a character that is celibate may actually come across as negative in general on the screen. Usually, if someone is celibate, why even make a point of it? To be fair to those portrayed as having sex, it usually ends in failure. In horror films they are killed (although in Cherry Falls, celibate people are killed). On shows like Desperate Housewives, Buffy, etc., nonmarried sex is always a bad thing. So, in some ways the media actually encourages celibacy by showing sex.
Let me also say that homosexuals are rarely portrayed in the media, and it is rarely positive. I would not want to know Will or Jack on Will and Grace (they are too self-absorbed). Queer Eye is based on stereotypes (their jobs are so gay and they are sexless). Queer as folk is full of drug addled, nightmare induced people. Gays are often portrayed as sick, promiscous, selfish, villianish. Even the news only shows gays in scandalous situations (gay pride, kissing, pushy). Don’t get me wrong–I see narrative as working like that. It’s how stories are told.
Let’s get something–uh–straight. If Dolly Parton owns the copyright to this work she can give it to whomever she wants. Regardless of Nathan’s bloviating. If Nathan or others of similar ilk don’t like her gift, they have their mechanisms by which they can make their dislike known. The problem that those of Nathan’s ilk have is the fact that there isn’t a whole lot that they can do against her. She knows quite well that she is something of a “fading diva” whose latest offerings have been rejected by country music’s powers-that-be. It’s unfortunate, since she is still better than most of the offerings given by the country music powers-that-be. But them’s the facts.
Regarding Nathan’s “and even King Ludwig of Bavaria did some experimentation” let’s get something else straight. Der Bayerische koenig Ludwig der Zweite war schwul. (Sorry, I don’t do Umlauts in a text messaging window). Die Bayern wissen, das ihr beliebte Koenig Ludwig der Zweite schwul war. Anders als der Nathan.
Nathan,
What puzzles me though is why is that you’re basing the ‘sinfulness’ of homosexuality not upon God, the bible, but because of some interpretation of the Bible and God mostly coming from the dregs of humanity?
By my experience, even those of them who show compassion reveal that it is only a demeanor masquerading their true thoughts and feelings.
Raj, Thank God for Internet translation tools – had to look up “schwul” myself though. I’d be interested – what’s the etiology of that word in German?
BTW, I don’t have a big problem with Ms. Parton’s gift, and my knowledge of country music is about zero.
Regan,
“It’s not freedom to be cornered like that. It’s not freedom to have your sensibility shut down for no other reason than maintaining a myth.”
At least I can see now how you consider my hopes, my commitments and my faith reasons for making the very difficult decision that I have – to you they are obviously mythical. It is precisely because I don’t want to “play God” that I have asked these questions. But enough about me.
I think we both agree that many of the judgements coming from some segments of society are inaccurate and just plain wrong when it comes to real people with same-sex attractions.
I do disagree with you that affection = sex. I think it is much more complicated than that. You yourself in an earlier post mentioned how some societies enjoy greater levels of physical affection between men. It comes as no suprise that it is often these societies where gay culture has the least visibility (for cultural or religious reasons). Both men and women can be affectionate with their same-sex without erotic intent. I think it’s possible also for men and women with same sex attractions.
Xeno,
I’ll probably be accused of bloviating on this thread, but let me try to answer this:
“What puzzles me though is why is that you’re basing the ‘sinfulness’ of homosexuality not upon God, the bible, but because of some interpretation of the Bible and God mostly coming from the dregs of humanity?”
You seem to be saying that for someone to arrive at an interpretation of the Bible which rejects same-sex sexual behaviour, they must be influenced by homophobia. I’m sure you’ve heard about the debate going on in the Episcopal (Anglican) church right now. In the last 50 years it’s been a tolerant, majority-liberal-leaning, sadly declining mainstream protestant church in the US. They managed to push through women’s ordination, less controls on divorce, but this one issue (the appointment of a non-celibate gay bishop) is threatening to tear their communion with the rest of the world apart.
