The Serpent's Wisdom

In his treatment of homophobia in Christianity, i am glad to see that John Shelby Spong did not shrink back from admitting that certain texts in the Bible are homophobic. I haven't read his previous book on the topic, but i feared that he would try to rework or revise our understanding of these passages instead of just admitting that they are bad and wrong, the way i have seen some liberal Christians do.

At one time i believed in, and even formulated myself, arguments that passages like Romans 1 or I Corinthians 6 have been misunderstood and misapplied, and should actually be read in ways that are much more narrow than the conservative interpretation of applying them to all forms of homosexual love and sex. I am wary of such arguments because i fear they are selectively revisionist, and i fear that they defend a kind of text-centric approach that will ultimately fuel literalism.

He suggests that in Paul's writing, and i have noticed this myself, there is a distinct contradiction between his understanding of Christ as the bringer of universal redemption, and his passages of moralizing condemnation.

Spong then mentions a mentor of his who went through a time of being idologically rigid and fanatically pious, before breaking down and admitting that he was gay. He argues that many of the most ardently anti-gay preachers are projecting outwards their own inner struggle with homosexuality -- an argument that has some precedent in psychological research.

Paul, he says, was doing this: projecting outwards his own inner struggle against homosexuality. I've seen this argument before, and i think it is a good one. There is another possibility that occurred to me a while back: that Paul's disapproval of men who have sex with men stems from having been sexually preyed upon at gumnasium.

The problem with either of these theories is that they cannot really account for Paul's disapproval of lesbian sex. Paul would have known that Jewish law specifically bans gay male sex, but does not mention lesbian sex. Paul's disapproval of homosexuality did not stem from his understanding of the law -- Paul NEVER moralized against something from the basis of its being against the Mosaic Law. That would contradict his understanding of the Law as something that Christians have transcended. (Never mind how dangerous this notion is to the fundamentalist program -- ::gasp!:: you mean God's law can change?) But even so, his thinking would have been influenced by it.

It's possible that his own inner conflicts or his own rage at being molested might extend to lesbians as well as gay men -- but it does not strike me as intuitive. Especially given that the Mosaic Law says nothing about lesbian sex.

No, his disapproval stemmed from something new: he believed that gay sex is not expedient.

Now, i've argued in the past that the reason gay male sex seems inexpedient from an economic point of view is that it reduces the reproductive potential of the family. (In the ancient way of thinking about pregnancy, at least.) An act of male masturbation has the same effect -- and both are prohibited in the Old Testament, while lesbian sex and female masturbation (neither of which directly reduce reproductive potential) is entirely overlooked.

So, what kind of expediency does he think is reduced by lesbian sex?

Paul believed that sex itself, on the whole, is not expedient. Like any good authoritarian, he believed that sex must have consequences to prove that it's better to avoid it. And like any good dualist, he thought of flesh and its needs as something that impedes the proper functioning of the mind.

He stopped short of telling Christians that having any sex at all would lose them a spot in the Kingdom of God. For one thing, children have to come from somewhere. He treated marriage, and marital sex, as a concession, but stated his strong preference for universal celibacy.

But gay and lesbian sex are slippery, in that they do not have consequences the same way that heterosexual sex does. It can't result in pregnancy. It can result in venereal disease, but that's not special to gay or lesbian sex. So in his authoritarian mind there's nothing to stop people from having gay/lesbian sex.

Furthermore, he saw homosexuality as a consequence of having the wrong thoughts about God. This must have explained, in his mind, why the Jews rejected it while the Pagans accepted it.

SO, Paul may have been emotionally conflicted or angry, but i don't think this is the ultimate cause of the conflict in his writing. I think it stems, ultimately, from his instincts as an authoritarian, clashing with the inherent radicalism of the early Christian message.

I suppose it is okay to post this now, it should have been graded by now (though i haven't received it back yet): the essay i wrote on Gnosticism for the final in Prof. Koester's class.

