2. 52
Those who levy the religious argument against homosexu-
ality and gay marriage, claiming it's an "abomination" and "against God"
normally find their inspiration in the book of Leviticus. The Levitical
Code, the set of laws given to Moses, comprises much of the third book
of the Christian Bible, and was used as a set of instructions to govern the
Jewish community. It contained within it certain legal and social laws, co
ncerning everything from dietary restrictions—prohibiting shellfish and
pork—to male circumcision; the book even addressed homosexuality, or
"lying with mankind as with womankind."
While Orthodox Jewish communities and Jehovah's Witnesses are
amongst the few faiths that still keep stringent adherence to the Code,
most Christian denominations have ruled that the rules are not suited
for modern society, and therefore don't follow many of them. Handily,
rules governing stoning and the mixing of fabrics for clothes have been
set aside; dietary restrictions, banning pork and shellfish are all but ob-
solete; yet,the sole mention of homosexuality still causes a rift between
the church and gays, as the church reluctantly holds onto this tenet, even
when it has released all others.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, author of "Barbershops, Bibles, and BET,"
thinks the decision to cherrypick certain rules to obey is suspect. "Tome,
what [laws] we pull is always political," she says. "TheBible is internally
contradictive and filled with hundreds of rules that we deem ridiculous,
so we always have to think about what rules we emphasize." The empha-
sis on this particular law became highly political in 2008, when religious
groups used it as fodder to garner support for legislation to block gay
marriage in three states, overturning the right for gays to marry in the
state of California.
The picture painted is a stark contrast.
"We need to be careful trying to apply these passages around sexualeth-
ics as guidelines for the way we conduct our lives today," he warns."Hu-
man relationships have evolved since they were written about in Scripture.
. .same-gender relations aswe know them today are not found in Scripture."
Stringfellow calls a closer lookto marriage ofantiquity to further prove that
modern relationships are not the stuff of antiquated Scripture, which hasn't
evolved over the years or been updated since the Old Testament was writ-
ten—somewhere between the 12th and 2nd century BC."Marriage of antiq-
uity wasprimarily polygamist—one man with several wives," he pointsout.
"The role of the wife was seen as the property of man." This is a far cry from
the way we view the marriage institution today, which no longer renders a
woman as an indentured servant to her spouse. For good measure, the vow
"to obey" one's husband has been omitted from wedding ceremony,leaving
couples to love and honor one another.
In much the Same Way,Stringfellow advocates a sort of upgrade
to theology, where old time religion is given modern-day consideration. It
is necessary, he says, to ask oneself "What does that mean to you today?"
when hackneyed Bible verses are applied to LGBT believers of today. A
stringent, literal reading of text, without contextual understanding, not
only leads to misinterpretation, but also ignores the pivotal message of
Christ: love. "It is modern-day fundamentalism that keeps us locked into
not looking at the love of the law instead of the letter of the law,"he says,
and this has traditionally served as the breaking point for gays and the
church. When one condemns gays, he ignores Christ's message of love
Unlike the realm Of politics, where the United States
Constitution is the highest law in the land, the Holy Bible is a doc-
ument of antiquity,not subject to change or ratification, and some
argue that it can't be interpreted in the same way today as when
it was written. Reverend Roland Stringfellow, Coordinator of the
Coalition of Welcoming Congregations in the BayArea of Califor-
nia, argues that because many of the Bible's rules orginiated in a
society entirely different than that of today, we can't always take
the Bible literally."There needs to be aclearer reading ofthis text,"
he says, in which believers look for a deeper meaning: interpreting
the love of the law,rather than the letter of the law.
It wasn't until after he was an ordained pastor thatStringfellow
was able to understand that the condemnation of his sexuality
from the pulpits is the result of pastors devising meaning and
using partial text. Romans 1 is another of those popular chap-
ters quoted as evidence that homosexuality is against God's rule.