I have rejected some of the literalist interpretations on such topics as Genesis and darwinism. I have not rejected what I believe is the most reasonable interpretation on same-sex sexual behaviour – that it is not something that pleases God (this does not make it the worst of all sins). I used to have a more “free” interpretation on this issue, but I no longer think that was accurate. This thread is probably not the place to go into all the details, but basically, there are no new interpretations here. The steps I would need to take to change my interpretation into one which embraces same-sex sexual behaviour are not steps that I believe I can take right now.
Let me finish though by saying that this issue should not be the obsession that it has become among many Christians. It is not our mission to make the world “straight”, though some seem to think it is.
Nathan:
I think it already has veered off course before we’ve posted. Perhaps Mike may move these posts to a more appropriate thread.
Nathan:
Absolutely.
Almost everyone (including people who are pro-queer and even queers themselves) is influenced by homophobia to a certain degree, just like racism. Those who reject same-sex sexual behaviour based on a subjective interpretation of the Bible without regarding other interpretations definately have a taint of homophobia that influence their interpretations.
Nathan:
From my perspective, what happens now to the Anglican Church does not really matter since the communion has already dissolved a long time ago with their extreme divisive views. The Church leaders are only sustaining an illusion and they’re not even doing a good job with that.
Nathan:
So there are other literalist interpretations of Genesis and darwinism that you accept?
Nathan:
I apologize if I’m being intrusive here, but I’m curious to what changed your interpretation.
Nathan:
What kind of steps do you think those would be? It’s interesting to see that you acknowledge the possibility that your interpretation can probabily change.
xeno,
“I have rejected some of the literalist interpretations on such topics as Genesis and darwinism.
So there are other literalist interpretations of Genesis and darwinism that you accept?”
I guess I was a bit vague there. I take a symbolic view of the creation narratives in Genesis, as I believe they have more relevance as a radical kind of theological anthropomorphism to the Ancient mindset (an all-directing God preparing a grand “temple”, filling it with wonders, then placing within it His image or “idol” – human beings). Thus I reject young earth creationism as the most acceptable interpretation. But neither am I fully convinced of the various sub-theories involved in the modern Darwinian synthesis. I also reject most of the philosophies and pop sciences that Darwinism seems to spin off through its more vocal proponents.
“What kind of steps do you think those would be?”
As I see it, the main pro-gay Christian arguments are as follows:
– homosexuality, like gender, is part of the created order (This I soundly reject as a necessary conclusion, even if it were proven that there is a direct genetic or other biological cause for complex human same-sex attractions)
– the various passages we cite (Romans 1 etc) have always been misinterpreted (I don’t think this is right)
OR
– the various passages are interpreted correctly but now we know more about it and Paul and Jesus were just products of their ignorant times, or were speaking to something else, ie. Jesus wouldn’t reject a gay couple now (This holds the most promise, but I still am not convinced of it)
– the only thing that matters is whether you care for the person. Physical activity has no relevance (This is close to what I used to believe, but I think that what we do with our bodies DOES matter, beyond just not hurting oneanother. I now see gender as having ontological significance – male and female being not just a means of reproducing, but spiritual and part of our Image-bearing. In this light, homosexuality is seen as a kind of spiritual confusion – men and women not knowing how to BE what we are.)
– even if it is wrong or imperfect, God’s grace covers it – He doesn’t want you to be lonely all your life (To me, this is a sad compromise of our call to holiness. Yes, God’s grace can cover a multitude of sins, but we don’t abuse God’s grace in other parts of life.)
Phew! That got a bit theological! Some of those words sound a bit preachy, but it’s hard to find a more secular vocabulary for what I was trying to say.
Thank God for Internet translation tools – had to look up “schwul” myself though. I’d be interested – what’s the etiology of that word in German?
I don’t know what the etiology is, but I suspect that it was derived from the word “schwuel” (“ue” is “u” with Umlaut) which basically means “warm and humid”. Schwul was a derogatory term for gay people. Other derogatory terms were “warmer Bruder” (“warm brother”), which suggests the “schwuel” relationship.
