It's Not Biblical Authority That Divides Us

In our current disagreement in the COB about homosexuality, we frequently hear people say that the "real" issue is not homosexuality, the real issue is biblical interpretation. Either the Bible is "true" or it isn't; it's that simple.

What always comes to mind when I hear this kind of argument is a lesson from our nation's history: Christian attitudes to slavery. Why did Baptists and Presbyterians split apart over the issue of slavery? They were, as Lincoln famously said, both reading the same Bible and praying to the same God. And yet they came out on opposite sides of the slavery issue.

There is a short and interesting case study of this issue online here. It's a paper written by a pastor in the Churches of God looking at how the issue of slavery split his denomination.

When the Civil War broke out the at a meeting of the Churches of God in the north:

"The seventh triennial meeting of the General Eldership of the Church of God in North America passed as one of their resolutions: "We declare it to be our solemn conviction that the chief and operative cause of the present rebellion is American slavery." The Church took the stand that slavery was not scriptural. The seventh annual Eldership of the Churches of God in West Ohio passed:
. . . . . . . .
2. Resolved, that all slaveholding and chatteling of humanity is manstealing, that it denies the first right of manhood, life, and liberty and the right to pursue happiness--degrades human beings to the level of brutes--turns human flesh, blood, bones, sinews, nerves and muscles into articles of merchandise--sets a price on souls, morals, religion and the image of God, and denies the very central idea on which Christianity is based, the common blood and brotherhood of man; and all who perpetrate said sin are classified by Paul, along with lawless, disobedient, ungodly, unholy and profane sinners, such as murderers of fathers and mothers, manslayers and whoremongers, liars and perjurers.
3. Resolved, that the whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual [7] exercise of the most boisterous passions--the most unremitting despotism on the one part and degrading submission on the other.
4. Resolved, that the Bible neither sanctions, tolerates, regulates, nor permits, directly or indirectly, but in letter and spirit is opposed to slaveholding in any member of the Kingdom of Christ.
5. Resolved, Inasmuch as the Bible stands opposed to oppression, inhumanity and injustice, as is embodied in the Slave Traffic, therefore, we, taking the Bible for our criterion, cannot conscientiously and religiously unite in church or Christian fellowship with any man or woman who justifies or has fellowship, or persists in the sinful practice of buying, selling or holding any human being in bondage.

But at the fourth annual meeting of the Texas Churches of God in 1860 the Texas Eldership took the opposite view. They argued that slavery was sanctioned by the Bible and charged that the northern church was departing from the reading of scripture:

WHEREAS, A part of the members of the Church of God in the North have become ultra upon the present political issues between the North and the South, and have declared the systems of servitude as laid down in the Bible as evil, and incompatible with the interest of the American people,
AND WHEREAS, they have by so doing, violated our Book of discipline, the New Testament, which is our only rule of faith and practice, and recognized by the church, as sufficient, without any human legislation upon it whatever,
AND WHEREAS, the course pursued by a few, in publishing antislavery resolutions, and other articles of similar character, in the Church Advocate, which have embarrassed and brought us into serious and great difficulties, owing to the fact that the mass of the people do not understand our system of church cooperation,
AND WHEREAS, Their course has subjected us to an unnecessary persecution, and greatly militated against the work of reformation of the South,
AND WHEREAS, they have, by so doing, seceded from the early practice of the church, and do not, (as they once did) stand upon our creed, (the Bible), but have virtually joined issue with that portion of the Bible, which exhorts servants to be obedient to their masters, which course of theirs is contrary to the letter, spirit, and design of the Gospel. And in as much as we are taught in the Bible, "to be subject to the powers that be, and obey them which rule over us," which most emphatically implies obedience to the laws of our land…

What I find interesting in this example is the way both appealed to scripture but the nature of their appeal was very different. The northern group appealed to scriptural principles: "the Bible stands opposed to oppression, inhumanity and injustice." The southern church quoted scripture: "servants to be obedient to their masters."

Who was reading scripture correctly? The truth is that both sides were reading scripture through the lens of their cultural situations; slavery just was not as deeply ingrained in northern culture as it was in southern culture. (We always read scripture through the lens of our cultural settings; we can't help it; we can be aware of it if we want to be but we can't help it.) Southern Christians read their Bibles and viewed slavery through the lens of a culture steeped in and dependent upon the institution of slavery. They used their Bibles to justify this cultural understanding and didn't have any trouble finding scriptures to support their perspective.

And they were wrong. They were wrong about the way they read scripture even though the passages that supported their position were in the Bible. But they were more wrong about the issue of slavery because whatever a particular passage of the Bible said about it, it was wrong to enslave humans. And slavery was the real issue, not biblical interpretation.

And so, I believe, it is the same with the issue of homosexuality. Despite what we often hear, the real issue is not biblical interpretation. Conservatives would like to say that they are taking scripture more seriously than others. I disagree. We both read the same Bible. I know there are passages in scripture that condemn the practice of homosexuality (though biblical writers knew nothing of homosexual orientation). But what I read in my Bible is that the Bible stands against oppression, inhumanity and injustice. That is in there too, and I personally think those biblical themes are more important than any handful of passages that can be marshaled to support an anti-homosexual position.

The really important question, though, is why do we read our bibles differently? Its the sum total of the cultural history and personal makeup we bring to the issues that divide us that make us come out on different sides. It is this "package" that we bring to whatever hotbutton issues of the day divide us. Then it was slavery. Today it is the place of women in church and society or acceptance or not of same-sex relationships. We respond to these issues out of this package; we bring this package to the reading of the Bible. And not surprisingly given the presence of different voices in scripture, it isn't that difficult to find Biblical support for our various positions.

I guess this is my way of saying that I am one person who doesn't buy the argument that what really divides us is biblical interpretation or authority. What really divides us are our deeply felt and held beliefs about issues. Our biblical interpretations follow, support, and justify.