---

What separated the gnostic Christians from the non-gnostic (hereafter ‘orthodox’) Christians was not simply a difference in beliefs or opinions, but deeply divergent ways of viewing the world, human nature, and divine nature. These divergences made reconciliation between the gnostics and the orthodox impossible.

Christianity is concerned with the state of humankind, asserting that people exist in a state of incompletion or depravity, and are therefore in need of salvation in order to achieve their potential intended by the creator. Salvation, Christians believe, comes to humankind from God by way of Christ.

The orthodox doctrine teaches that salvation comes from the presence of Christ with us, from Christ’s sacrifice, from Christ’s resurrection, from being baptized in Christ’s name, and from taking in the body and blood of Christ during the celebration of the Eucharist.

The label of ‘gnostic’ was given to Christian sects who taught instead that salvation came from knowing particular doctrine or having certain awareness. The death and resurrection of Christ or the presence of Christ in the sacraments were matters of less importance to the gnostics.

At the heart of gnostic belief is the notion that some people have a spark of divinity within them. This fragment of the divine spirit has been enchanted and so has forgotten who and what it is. The gnostics believed that the key to salvation was to re-awaken the divine spark to awareness of its nature and origin.

In contrast to this, the idea of a measure of divinity within each person became increasingly unpalatable to orthodox thinkers. The author of John’s Gospel took pains to dispel this notion, calling Jesus the “Only Begotten Son” of God, making it clear that Jesus’ divinity was unique. Later, Augustine promoted the notion of original sin, which precludes the gnostic idea altogether.

( long )

For my second homework in Prof. Koester's class i have prepared a text on the Gnostic piece "The Hypostasis of the Archons." Dare i turn in a paper like this? Or should i turn in something more tame?

( Read more... )

I don't understand my relationship with Christianity. It's as convoluted as a fractal.

I don't identify as a Christian and i don't "believe in" any of the primary doctrines. I reject the idea of original sin and therefore the whole notion of "redemption."

And yet it still feels like my home. I cannot escape it. I am still drawn to examine it, and i still find inspiration therein. I get angry when i see it employed in the service of oppression and exploitation, as if it were appropriated from me. As i've written before, i do not think that following the Way is about what one believes, but about one's compassion and faith.

Currently i am reading Schuessler Fiorenza's book In Memory of Her (the title is a reference to Mark 14:9). She pulls an idea i like from Koester and Robinson, about finding the "trajectory" of Christian striving. The trajectory i see describes an inspired yet human quest for justice and compassion. Redemption then is not us being saved from the world by a remote God, but learning to listen to the divine voice calling for compassion and encouraging us to fulfill our potential.

For example, lately i've been thinking about the idea that we are all participants in the murder of Jesus. There is no explicit Biblical support for this idea; passages which say we are all sinners are read as though this is what it means. Reading the passages on their own, you would never derive that meaning from them; you have to be told to read it that way.

But instead there *is* explicit Biblical support for the idea that we die with Christ. Here it is, explicitly:

[Romans 6:6] For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin—
[7] because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
[8] Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
[9] For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him.
[10] The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.
[11] In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

We cannot both participate in the crucifixion of Jesus, and die with him. It must be one or the other. The difference is monumental, of course. If we are collectively the murderers of Jesus, then no punishment in hell or on earth is too severe. This in turn has been used as justification for anti-Semitism and other prejudice-driven abuse. If however we are co-sufferers with Christ, then God is on our side. We are called to revere the Christ which lives within each other person.

[Galatians 2:19] For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.
[20] I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

The idea of "trajectory" means that we cannot rest upon what has been done before, but the struggle against injustice continues. It requires insight and honesty, the recognition that the fountain of spirit still flows. To use a metaphor from Alan Watts, a river cannot be trapped in a bucket and still be a river. It also requires the vigilance to see that the unjust seek always to misappropriate what can be used against them, so that it is nullified as a threat to them. The way i see it, this is what has happened to Christianity, starting with the writing and redaction of scripture and the establishment of a worldly church.

I veer back and forth, between despairing that Christianity has become so riddled with injustice and hatred that it is irredeemable, to angry refusal to let them get away with it. In the past i have described myself as a religious exile, feeling like my homeland has been stolen away and i stand on a remote plain watching as foreign occupiers live in my home.