The 24th verse of the chapter reveals men yielding to "sexual
impurity" and "sinful desires of the heart" by "degrading of their
bodies with one another." Some argue that this is an explicit con-
demnation of homosexuality as an aberration. Stringfellow, how-
ever, argues that one must take the verse in the full context of the
chapter; it is only then that one discovers that this condemnation
is targeted to those who, as he says, "have no heart for God,"not ablanket
statement toward gays. "When I was in the pulpit and I had these feel-
ings, it occurred to me that [Romans 1]doesn't describe me," he says. "It
describes those who thumb their nose at God. This condemnation is not
about me or towardsme."
Rev. Stringfellowis one of a small number ofpastors who holds a certifi-
cate in Sexuality and Religion, a designation to his Masters Degree, which
he received from the Pacific School of Religion. Traditionally, wherethe-
ology may have taught pastors to condemn homosexuality, Stringfellow
argues that this program (one of the very few of its kind) not only teaches
a theological understanding of the Old Testament, it encourages religious
leaders to view the Old Testament in light of modern-day homosexuality.
AS GAY MARRIAGE AND
GAY LIFE IS ONCE AGAIN
UP FOR POLITICAL AND
SPIRITUAL RIDICULE, REV.
ROLAND STRINGFELLOW
AND A GROUP OF OTHER
RELIGIOUS LEADERS
ARE PUTTING THE BIBLE
VERSES AND PEOPLE TO
THE TEST.
and inclusion. "You get caught up and choked on the Word," he says. "If
God is separating you from humanity, then you're reading it wrong."
Three-quarters of states (or their representatives) must agree to rati-
fy and amend the Constitution, and if the voting record in the states of
California, Arizona, and Florida are any indication of how a gay marriage
equality amendment to the Bible would fare, we still have some ways to
go. Stringfellow is confident that this, too,will likely pass into that cache
of antiquated laws, as did the pork and shellfish ban.
"We have different revolutions in religion, such as how African Ameri-
cans were once viewed and the role of women." He is hopeful that a re-
reading of Biblical texts such that it doesn't condemn homosexuality in
the next revolution.
WINTER 2009
![52
Those who levy the religious argument against homosexu-
ality and gay marriage, claiming it's an "abomination" and "against God"
normally find their inspiration in the book of Leviticus. The Levitical
Code, the set of laws given to Moses, comprises much of the third book
of the Christian Bible, and was used as a set of instructions to govern the
Jewish community. It contained within it certain legal and social laws, co
ncerning everything from dietary restrictions—prohibiting shellfish and
pork—to male circumcision; the book even addressed homosexuality, or
"lying with mankind as with womankind."
While Orthodox Jewish communities and Jehovah's Witnesses are
amongst the few faiths that still keep stringent adherence to the Code,
most Christian denominations have ruled that the rules are not suited
for modern society, and therefore don't follow many of them. Handily,
rules governing stoning and the mixing of fabrics for clothes have been
set aside; dietary restrictions, banning pork and shellfish are all but ob-
solete; yet,the sole mention of homosexuality still causes a rift between
the church and gays, as the church reluctantly holds onto this tenet, even
when it has released all others.
Melissa Harris-Lacewell, author of "Barbershops, Bibles, and BET,"
thinks the decision to cherrypick certain rules to obey is suspect. "Tome,
what [laws] we pull is always political," she says. "TheBible is internally
contradictive and filled with hundreds of rules that we deem ridiculous,
so we always have to think about what rules we emphasize." The empha-
sis on this particular law became highly political in 2008, when religious
groups used it as fodder to garner support for legislation to block gay
marriage in three states, overturning the right for gays to marry in the
state of California.
The picture painted is a stark contrast.
"We need to be careful trying to apply these passages around sexualeth-
ics as guidelines for the way we conduct our lives today," he warns."Hu-
man relationships have evolved since they were written about in Scripture.
. .same-gender relations aswe know them today are not found in Scripture."
Stringfellow calls a closer lookto marriage ofantiquity to further prove that
modern relationships are not the stuff of antiquated Scripture, which hasn't
evolved over the years or been updated since the Old Testament was writ-
ten—somewhere between the 12th and 2nd century BC."Marriage of antiq-
uity wasprimarily polygamist—one man with several wives," he pointsout.
