Fuzzy Logic

Anyone who has been reading my blog this year may remember my blog several months back (Nov 2) in which i was horrified and dismayed at my professors for asserting the approximate 100% validity of certain Biblical authorship theories. Why did this bother me? Any time someone claims a theory as fact, you end up with close-mindedness and no room for further scholarship or discussion. It is no more enlightened to be sure exactly 6 people wrote Isaiah than claiming Moses wrote the whole Pentateuch, including his death. What's my point? Someone else is up to the same fuzzy logic, if not worse.

This part has to be prefaced. i do NOT completely disagree with the author of the article i am about to critique. i firmly believe Christ loves everyone and calls us to do the same. My discomfort is with this author using the same practices that white supremacists and slaveholders used for centuries to interpret a biblical passage. It's important that you read this article at some point, but for time's sake, i'll summarize some. The author makes several very uncomfortable conclusions. It's not even the conclusions that bother me, it is how he arrives at them. i'd find the article intriguing and worth thinking on if his conclusions were less along the lines of
"this = that," and more like "this leads one to the likely conclusion that..." The author discusses the Greek terms that are used in the passages that describe the Roman Centurion who comes to Jesus, asking that his slave be healed. The terms, indeed, may bear out that this was the Centurion's homosexual partner. However, not only is it not inescapable conclusion, but you can't draw the next conclusion on top of it, especially if it is not 100%. The next conclusion the author draws is that BECAUSE this is true, Jesus is affirming this type of relationship. However, this is the same argument the Pharisees used against Jesus. Jesus visited the home of Zacheus. Was this because Jesus approved of his lifestyle? No. He visited in hopes of reaching out to Zacheus and that his help and his time and love might change Zacheus. Jesus protected the woman caught in adultery. He did so not because he approved, but that she too deserved love more than judgment, and he told her to go and sin no more. i am not suggesting Jesus was trying to change the Centurion, but even if this was the Centurions homosexual partner (not entirely proved by the word usages), Jesus' healing and help was not conditional any more than his love.
The biggest leap the author makes is that this whole passages clearly illustrates that Jesus was affirming homosexual relationships. The Centurion had a homosexual relationship and healed his partner. Alright. Well, the Centurion had countless slaves. Was Jesus affirming slavery? His male slave he wished healed was likely purchased according to the author of this article. Was Jesus affirming the purchase of marital partners? The Centurion was part of an empire that suppressed the Jews. Was Jesus affirming the position of the Romans over the Jews? or Antisemitism? Making these radically large assumptions about Jesus is no less than what the Pharisees did, and slave holders and supremacists for centuries. When you leave no room for anyone else's interpretation, and when your narrow one, especially, a particularly speculative one is the only one that can be correct, you have become the narrow-minded person you oppose. Is it worth it?

I just ask that you read the Bible closely and draw your own conclusions. Don't let anyone decide for you. Most importantly, no matter what lifestyle Jesus does or doesn't condone in this passage, he did condone loving and healing all those we can. If we spent more time doing just that, these arguments would be far less important.