By what authority do i claim it as my home? The claim is not predicated on "authority"; i am a bat nasha and the basileia tou ouranou belongs to all.

'Hell is full of good intenions or desires.' -- Bernard of Clairvaux, Apothegm

Think of it as the way in which homophobia hurts ministers and priests.

No matter how good your intentions are or how pure and loving your heart, if you quote from the Bible about the wrongness of homosexuality, you are, whether you intend so or not, contributing to the environment of fear under which queer people live.

Here's what it looks like from my perspective. Every day, I restrict and restrain my gender expression in myriad ways, big and small, because I am afraid. I'm afraid I might lose my job, and I'm afraid I will be violently victimized. I'm afraid I'll be laughed at and won't be able to do business. On several occasions I've witnessed verbal harrassment by Christians, and every time I read something like this or this or this, that fear is intensified.

So, if you are someone who supports the idea that it is sinful to be queer, I am automatically afraid of you. It's not relevent whether or not you do anything to encourage that fear or even if you try to reassure me -- that fear is still there. I cannot afford to distinguish you from the people who picket schools and funerals, because you might turn out to be the oddball whacko who thinks God told you to stab me.

I am not telling you to ignore God's word. I am asking you to consider that there exists an ethical dilemma not easily solved by appeal to moral absolutes. If you want to be a bridge to Christ for people who been expelled from homes, families, churches, and jobs, you will not accomplish that by contributing to our fear.

Here's a thought on this. The key to solving the dilemma was given by Jesus in what he said were the two greatest commandments, and in the litmus test of good fruit vs. bad fruit. What action will uphold your love for all people, and bear good fruit?

Meditate on this:

[Luke 18:9] To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable:
[10] "Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector.
[11] The Pharisee stood up and prayed about himself: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector.
[12] I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.'
[13] But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner.'
[14] I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

The counsel of Jesus here is that one cannot gain assurance of righteousness in God's eyes by clinging to the letter of moral law. It seems like a sure-fire way to stay righteous, but if it results in bad fruits, then "the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brings death" (Romans 7:10)

In the episode of the accused adulteress (John 8:1-11), Jesus again stood against those who clung to the letter of the moral code to prove their righteousness at the cost of another. If Jesus were a moral absolutist, he would have had no choice but to agree with the woman's accusers. On the issue at hand, the Law of Moses is clear. However, his response -- to point out the men's hypocrisy -- was counter to the letter of the moral law, but still represents a satisfactory resolution to the moral dilemma based on the two greatest commandment and the good/bad fruit litmus test. I like to think that Jesus also did so because he knew that from the dawn of history, women have been persecuted for their sexuality and have lived in fear of being publically punished or executed for having sex. From his perspective, protecting her gave the best hope of reaching her soul and assuaging her fears.

But if the idea of supporting efforts against homophobia makes you worried that we don't know the Bible says homosexuality is bad, don't worry. It's safe to say we've all heard.

In my last post yesterday, I don't think I articulated my thought well enough.

If there exists a divine presence, I believe that divinity wants humans to foster understanding and compassion. (If not, what good is it?) I believe that the most enduring religious movements have this at the core of their message.

To the point, I believe that this is the core of Jesus' message. There are many examples to illustrate this, but this point was made explicit when Jesus said the two greatest commandments in the law are to love God with all of one's heart, mind, and spirit, and to love one's neighbor as oneself (Matthew 22:34-40). He said these were the greatest commandments upon which all of the other commandments hang. Therefore it seems to me that all other commandments were meant to be seen as secondary to this concern.

If we take this to be the core of Jesus' teachings, then it creates a litmus test whereby we can test the validity of any doctrinal element or interpretation in the tradition.

I am not concerned with exploring how any one point of doctrine can be twisted to serve a purpose; rather, I am concerned with the effect of a doctrine when taken to heart as it is stated. Sure, there have been those who argued that killing a blasphemer was an act of love; but I do not see this as taking "love thine enemy" to heart. No one is fooled by that kind of cynical, self-serving mutilation of a religious teaching.

