The Ugandan newspaper, The Daily Monitor, has published an inspiring yet sad profile on Val Kalende, an openly lesbian Ugandan citizen who might face the death penalty if a new Bill imposing that penalty for “repeat offenders” of homosexuality becomes law in Uganda. The Bill is being justified on the basis that homosexuality is “un-African” and not in keeping with Ugandese traditions.
This is an oft repeated argument used by many people in South Africa and the rest of the continent to justify practices and beliefs that infringe on the human rights of fellow Africans. Supporters of gender discrimination and some among us who object to gay marriage, for example, often argue that our African culture is based on heterosexual patriarchy. They claim that respect for diversity and the culture of indigenous Africans justify discrimination against women and homosexuals.
Such arguments are simplistic and wrong.
First, culture and tradition are not static. Some people talk about culture and tradition as if these are fixed concepts which speak to some essential aspect of our human nature. If one challenges some aspects of a cultural practice or tradition, such individuals argue that one is attacking the very essence of their humanity. But culture is a product of human development and is ever changing.
It was part of Western culture, for example, to buy and sell fellow human beings as slaves and to make those slaves work for them. Many Westerners wish to forget about this evil aspect of our collective past (and do not see themselves as having the same kind of traditional culture as those who differ from them at all), but the fact remains that slavery was, for a very long time, defended on the basis that to abolish it would be to strike at the very heart of a specific way of life.
Luckily Western culture has evolved and slavery was abolished in the nineteenth century because it was evil, racist and dehumanizing. People who justify the oppression and vilification of others on the basis of their culture, are not making any argument at all about the correctness of that practice. They are merely pretending that culture is static in order not to have to change the deeply held but obnoxious commitments invented by their forefathers (the mothers being busy with better things).
Second, as far as homosexuality is concerned, the irony is of course that the specific form of homophobia and hatred of homosexuality one finds in Uganda, Zimbabwe and (sadly) also in South Africa is a product of Western religion and colonialism. Although there has always been same-sex sexual activity in all parts of the world – including Africa – it was an unholy alliance of Christianity and colonialism that imported the concept of “the homosexual” (and with it homophobia) into Africa.
When Robert Mugabe or Ugandese lawmakers thus claim that homosexuality is un-African, they have a point. In pre-colonial Africa, people were not branded as homosexuals merely because they happen to have sex with members of the same sex. But because there were no homosexuals in pre-colonial Africa (only people who had sex with members of their own sex) it also means that homophobia is un-African in as much as it was imported by colonialism. Mugabe’s homophobia is therefore the product of Western colonialism. No wonder the man is so confused. (In any case, I have always wondered about Mugabe’s homophobia, given the fact that he is so camp that he could attend the Mother City Queer Project fancy dress party as himself.)
What is needed is a discussion on the basic principles according to which we want to develop our culture and traditions (which have been perverted by colonialism). Do we want to do so by mirroring the worst of Western society, thus confirming our own subjugation to the West, or do we want to free our minds and find another way to deal with issues of oppression and marginalisation.
I would suggest that given the African experience with colonialism and oppression, one of our founding values according to which we need to develop and amend our African cultural traditions is that of anti-subordination. We should therefore amend and develop our cultural practices to ensure that they do not subordinate and oppress others merely because they are not like us.
Of course, given the influence of a particularly virulent form of homophobia in the (Western-imposed) Christian religion so dominant in large parts of Africa, it will not be easy for us to throw off the constricting and oppressive yoke of Western imperialism by rejecting homophobia and sexism. Mugabe is a case in point. While he rails against the West, he deploys particular Western notions of homosexuality to subordinate a vulnerable and marginalized group in society.
Like many other of my fellow African brothers and sisters, Mugabe should read some Steve Biko. This might teach them that in order to be free, we need to be critical of the ways in which Western ideas have enslaved us and have made us less humane and less respectful of others.
Val Kalende and other brave gay men and lesbians in Uganda who are speaking out against the colonial legacy of homophobia is showing us the way. Pity too many leaders and ordinary citizens still act like slaves of colonialism. What is needed is a transformation, also of our culture, to free it from the oppressive influences of old-style colonialism.