“Schwul” was reclaimed by gay people in Germany and is no longer considered derogatory. Indeed, “Schwul” is used in the name of the main gay rights organization in Germany–the Lesben- und Schwul Verband (“LSVB”).
nathan:
So you’re implying that the literal interpretation of Genesis states that humans themselves are revered as idols of YHWH and for YHWH that is wrong. Why did Moses write Genesis in such a way then after he was commanded by YHWH not make make any representations of idols?
nathan:
Can you give me an example of these so-called darwinian sub-theories?
nathan:
Why would you reject this statement or see it as unnecessary for the pro-gay Christian theology?
nathan:
Again, why is that?
nathan:
I’m not convinced that Jesus would of rejected them even in his own time. Saul of Tarsus on the other hand is a different story. Tell me, why would Jesus reject a gay couple in his own time? What evidence of his character would (and would not) indicate this?
nathan:
Why is relevant if no harm to the physical body, espcially if the soul is the true self?
nathan:
Now I’m confused here. You mention before that a literal interpretation of Genesis was a form of idolatry because of the image of man and that you could not accept that. But now you state the same image as to what you believe?
nathan:
I don’t think most progay Christians would believe that queers are broken spiritually.
nathan:
Bah, you’re not really preaching here, so don’t feel guilt about them. :p
Whoa xeno, I’m sorry but I must have not made myself clear – you got the opposite idea of what I was saying.
When I said:
“I take a symbolic view of the creation narratives in Genesis, as I believe they have more relevance as a radical kind of theological anthropomorphism to the Ancient mindset (an all-directing God preparing a grand “temple”, filling it with wonders, then placing within it His image or “idol” – human beings).”
This is the view that I take, not the one I reject. Say it was Moses’ or Abraham’s era, and a temple was being made for an Egyptian or Mesopotamian god or goddess. The idea is that there was a pattern to how this was to be done. Once the structure was completed, the “idol” or “image” of the deity (usually wood, metal or stone) would be placed inside, ritually animated and breathed into, at which point it was believed to become a kind of presence of the deity on Earth.
The creation accounts are seen to use this worldly process as an allegory for the transcendant creation of the universe itself. However, in this case, it is God Himself who does the building, the animating and the breathing. Of course the human being is not an idol TO God (God does not worship it), rather the human being is an idol or image OF God. Something about our humanness somehow reflects the nature of the Divine. In this radical scheme, man-made idols and images of gods, and especially of YHWH Himself, were banned from the temple. They would be nothing compared to the flesh-and-blood, spirit-and-soul image that God had already placed in the Universe.
Because of the symbolic nature of this view, I find it less necessary to embrace young earth interpretations.
(To me, the whole of the Bible has this theme of God “turning the tables” on our power-hungry principles. Instead of one god-like man such as Pharoah in control, God lifts up a humbled, whinging and desperate slave nation. Instead of a great fanfare and thunderclouds, the Messiah comes first as a humble man who’s death could not be more shameful. He who is first shall be last.)
“Can you give me an example of these so-called darwinian sub-theories?”
It is my understanding that the modern Darwinian synthesis relies on more than the simple principle of survival of the fittest. It’s been over a year since I’ve looked into this, so I’ve forgotten a lot of the names, but there are numerous theories (like “Hopeful Monsters” and “punctuated equilibrium”) which attempt to explain some of the anomalous results we find in the fossil record – evolution occasionally seeming to happen too quickly for the traditional darwinian breeding-out to take place. I’m not saying these theories have no explanatory value, just that there are still a lot of holes to be filled here.
re: homosexuality as part of the created order
“Why would you reject this statement or see it as unnecessary for the pro-gay Christian theology?”
I have no idea whether it is strictly necessary for a pro-gay Christian theology, though it usually appears in pro-gay Christian arguments. I reject the statement because I have little evidence, either from special revelation (scripture) or general revelation (nature and science) to substantiate it. It would also depend on our understanding of the created order. There are many detrimental conditions which have a genetic basis – are they considered part of the created order?
“the various passages we cite (Romans 1 etc) have always been misinterpreted (I don’t think this is right)
Again, why is that?”