When Jesus said this, I believe that he was giving us a way of seeing through the cloud of claims to righteousness:

[Matthew 7:15] Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.
[16] By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
[17] Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
[18] A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
[19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
[20] Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
[21] Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[22] Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?'
[23] Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

This was directed as a warning against those who claim to bear religious righteousness, but who bring forth "bad fruit."

How does this cash out? That was demonstrated in John 8:1-11. As the Pharisees told Jesus, the Law of Moses demanded that a woman caught in the act of adultery was to be stoned to death. Technically speaking, they were right; that is what the Law of Moses demanded. If Jesus was, like many of his followers today are, a staunch upholder of religious law no matter who gets hurt, he would have told them yes, she must be stoned. Instead he challenged them, quite possibly putting himself in danger, because he understood that the crowd of Pharisees was bearing bad fruit.

When I say the end result of a doctrine (or its interpretation) can put the validity of the doctrine itself into question, I may be going beyond what Jesus meant to say. However, I think Paul meant to amplify this point:

[Romans 7:4] So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.
[5] For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death.
[6] But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

On the face of it, Paul's argument in Romans, chapter 7 doesn't make sense until we ask, "What kind of sinful passions could Paul mean, that are roused by the law of Moses?" The entire thrust of this book's argument, though, is that we cannot rely on religious codes to ensure that we are acting from righteousness. Paul clearly believed that doing so was a trap that causes us to act inhumanely.

Instead of looking into books, then, the key is to judge a teaching or an idea or an action by the guidance of Spirit, in light of its effects on people -- whether it is good fruit or bad.

Sometimes Paul moralized, but where he did, he moralized not by arguing from what was written in the law of Moses, but from the conviction that he thought nature and real life would show certain things to be "inexpedient." In any case, Paul's argument about the newness of Spirit versus the oldness of the written code is not compatible with the use to which many modern Christians put his words, as justification for the perpetuation of oppression.

Edit. I have revised this post to reflect that what may be questionable is not necessarily a point of doctrine itself, but any particular interpretation thereof. Problems to which I point may stem more from interpretation than from doctrine itself, and it is helpful to keep that distinction in mind here.

An essay in Karen L. King's (ed.) book, Images of the Feminine in Gnosticism has me thinking about this passage in I Corinthians:

( 1 Cor. 11:3-16 )

It's been argued that the proper way to read this, is that Paul was rebuking the Corinthian congregation for practices and theology which he felt was inappropriate. But what was it that the Corinthians were doing and teaching?

Well, it seems that some of the men were growing their hair long and/or covering their heads for worship, while some of the women were cutting their hair short and/or uncovering their heads for worship.

The argument of Dennis MacDonald is that the Corinthians had instituted a practice, in reflection of neo-platonic or Gnostic teaching, which involved denying or transcending one's gender and working to become an embodiment of the primal androgyne. The primal androgyne, in his understanding of neo-platonic myth, is fundamentally masculine, and so therefore women are still being denegrated in concept, even though the practice of removing their veils ostensibly makes them more free.

Such a practice might explain why women would remove the veil which marks their gender socially. However, he ignores and cannot explain why certain Corinthian Christian men would have veiled themselves, which they seem to have been doing. He also doesn't present any evidence that ritual androgynous dress was employed in ritual by any Gnostic or neo-platonic group at any time. He seems driven to devise an argument designed to make Paul look more like a feminist than the Corinthians or the Gnostics. (Edit: some of this is addressed in the rebuttal by Bernadette Brooten.)

The popular theory (such as that espoused by Elisabeth Shussler Fiorenza) is that the Corinthians were employing ritual transvestism as a way of incorporating Pagan ecstatic practices into their worship. If so, then Paul's main goal is to "de-ecstasize" Corinthian worship -- which idea is further supported by the fact that Paul follows this discussion with a chapter delimiting the idea of "gifts of the spirit."

It's been said by some that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Here's one glaring problem with that.