"The role of the wife was seen as the property of man." This is a far cry from
the way we view the marriage institution today, which no longer renders a
woman as an indentured servant to her spouse. For good measure, the vow
"to obey" one's husband has been omitted from wedding ceremony,leaving
couples to love and honor one another.
In much the Same Way,Stringfellow advocates a sort of upgrade
to theology, where old time religion is given modern-day consideration. It
is necessary, he says, to ask oneself "What does that mean to you today?"
when hackneyed Bible verses are applied to LGBT believers of today. A
stringent, literal reading of text, without contextual understanding, not
only leads to misinterpretation, but also ignores the pivotal message of
Christ: love. "It is modern-day fundamentalism that keeps us locked into
not looking at the love of the law instead of the letter of the law,"he says,
and this has traditionally served as the breaking point for gays and the
church. When one condemns gays, he ignores Christ's message of love
Unlike the realm Of politics, where the United States
Constitution is the highest law in the land, the Holy Bible is a doc-
ument of antiquity,not subject to change or ratification, and some
argue that it can't be interpreted in the same way today as when
it was written. Reverend Roland Stringfellow, Coordinator of the
Coalition of Welcoming Congregations in the BayArea of Califor-
nia, argues that because many of the Bible's rules orginiated in a
society entirely different than that of today, we can't always take
the Bible literally."There needs to be aclearer reading ofthis text,"
he says, in which believers look for a deeper meaning: interpreting
the love of the law,rather than the letter of the law.
It wasn't until after he was an ordained pastor thatStringfellow
was able to understand that the condemnation of his sexuality
from the pulpits is the result of pastors devising meaning and
using partial text. Romans 1 is another of those popular chap-
ters quoted as evidence that homosexuality is against God's rule.
The 24th verse of the chapter reveals men yielding to "sexual
impurity" and "sinful desires of the heart" by "degrading of their
bodies with one another." Some argue that this is an explicit con-
demnation of homosexuality as an aberration. Stringfellow, how-
ever, argues that one must take the verse in the full context of the
chapter; it is only then that one discovers that this condemnation
is targeted to those who, as he says, "have no heart for God,"not ablanket
statement toward gays. "When I was in the pulpit and I had these feel-
ings, it occurred to me that [Romans 1]doesn't describe me," he says. "It
describes those who thumb their nose at God. This condemnation is not
about me or towardsme."
Rev. Stringfellowis one of a small number ofpastors who holds a certifi-
cate in Sexuality and Religion, a designation to his Masters Degree, which
he received from the Pacific School of Religion. Traditionally, wherethe-
ology may have taught pastors to condemn homosexuality, Stringfellow
argues that this program (one of the very few of its kind) not only teaches
a theological understanding of the Old Testament, it encourages religious
leaders to view the Old Testament in light of modern-day homosexuality.
AS GAY MARRIAGE AND
GAY LIFE IS ONCE AGAIN
UP FOR POLITICAL AND
SPIRITUAL RIDICULE, REV.
ROLAND STRINGFELLOW
AND A GROUP OF OTHER
RELIGIOUS LEADERS
ARE PUTTING THE BIBLE
VERSES AND PEOPLE TO
THE TEST.
and inclusion. "You get caught up and choked on the Word," he says. "If
God is separating you from humanity, then you're reading it wrong."
Three-quarters of states (or their representatives) must agree to rati-
fy and amend the Constitution, and if the voting record in the states of
California, Arizona, and Florida are any indication of how a gay marriage
equality amendment to the Bible would fare, we still have some ways to
go. Stringfellow is confident that this, too,will likely pass into that cache
of antiquated laws, as did the pork and shellfish ban.
"We have different revolutions in religion, such as how African Ameri-
cans were once viewed and the role of women." He is hopeful that a re-
reading of Biblical texts such that it doesn't condemn homosexuality in
the next revolution.
WINTER 2009]()