Blatherings of an Extroverted Bookworm

John Ruddick from North Sydney, Australia writes:
"Is it possible that Jesus was inferring that some people were born gay in Matthew 19:12? It reads, 'For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some because they are born that way, others, because men made them that way and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.'"

Dear John,
It is very difficult for anyone living in 2006 to say what Jesus meant in the early years of the first century of this Common Era.

First, to the best of my knowledge, Jesus left no written records and there were no tape recorders to record his words for future use. Our best estimates are that the earthly life of Jesus was lived between 4 B.C.E. and 30 C.E. He spoke Aramaic.

Matthew, who is the only gospel writer to record the text you cite, wrote between 80 and 90 C.E. or 50 to 60 years after the life of Jesus. He wrote in Greek not Aramaic. So, if Jesus actually spoke these words that Matthew attributes to him, someone had to remember them and pass them on by word of mouth for 50-60 years, translate them from Aramaic into Greek and finally to the English words that you quote. If that process can be navigated successfully and literally, we might begin to answer your question.

The next thing we need to raise is the issue to which Matthew is speaking when he had Jesus utter these words. The truth is that some people are born gay and others are born straight. Some have powerful libidos and some weak. Some are male and some female. Some are born with an xxy gene and others with only xx or xy. Some are castrated by religious zeal. Some are rendered impotent by sickness and others by surgery.

I find those who think that a particular text in the Bible addresses a specific issue today are operating out of a very superstitious view of the Bible. It is only when the weight of the Bible is employed in a particular human arena that I think it can be legitimately used. By this shall people know that you are my disciples, that you love one another. If you say that you love God and hate your neighbor, you are a liar. Love your neighbor as yourself. Welcome the stranger, care for the weak, embrace the outcast. Jesus is even made to state his purpose in the Fourth Gospel as "I have come that they might have life and have it more abundantly." These are some of the biblical texts that have cumulative power, that build a consensus and that counter the limited, mean-spirited prejudices that we human beings have used so often in the name of religion to violate the humanity of another child of God.

I know you probably wanted a yes or no answer. Unfortunately, the Bible does not lend itself to that kind of response.

-- John Shelby Spong

Carolyn from Sparks, Nevada, writes:
"What do you mean when you say that 'Atonement Theology' will kill the Church?"

Dear Carolyn,

It would be more accurate to characterize me as saying that the "substitutionary view of the atonement" will kill the Church, but it is fair to say that I am not enamored with any view of the atonement, and least of all with the substitutionary theory. All atonement theories are grounded ultimately in some view of human beings as fallen, the victims of "original sin" from which they are powerless to deliver themselves. The Jesus story is told in terms of a divine rescue and as typically proclaimed, it suggests that Jesus on the cross paid the price that God required to overcome the sin of the world into which human disobedience had plunged us. From this view comes the Christian mantra repeated endlessly through the ages: "Jesus died for my sins."

I find the God who is portrayed in these images to be violent, demonic, and even sadistic. Why would God require a human sacrifice and a blood offering before God would be willing to forgive? How does Jesus' death satisfy God's offended righteousness? How does Jesus' death overcome your sins and my sins and our alienation? I think that is a sick theology and I do not care how traditional it is.

Atonement theology also assumes, that since we are fallen people, there had to be a time when we were not fallen. That is the theme in the Garden of Eden story. That is not my understanding of the origin of human life. I am a post-Darwinian. I believe life emerged through a long, perhaps four billion year, evolutionary pattern. I see nothing that suggests that we are "fallen sinners," who need to be rescued. I see everything that convinces me that we are still incomplete human beings who need to be empowered to become more fully human. I see the call of Christ not in terms of rescuing the fallen sinner but as giving us the power to become something more than we have ever been before. Atonement is, therefore, not the word that I would use. Empowerment is.

A new way to look at the meaning of salvation, a way that will transcend the limits of atonement is, I believe, the necessary prerequisite to enable the Christian faith to live in tomorrow's world.

-- John Shelby Spong

George, via the Internet, asks:
"What do you consider the Bible to be? Is it uniquely inspired by God? Is it different from other literature? Is it authoritative? If it is not all authoritative, how do you determine the parts that are? If the Bible is not divinely inspired, where do moral truths come from? Are moral values eternal and universal for all cultures?"

( Spong's Response )