[Romans 13:1] Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
[2] Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
[3] For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
[4] for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
[5] Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
[6] For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
[7] Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Notably, the American revolutionaries were not just up against the government and army of Britain, they were up against the long-established Christian idea that governmental authority comes from God. In challenging King George III of Britain, they were rejecting the idea that God had given him a divine right to rule over them.

Consequently, when it came time to frame the Constitution, the founders began with words that made it clear the former colonies were rejecting the idea that government was ordained by God:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (emphasis added)

crossposting to my journal and crossposting to challenging_god

( the sexual code of the Old Testament was geared towards maximizing the reproductive output of every Israelite )

( The Christian view of sex developed as a response to urbanization and included adoption of Pagan views on the goodness of monogamy and abstinence )

( Jesus demonstrated a highly accepting attitude towards sexual behavior )

( Paul, on the other hand, viewed the body as a temple and saw sexual misconduct as blasphemy )

( The debate on sexual permissiveness within the church was caught up in the larger questions of female participation and Gnostic teaching )

crossposting to my journal and crossposting to challenging_god

"Our struggle is not against enemies of blood and flesh, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places." Ephesians 6:12

I have commented on this passage before, but it is extremely important to the Gnostic Christian tradition. Also, I note, my views on this passage have matured somewhat.

The Epistle to the Ephesians is generally believed now to have been written not by Paul but at some point between 100 and 130 CE; I believe that this and several other passages in Ephesians demonstrate that it was redacted by a Gnostic (if not actually written by one).

The forces of worldly oppression were called archons (rulers), which word was actually used in the passage above. In the Gnostic mythology, humans are shown as struggling against malevolent ruling powers from whose realm Christ seeks to liberate us; but to me this is but one minor facet of what this passage truly represents.

Earlier forms of Gnosticism, like the Jewish prophetic and Christian traditions from which it was born, were concerned with the welfare of the lower classes. Its later variations, like Christianity, were clearly more concerned with the pursuits of people with more comfortable lifestyles. So when examining the later forms of Gnosticism, it is hard sometimes to see the extent to which it was truly a movement of political, religious, and economic radicalism.

Caricaturing the Lord honored in the Temple in Jerusalem was an indication of extreme disenfranchisement. This caricature was later to be seized upon by thinkers whose motivation was possibly anti-Semitic (such as Marcion) so it is extremely important to discern the motivation behind a given Gnostic text. Some of them were indeed anti-Semitic; others were a direct product of the highly various Jewish community of late antiquity.

In the minds of the early Gnostics, the agents of fate, the archons, were in collusion with the ruling elite. It is not a mistake that they referred to these agents as "the rulers." The struggle to end political, religious, and economic oppression was the same struggle as the mystical struggle against the agents of fate, who determine the course of our lives and who assert that we have no choice but to go along with the master plan.

Similarly, to speak out against injustice was to spit in the eye of fate.

The Gnostics saw the Serpent as the spirit of wisdom who liberated them from the false garden established by the archons to keep us trapped, which we might compare to the tapestry of illusion woven by Mara, or to the Matrix, both illusions designed to keep us ensnared and distracted and so deprive us of living up to our full potential.

They equated this with the message of Jesus, one who had spoken out against their oppression at the hands of the wealthy, the priestly class, and the Roman regime. The resurrection of Jesus by the Father (whether it was literal or metaphorical) signified that the Father so strongly approved of Jesus' program that he rejected the actions of fate and even the ultimate fate of death.

To rise up in this way is to say to fate, I reject the injustice that you have set in my path. The cosmos does not have to be ordered this way, because the Root of All sent instructors to show us the way!

I have often spoken of God, or the Root of All, as akin to a potential field. Potential is that whereby events happen; during an event, potential energy is transferred into kinetic, thermal, electromagnetic, or other forms of energy. I think of the cosmos as working in the same fashion -- the divine creating the potential that allows all things to exist or happen. If the divine is potential, then surely it is good and right that each of us should attempt to fulfill our potential to the utmost.

Economic or political or religious oppression keeps us from living up to our fullest potential.