We would have to go through each one and look at all the arguments that are presented. A common one for Romans 1 is that Paul was looking only at the negative, hedonistic aspects of sexuality in Classical (Greco-Roman) culture, or only in their connection to pagan worship practices. I disagree with this, and would argue instead that Paul bases his ideas on (here it comes again) the idea of male and female in Genesis, as Jesus does when speaking about divorce.
“Tell me, why would Jesus reject a gay couple in his own time? What evidence of his character would (and would not) indicate this?”
I think Jesus would not have rejected a gay couple, just as he did not reject the woman at the well, or any other human being that he came across. The question is, after accepting them, would he have said, “carry on doing what you’re doing” or, “go and sin no more”? Most likely he would have put more priority on their hearts and their understanding of the kingdom of God, whether they served the poor, etc. But I would point out how Jesus, when speaking on divorce, refers to the original design. (“This is why a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife”).
“Why is relevant if no harm to the physical body, espcially if the soul is the true self?”
I believe that to ignore the physical body is to come dangerously close to a gnostic view. We could equally argue that there is no point in protecting our planet, since only spiritual things matter and the gases in our atmosphere are physical. I’d say that a great many Christians do this, though they don’t see it in that extreme. There is, in the back of their minds, an idea that “we’re all going to be beamed out of here into an airy-fairy spiritual Heaven anyway”. I lean towards the view that God made the physical and said that it was good. When we say that only the spirit or soul matters, we are reflecting a Greek philosophy that our Western culture has inherited.
“Now I’m confused here.”
I hope I cleared that up at the start of this post.
“I don’t think most progay Christians would believe that queers are broken spiritually.”
Some who are skeptical of the other arguments take this halfway approach, that having same-sex sex may be a bit wrong, but letting us do it anyway is still the only loving thing to do. Many same-sex sexual relationships do contain very positive aspects.
Hmmm… is this getting long. I hope this thread and my curiosity isn’t irritating you.
Nathan:
So you believe that the ancient Hebrews understood YHWH’s order of creation in a crude and primitive sense that a person was creating a physical idol of his image and bringing ‘life’ into it, thus Genesis was written in such a symbolic way. I understood that part, what I don’t understand is why they would use such a symbol, since it has a negative conjection with idolatry? Why do you believe that Genesis is an allegorical representation of the creation of human beings et al?
Nathan:
So the martyr comes first. Interesting…
Nathan:
I agree with you there. There’s a lot about nature that we don’t comprehend and evolution is one of them. We may have a hunch of what pieces are in the puzzle and a general idea of how they should be placed. However sometimes we get bad pieces in the mix and we still have a lot of pieces we don’t really know where they fit. It will take a lot of time and research before we can accomplish this puzzle.
Nathan:
But do you have enough evidence to reject it whole heartily or do you simply retort to uncertainty?
Nathan:
Which was (and in most cases still is) very limited if most understand it in the sense of creating an idol.
Nathan:
Well perhaps they are. Perhaps what we perceive as detrimental or uncessairy conditions really are not as such in a greater perception.
Nathan:
So you disagree with both arguments that Paul was attacking hedonism and pagan worship practice and that you believe he was refering to Genesis? Why is that?
Nathan:
Yet you stated that it is possible that Paul and Jesus were victims of their own time or perhaps they had to use similar techniques of oversimplifying to make people understand (just like you stated how the ancient hebrews did with Genesis) the principle message concerning divorce.
Nathan:
Fair enough, but I still don’t understand your point of view why should it still matter if we do not harm our physical bodies and the physical nature?
Nathan:
Well it’s not clear on the symbolism of the opposite-sex couple being the only ideal relationship. There are many gay Christians say Galatians 3:28 in its original writing state that such ideal is irrelevant. Can you give me your insight into this matter?
Nathan:
I can see that such a view can be a stumbling block for the future of a gay Christian. Any element of guilt no matter what it’s size is can have a significant impact over that person’s ability of getting into or sustaining a same-sex relationship and even self-view in life. Such halfway approach is likely to be volatile and end in futility.
Xeno,
“So you believe that the ancient Hebrews understood YHWH’s order of creation in a crude and primitive sense that a person was creating a physical idol of his image and bringing ‘life’ into it, thus Genesis was written in such a symbolic way.”
