Yesterday was the second of the conservative Christian’s telecasts called Justice Sunday. Ironically, although there was much denunciation of the Supreme Court’s recognition of some basic rights for gay people, there was almost no mention of John Roberts. The original purpose of this telecast was to push for support of Bush’s nominee.
If you take a quick glace at the picture of Tom DeLay speaking at telecast you’ll notice some interesting symbology.
A large representation of the Ten Commandments is prominantly displayed behind the speaker. Up, behind, and in the shadows is a cross. This visually reads as a victory of the Law (first covenant) as represented by the commandments over Grace (second covenant) as represented by the cross.
This correlates with something I’ve begun to notice in the political statements of the branch of Christian that demonizes “homosexual activists” and demands ex-gay conversions. Much is made of Levitical Law but I don’t think I’ve heard any Christians that actually quote Christ.
There is a remarkably simple answer for that, Timothy, no matter which version of the Bible you read, Christ never said a word about homosexuality, pro or con.
It brings to mind the sentence, “Jesus, save me from your followers.”
Thanks for bringing up this point, Timothy. The emphasis on Levitical law by self-identified Christians is something that has completely mystified me. (Well, upon further reflection, it hasn’t, but I’ll explain why in a moment.)
If one accepts that the Bible is the inspired word of God, then one must also accept that Levitical law no longer applies to the practicing Christian. The apostle Paul (a hero to many far-right Christians) makes that point abundantly clear in a number of places in the New Testament. I mean, if you want to misuse Scripture to attack sexual minorities, then at least be consistent by using Romans 1 (which is primarily about idolatry, not sexual behavior). The use of Levitical law completely undermines the Christian concept of grace, which was fulfilled in the person of Christ.
As many of us know, even those who aren’t religious, Jesus never said anything, either positive or negative, about homosexuality. While both sides can make an argument from silence, I think that one story about Jesus’ ministry is very telling–the healing of the centurion’s servant. At that time, it was very common for Roman centurions to employ male “body slaves” who would assist them with various personal/grooming duties, and a sexual relationship with one’s body slave was not uncommon. In light of the centurion’s statement that his servant was “very dear to him,” an extremely unusual admission of intimacy, it is very possible that this centurion had a sexual/romantic relationship with his body slave… yet Jesus never touches on this subject at all. He just heals the servant and praises the centurion for his faith. Now, you can imagine the crowd would have been suspicious of the relationship between the centurion and his servant even if it wasn’t the case, yet Jesus–who took people to task for what they were thinking in their hearts, primarily the Pharisees–never deals with the subject at all at a time when he had the perfect opportunity to do so. Interesting, no?
Point is, Jesus is nowhere condemning or critical of homosexual persons, and I think that far-right Christians realize that. So, to justify their bigotry against GLBT people, they have to reach back to a set of laws that no don’t even apply to them anymore. How can one take the faith of such people seriously? I can’t.
I think you might be reading more into that picture than is there. One could just as easily say that the Cross is on the wall, above the tablets and therefore that Grace is above the law. It’s probably something far more mundane; perhaps the Cross is always up there and the tablets were brought in just for this event and they are illuminated by the light shining on the speaker.
As to Leviticus 18:22 being used for an anti-gay argument, it isn’t the passage I would use to advance that argument. There is more in the New Testament dealing with homosexuality, and those references are more germane than Leviticus. And certainly the record of Christ’s words in the NT does not touch on every subject possible – He didn’t mention a lot of things that we would obviously agree are bad or sinful. I’ve never understood this position, that because Christ didn’t mention something it wasn’t important. I wouldn’t hang my hat on that one.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing to justify an anti-gay stance from a biblical standpoint; in this case I’m not arguing for or against it, but I think it is important to remain scholarly and as accurate as possible in what we do argue. Otherwise, it reflects badly on the entire debate.
Christopher, your example of the centurion and his slave is a textbook case of isogesis (reading into scripture what isn’t there). I believe there is a reasonable case to be made for the acceptance of monogomous, committed homosexual relationships in scripture, but I can’t believe this is the way to support it. If we do, we open the door for those on the other side of the equation to read into coutless other passages their own pet meanings as well.
ReasonAble–
You misunderstand the nature of my post. I wasn’t using my discussion of this text to illustrate whether monogamous gay relationships should be accepted. That’s an entirely separate Scriptural discussion.
