My Photo
Name:
Location: United States

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

JD Crossan and the Newsweek story

As someone who thinks same-sex marriage is a good thing, I've noticed a number of posts lately on the Newsweek cover story about the Bible and same-sex marriage. On Faith has just asked a question prompted by that - Is there a religious and/or scriptural case for gay marriage? I noticed that JD Crossan, former priest, biblical scholar and professor emeritus in the religious studies department at DePaul University, had an answer, and though he has given his opinion other times about that subject ...

If being gay is as intrinsic for some people as being straight is for others--that is, both are God-given options--then gay unions, ordinations, and consecrations must be treated equally with straight ones. On homosexuality, many ancients judged sexual nature in terms of biology and organs but many moderns—myself included—judge sexual nature in terms of chemistry and hormones. In other words, Paul was wrong on hair and equally wrong on homosexuality. And, by the way, can you imagine how unnatural Paul would have considered a heart-transplant?

.... this time he writes that he feels there are more important issues than sex to discuss. Here's his answer -

******************************

The Real Issue is Violence, Not Sex

In the Bible, humanity's inaugural problem is never about "sex and the city" but about "violence and the city."

And so the trap closes. Let us, by all means, debate what--if anything-- the Bible says about heterosexual as against homosexual marriage. And while we are doing that--be it from one side or the other--let us ignore what the Bible says about far, far, far more pressing problems. Does that distraction happen just by chance?

The priorities of the Bible are quite clear. When, after that magnificent parable of Genesis 2-3, humans first left the safe confines of the Garden, do you remember the first thing that happened outside of Paradise?

There is nothing about marriage mentioned in Genesis 4, nothing about either heterosexual or homosexual marriage. Nothing, in fact, even about sex, in any way shape or form. Genesis 4 is about fratricidal murder and escalatory violence.

First, the farmer Cain kills the herder Abel and so recorded history begins. It starts that ancient struggle known from the Sumerian plains of Neolithic Mesopotamia ("the cradle of civilization") to the musical strains of Rogers & Hammerstein's Oklahoma ("the farmer and the cowboy should be friends"). But even though Abel's blood cries out to God from the ground, Cain is not killed but marked by God "so that no one who came upon him would kill him" (4:15). God warns, however, that sevenfold vengeance will be taken--not by God but by his tribe--for anyone who murders Cain. And so begins that escalatory violence which has been our human drug-of-choice ever since.

Next, after the farmer slays the herder, he builds a city. "Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch; and Cain built a city, and named it Enoch after his son Enoch" (4:17). So, for the Bible, humanity's inaugural problem is never about "sex and the city" but about "violence and the city."

Finally, as the chapter proceeds, we find a descendant of Cain named Lamech who boasts that he himself had personally escalated retaliatory vengeance by killing "a man for wounding me" and, "if Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold." That is quite a progress across a single chapter of 25 verses.

The validity of homosexual as well as heterosexual marriage will be generally accepted before most of our generation is gone form this earth. There are, of course, people biblically against it--just as there are people biblically against wine. But nobody tells us anything, if you will recall, about the sexual preferences of that couple during whose "wedding at Cana of Galilee" Jesus supplied an awful lot of wine (John 2:1).

So, then, let us debate about sex and marriage rather than war and violence. Let us concentrate on the bed-room rather than the war-room. Let us liberals get trapped--as always--on the right side of the wrong question. I write this in protest against that deviation from what fundamentally concerns the Bible, the biblical God, and Jesus, namely, that escalatory violence that by now threatens our world with destruction.

************************

21 Comments:

Blogger Mark said...

Maybe germaine, Crystal

South America catholic cardinal denounces Madona as 'arousing impure thoughts' at mass honoring Pinochet who killed thousands of 'dissentents.' The church is sick in many ways.

BTW, the cardinal was chosen to announce election of B16. (See AP story.) Jack

3:27 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

make that "germane."

3:29 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

Do you mean Cardinal Angelo Sodano?

I saw mention of in an op-ed peice from the past in the Bosten Globe.

3:52 PM  
Blogger azk said...

Crossan is a brilliant man, but I must say he is in error when he makes the apostle Paul into a pre-modern biologist. Paul does not do biology or psychology, but theology. His statements regarding human sexuality come from his theological tradition, in particular the narratives of creation in Genesis. Crossan believes divine intention can be determined by chemistry. Paul believed divine intention was determined by stories (revelation). Crossan may be right if the Bible tells the wrong kind of stories, but he is mistaken to suggest that Paul is wrong due to science. Crossan and Paul just have different ideas regarding the locus of authority.

4:32 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Crystal,

No. It was not Sodano, I don't think. It was an AP story. But can't find it now. I'm getting paranoid. The story was there an hour ago, but now gone. There was a picture with it of a woman holding a sign praising Pinochet. The story was as I stated it. Jack

5:00 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

5:03 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:26 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

azk,

I thought more about your comment and I think you're right. Crossan and Paul are appealing to different authroraties. I guess a problem occurs when opinion based on religious authority is used to justify secular decisions which might be better based on science/psychology like civil same-sex marriage.

5:28 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:02 PM  
Blogger azk said...

No, Jack, I do not believe the world was created in 7 days. And yes, you are correct that you are not as nice (at least in online posting) as crystal. But why would you not want to be as nice? Instead you skewer me as a straw man. But that is neither here nor there. I'm interested in why Paul said what he said (on all matters), and I thought Crossan's take on Paul with regards to human sexuality was incorrect (his comments on violence were, on the other hand, quite stimulating). I'm not quite sure how my comments have ended up stepping on your toes. They were not intended to inflame.

6:27 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:52 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:55 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

azk,

Sorry about Jack. I've deleted his comments. Don't take what he has said personally - you aren't the first person he's offended on this blog.

7:04 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Crystal,

I am shocked by your removal of my comments. You allow the most outrageous,unreasonable "comments" on your blog (see "azk")and then get uptight about the word "silly."
We should not suffer fools lightly.My comments are most mild. Your refusal to allow spirited discussion, except from some, is exactly what is wrong with our Church. It will never seek the better as long as you and others insist on protecting the irrational and do not allow response. Is your goal to allow any comment, no matter how absurd if it should bring a justifiably tart response?

I would hope you would leave my response here. I will not comment again on your blog. Jack

7:55 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

It's ok to disagree with what someone writes, but I don't think insulting people or their beliefs counts as valid discussion and it can't win arguments.

8:40 PM  
Blogger Mark said...

Crystal,

Just back for a minute. The cardinal I refered to was Jorge Medina. Looking forward to any comments. Jack

8:51 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:43 PM  
Blogger crystal said...

Jack,

I saw the story you mentioned about him and Madonna. Also saw this story about him at the National Catholic Reporter - Liturgy czar a Pinochet ally, foe of liberation theology.

10:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good morning Crystal.

I, personally think that you run an excellent blog and tolerate a wide range of beliefs. I also agree that the comments were becoming insulting and personal and I did not think that they were appropriate here.

If I judge a comment to be silly, I will post my reasons, not attack the author of them.

Thanks for your action.

Hugs,

Mike L

7:16 AM  
Blogger crystal said...

Thanks, Mike. I try to be consistent but sometimes I flip my wig too :)

3:23 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home