Indeed, if homosexuality is un-African, so are Armani suits (Italian), BMWs (German), pasta (also Italian), soccer (from Roman times), movies, flying … etc ad infinitum.
It’s a rediculous argument, this un-African one. So parochial and banal. Reminds me of the Nazis, where you had to be PURE German. Hitler used to say that something or someone was un-German.
Of course we’ll see how the rest of Africa turns a blind eye.
Pierre is right.
We should not be surprised that homophobia is a colonial imposition. Everything that is bad is a colonial imposition.
In fact. according to my sources, the very first MCQP was held as far back as 1647, in what is now upper Kloof Street. (Near Melissa’s). Khoi and San initiates, applauded by a festive crowd that included Nguni Queens. resplendent in outrageous costumes, from as far away as Zululand, danced until well after midnight.
Naturally, the stodgy Calvinists that arrived five years later closed the whole Project down.
The irony will unfortunately be lost on those who need to reform their bigotted views. The more things change the more they stay the same in Africa…
Pierre, this fixation upon ‘African culture’ and perceived ‘cultural imperialism’ is really beginning to grate. It was evident in your post on the Ukweshama ritual and is even more apparent here.
Firstly, ideas should not be rejected because of where they come from, but rather because of their (lack of) merit. To suggest, as you do by launching into the above diatribe, that homophobia is wrong because it has Western origins is deeply misguided. I realise that in truth your gripe with homophobia is that it is hateful and oppressive, but by couching your argument primarily in terms of Africans casting off their Western influences you do your argument a serious disservice.
Secondly, your post makes it clear how self-serving these ideas of cultural ‘purity’ really are. Here you use them to argue that African culture (as it now exists) must change, because you have a vested (which is not to say unjustified) interest in eliminating homophobia. But in your earlier post on the Ukweshama ritual you used these same notions to argue that it was illegitimate for the ARA to encourage the changing of African culture (i.e. the exact opposite conclusion to the one you reach here), presumably because you are not as invested in the animal rights movement as you are in the gay rights movement.
Focussing, as you do, on the origins of ideas rather than their substance would mean that human rights, AIDS drugs, and constitutionalism would all be undesirable for Africa. I am sure you would not be so quick to invoke the ‘cultural imperialism’ argument in these cases, which indicates how intellectually dishonest and inconsitent your invokation is in this post.
Thirdly, while you pay lip-service to the idea that ‘cultures are not static’ you then immediately argue at length for a return to ‘pure’, ‘traditional’, ‘essential’ African culture. Indeed, the very use of the blanket term ‘African culture’ to apply uniformly from South Africa to Uganda totally misunderstands and undermines the richness of the peoples for whom you purport to be an advocate.
None of this is to deny the fact that colonialism has had deeply harmful effects on Africa (and many other places). In fact, if we wish to take seriously the effects of colonialism then we must assess these on their merits rather than retreating into a childish African essentialism which thumbs its nose at any practice which can be labelled ‘Western’.
I also mean to stress that I am well aware that the underlying point of your post is to argue that homophobia is wrong and must be eliminated. I completely agree. But I disagree with the way your initially robust argument quickly lapse into an irresponsible and unhelpful Africanist rant.
Pierre, I think this is a good post and raises a number of fair issues but I think it is unfair to list Christianity as a main offender in the opression of gay rights. I sincerely doubt the Ugandese politicians fighting for this bill will reference the bible as a supporting argument. In the same way, almost all of the truly homophobic persons I’ve met have their fears deeply rooted in their own insecurities and not because the bible says that homosexuality is wrong.
I believe many gay men and woman in our country is accusatory towards Christianity because of the misgivings of the conservative families they grew up in and for this I sincerely sympathize with them. Christians believe in creationism and from this fundamental principle it is our belief that man and woman were created for each other as companions and sexual partners. Therefore one cannot expect Christians to believe that homosexuality is normal. However, one can blame misguided christians (as there are misguided individuals in any institution) for condemning gay’s and shunning them from churches etc.