I was merely pointing out that if one wants to make an argument from silence regarding Jesus’ attitude toward homosexual relationships of any kind, you’ll have a harder time doing that on the anti- side than on the pro- side. That’s why I believe the far right never appeals to anything Jesus said but, rather, to Levitical law, which doesn’t even apply to the practicing Christian. Either their faith isn’t valid, or their argument against GLBT people is specious. It’s either one or the other.
That was my point.
Never mind Levitical Law, what about the freakin’ Constitution???Should he actually believe this, the quote from DeLay was mind-bendingly disturbed:
Huh? Article 3 clearly assigns the Supreme Court to protect the Constitution. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law it should be struck down, by the Court. Congress can pass as many unconstitutional laws as it feels inclined, but each and every one should be struck.Don’t know why I’m bothered by this. What should I expect of a system that starts off wonderfully with “all men are created equal… pursuit of life liberty and happiness” and then seriously declares that black men are worth 3/5ths of a white one…I just wince at the idea of what happens when government cannot respect even it’s own laws; let alone what they would therefore be inclined to do to outsiders.
Oh, that was me. I’ve gone incognito all of a sudden.
ReasonAble
“It’s probably something far more mundane; perhaps the Cross is always up there and the tablets were brought in just for this event and they are illuminated by the light shining on the speaker.”
I think you are exactly correct in this assumption. Yet I think it is very telling.
The cross, by rote, is on the wall. And when it came time to provide a visual aid to rally the forces, they deliberately brought in the Ten Commandments. To my way of thinking, this illustrates what they – probably subconciously – considered to be the Biblical authority for their secular activism. They turned to the Commandments and pulled the spotlight off the Cross.
Incidentally, in discussing the trend to quote the Law rather than Christ, I didn’t mean to suggest that I was speaking only of issues of sexuality. I see this as a greater trend within conservative Christianity. They have a very hard time alligning the teachings of the person, Jesus Christ, with the focus of their faith which is becoming alarmingly secular and political in nature.
Also, I recognize that the New Testament is often quoted in condemning gays and others. What I find interesting is how seldom Christ quoted by Christians in the culture wars, however. Paul is much more favored by the religious authoritarians.
It would be interesting to see who is quoted most, Moses, Paul, or Christ – and in what ratio – both in front of legislative bodies and behind pulpits.
Christopher and Timothy, I agree with both of your points after reading your clarifications – thanks for taking the time to explain. I apologize if I jumped to conclusions. I have been reading some particularly narrow minded stuff recently and I guess I am on edge.
I did think it was odd that they hauled in the tablets and perhaps, as you point out, they aren’t even aware of the significance of emphasizing the law at every turn. I do find it disturbing that there is such intermix between our government and religious doctrine. I have no problem at all with a president (senator, etc) relying on their personal faith to give them strength and guidance, but even God gave man free will, the option to choose. This country was founded on this ideal and I firmly believe our government should neither be hostile nor favorable to any faith. It should be neutral. A theocracy is an awful thing.
These are politicians running the show, not theologians. These are “flags” on the wall more than they are religious icons. I’d suggest that a lot of time and effort was put into storyboarding the shots and camera angles considering what would be in frame.
I think the cross is there so that there’s no mistake this is a battle for christianity–a sort of a “vote christian” altarcall, and the ten commandments is there because that’s a popular rallying symbol from the Alabama State Judicial Building in Montgomery.
These people don’t give a damn about winning souls or WTF WJD. They’re out to win elections. Maybe political campaign advertising and public relations agencies are the new moneychangers for the electronic temples.
Anonymous at August 15, 2005 05:07 PM
Huh? Article 3 clearly assigns the Supreme Court to protect the Constitution. If Congress passes an unconstitutional law it should be struck down, by the Court. Congress can pass as many unconstitutional laws as it feels inclined, but each and every one should be struck.
Just to let you know, the fact that “judicial power” (Art III of the federal constitution) includes judicial review is obvious from the Federalist Papers. I’ll cite you to FP78, although there are other subsequent FPs that address the same subject. They are all available over the Internet on numerous web sites.
The power of the courts to strike down acts of the legislature and practices of the executive as being beyond their power in view of the constitution was deemed an integral part of “judicial power.” Pure and simple.