I wouldn’t say crude or primitive. We could argue that Genesis was meant as a response or rebuke of the various religious beliefs around (gods and goddesses feuding, having sex, her body became the sky, his blood became human beings, etc.). As such, the metaphor of the elegant, orderly temple construction and the animation of the “image” was both relevant and apt. (We could go further and find parallels in the acts Jesus performed on PEOPLE – opening their eyes, their ears, curing paralysis = animating their limbs)
“what I don’t understand is why they would use such a symbol, since it has a negative conjection with idolatry?”
Remember that it is, in part, an explanation for the *avoidance* of idolatry.
“Why do you believe that Genesis is an allegorical representation of the creation of human beings et al?”
While there are uncanny similarities with the real thing according to the widely accepted scientific views (eg. Big Bang as a transcendant “singularity” event, a progression towards complexity and variation in life development), I feel Genesis is full of symbols (eg. the fruit, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam’s side being used to create Eve). I just think it is wholly unnecessary to suppose that the 6 days must be 6 calendar days. I don’t think that was the purpose of the story. I think those people weren’t interested in a scientific white paper about natural history. They were interested in “where do we stand with the Divine?”.
“So the martyr comes first. Interesting…”
Not necessarily a martyr, and I think definitely not in the sense of suicide bombers. The laying down of our lives is, paradoxically, to result in more life, not less.
“But do you have enough evidence to reject it whole heartily or do you simply retort to uncertainty?”
I do not have enough evidence to reject it wholeheartedly, but that could be said about all things. In the end, we make a choice of how to live with the evidence we have.
“Well perhaps they are. Perhaps what we perceive as detrimental or uncessairy conditions really are not as such in a greater perception.”
A good point. If we ever start sifting out the genes for bad hair or imperfect cheek bones we may find that we really needed those to fight of that supervirus that was on its way.
“So you disagree with both arguments that Paul was attacking hedonism and pagan worship practice”
Yes, he was attacking hedonism and pagan worship practice – the whole thing is wrapped up in a spiral of spiritual confusion and destitution. But that wasn’t ALL he was doing. I think he saw all of these things as related to a rejection of God. One thing lead to another.
“and that you believe he was refering to Genesis? Why is that?”
I would say a possible answer would be because of his education and understanding of the Torah, which included Genesis. I don’t see this like a flashy slogan “adam and eve not adam and steve”. There is a profound message about marriage as not just a union of a man and woman, but a REUNION of male and female. The symbol goes to the extent of drawing the female as being taken out of the side of the “human” (though the two are evidenced as *equal sharers* in the image of God). Thus the sexual act is the spiritual act where the two become one flesh again. It is extremely powerful, not the cheap commodity we toss around on TV, billboards and magazines.
“Yet you stated that it is possible that Paul and Jesus were victims of their own time”
I allow that as a possibility for Paul, and a faint possibility for Jesus (not sure about the theology there). However, I must determine this on a case-by-case basis.
“Fair enough, but I still don’t understand your point of view why should it still matter if we do not harm our physical bodies and the physical nature?”
I’m trying to say that it’s not just a matter of harm or no harm.
“Well it’s not clear on the symbolism of the opposite-sex couple being the only ideal relationship. There are many gay Christians say Galatians 3:28 in its original writing state that such ideal is irrelevant. Can you give me your insight into this matter?”
I love the book of Galatians and its no compromises approach to grace. It is certainly a good refutation of legalism. However, I think Paul in 3:28 is reminding the Galatians that they are all equal in Christ. So they shouldn’t be dividing themselves up with respect to who is a jew, or who is not, who is male or who is female (remember the synagogues and the original temple where women were separated from men). Rather they are equal inheritors of the kingdom of grace. Does this mean that there is no-one who is physically Semitic? Does it mean that male and female no longer exist as physical and spiritual categories? I think to say that we have now elimited any spiritual signifance of gender is, perhaps, to take this little verse further than it was intended, which was in the context of our equalness in relationship with Christ.