THE NEW YORK TIMES CITES THE BIBLE

It is a commonplace observation that Biblical literacy among the American populace is…well…somewhat woeful these days.  There was a time when one could count on a thorough knowledge of the Christian scriptures and allusions to the Bible in the literature of the time and public addresses made by politicians and others.  Biblical literacy was so widespread that even atheists knew there Bible.

Perhaps the most well-known example of such discourse is Lincoln’s address at his second inaugural.   Lincoln used his Second Inaugural Address to touch on the question of Divine providence. Lincoln wondered what God's will might have been in allowing the war to come, and why it had resulted in the appalling magnitudes it had taken. He attempted to speak to some of these quandaries, using allusions taken from the Bible.

Although it is the second shortest inaugural address in American history, Lincoln’s speech is probably the most striking in language and substance. Despite its succinctness, it addresses the nation’s relationship to God at pronounced seriousness.  Within 701 words Lincoln referenced God fourteen times, quotes the Bible four times and invokes prayer three times.”  Later, Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase gave the Bible to Mrs. Lincoln, marking the pages from Isaiah 5:27-28 which the President kissed.   In part:

“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war, while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the seat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.

‘Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!’ If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether.”

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan – to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Whatever you believe about Lincoln (a skeptic to the very end or an incipient believer) or his theology (some are positively allergic to any suggestion of a loving God having and dispensing His wrath), one has to note the sophistication in his reflections.    This was a very public meditation made during an auspicious national event.  What is more, the public understood his message and recognized its Biblical roots.

Fast forward to today.  

In the June 15^th issue of the New York Times, reporters Jeremy W. Peters and Lizette Alvarez write an assessment of the then current split among legislators over the civil rights of the LBGT population of the United States entitled “After Orlando, a Political Divide on Gay Rights Still Stands”.     They pen in part:

For a fleeting moment this week, it seemed as if the massacre in Orlando, Fla., was having the unlikely and unintended impact of helping to bridge the chasm between Republicans and many in the gay community.

Mitt Romney offered “a special prayer for the L.G.B.T. community” after he learned of the attack. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida granted an interview to The Advocate, the gay news magazine, and expressed outrage at the Islamic State’s persecution of gays. And Donald J. Trump repeatedly expressed solidarity with gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people, declaring, “I will fight for you” — an unprecedented show of support from a presumptive Republican presidential nominee.

But the deep divide over gay rights remains one of the most contentious in American politics. And the murder of 49 people in an Orlando gay club has, in many cases, only exacerbated the anger from Democrats and supporters of gay causes, who are insisting that no amount of warm words or reassuring Twitter posts change the fact that Republicans continue to pursue policies that would limit legal protections for gays and lesbians.

In the weeks leading up to the killings, they pointed out, issues involving gays were boiling over in Congress and in Republican-controlled states around the country. More than 150 pieces of legislation were pending in state legislatures that would restrict rights or legal protections for sexual minorities. A Republican congressman read his colleagues a Bible verse from Romans that calls for the execution of gays.  (Emphasis mine) Congress was considering a bill that would allow individuals and businesses to refuse service to gay and lesbian couples.

We won’t get into the main thrust of the article.  I certainly don’t want to get into the vagaries of Republican politics.  Instead, I want to focus on the reference to St. Paul’s letter to the Romans.

The article does not provide any context relating how the congressman used Romans in his banter.  One supposes that such use of an archaic ancient text justifying the constraint of LBGT legal protections is damning in and of itself.   The problem is that, after two thousand years of reading and commentary on Romans, it is startling to be told there is a new textual discovery which discloses that Paul commands capital punishment for homosexuals.  

A fair guess is that Peters and Alvarez had Romans 1: 26-27 in mind:

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions.  For their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. (ESV)

Even if one accepts the assumption in your reading that “dishonorable passions” refers to all gay sex, these two verses fall way short of calling for killing gays.   Far more likely “due penalty” would refer to God’s judgement.

To get to the assertion that Romans calls for the execution of gays, one would have to abridge verses 26 through 32 to something like “their women exchanged natural relations for those contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another….those who practice such things deserve to die”.   But such a condensation totally obliterates the point Paul makes and anyone actually familiar with Romans knows this. 

To get Paul’s argument, one has to read verses 28-32 in their entirety: 

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.   They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice.  They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness.  They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.   Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (ESV)

Without getting into too much detail, what we have here is Paul’s notorious trap.   Verses 26-27 plays to the Roman smug belief that the Greek empire fell because the populace practiced “unnatural relations”.    In other words, Greece fell because it deserved to.   The Romans did not do such things and it is only fitting that God also didn’t approve.  Thus, Greece’s collapse came about through God’s judgement.  And the Romans took pride in the “fact” God took their far more superior side.

But then Paul list other evils debased minds practiced.   These evils are common in all nations and their peoples.   Not just in a people at large; but in each and every individual.  We all fall under God’s judgement.  WE ALL DESERVE TO DIE.

Paul’s actual message is lightyears away from what Peters and Alvarez believe it to be. 

Perhaps it is not realistic to expect contemporary journalists to be conversant in the Christian Scriptures much less the historic theology of the Church.  Nevertheless, it is incumbent on all journalists to investigate and strive to get it right—even if it is only a minor detail in a much longer piece.  As it stands, Peters and Alvarez support, if only unintentionally, the prejudice that “orthodox” Christians take their backward positions from the worst, most odious parts of their religion.