But to re-iterate my point, I strongly disagree that Christianity is to blame for the general feeling towards gays and lesbians in Africa.
If only Africa would have the same attitude towards the Soviet imported AK-47…
Dirk,
Christianity might not be solely to blame, but I would blame them for much of the homophobia experienced by homosexual people.
“Although there has always been same-sex sexual activity in all parts of the world – including Africa – it was an unholy alliance of Christianity and colonialism that imported the concept of “the homosexual” (and with it homophobia) into Africa.”
Prof, are you suggesting that, as a matter of FACT, homosexuals existed in Africa before Christianity? If so, I would very much like to have access to such history. I would then wonder why is it that you hardly (if at all) find homosexuals in the deep rural KZN or EC (only mentioning places where I grew up).
Just like you Prof, I object to those people who are against homosexuals, whatever justifications they may have.
@ Mzo
I would also like to have that access to such history bro. Please Prof assist us in this regard.
It may be true that a number of Christians behave in an unkind and unloving manner towards homosexual people. This is a shame (in the true sense of the word). However, while one may disagree with the belief system that underpins the Christian position (yes, i know that there is more than one position, but the “mainstream” view is that homosexuality is a sin), one should not criticize Christians merely for remaining true to their beliefs.
This is what Christians ought to do. Yes, we must do this in a loving manner, and we often do not. But the corrective action for that failing is not to abandon our beliefs, but rather to change our heart attitude on a personal level. this is something that we can always learn and grow into.
If there is a God, and if He has revealed Himself to us through the Bible,a nd through the life of Jesus Christ, then homosexuality is a sin, and should be opposed, as a practise, for the good of society as a whole. There is much that could be said about why this issue is important (maybe a little more of this later), but it has to be said that there are other areas of sin that are also offensive to God (pride, love of money, lust, greed, etc) and not one of us is exempt from this. It is also true that the remedy for all types of sin is the same, and not one of us is in any way superior or inferior to another.
It has been recognised by the Constitutional Court that the expression of views opposing the practise of homosexuality is protected. it is also reasonable that churches should not tolerate homosexual practice in their ranks (just as they should not tolerate adultery or fornication). If such behaviour is left unchallenged, then a church is not being true to itself.
And it is not reasonable to say that Christians should not speak into broader society and argue for moraity and truth as they see it. If you disagree with this, then perhaps you should contemplate the life of William Wilberforce and his role (along with like-minded Christians) in campaigning for the abolition of the slave trade.
Pierre
Hmmm i see your tactic . By dragging Mugabe into this debate you are trying to get sympathy in a cheap way
@ Sipho
“Focussing, as you do, on the origins of ideas rather than their substance would mean that human rights, AIDS drugs, and constitutionalism”
With respect, Sipho, this is nonsense. Human rights and constitutionalism in their highest form were part and parcel of UBUNTU, a value that lay at the heart of all African government.
Regarding AIDS drugs, perhaps you are not aware that indigenous healers used certain African herbs and vegetables to treat a wide variety of immunological pathologies. I will refer you to a website if you are interested in researching this further …
@ Mike Atkins
“If there is a God, and if He has revealed Himself to us through the Bible,a nd through the life of Jesus Christ, then homosexuality is a sin”
I am aware that the Hebrew Bible say a number of things very unfavourable to homosexual practices. But believers who cite scripture as a basis for treating homosexuality of a sin need to explain why they take routinely flout other prohibitions that are stated with no less vehemence as the will of the Divine One.
How does a Bible-believing Christian (or Jew of Muslim), get away with saying that sodomy is an abomination in the eyes of The Lord, when they themselves are quite happy to eat pig, work overtime on Sundays, sit on the same sofa as a menstruating women and, worst of all, wear garments that are woven from mixed fabrics?
Do South Africans need a visa to visit Uganda or would our passports suffice? I’d like to visit the country one day as it seems interesting, especially the legal front…
@Mikhail Fassbinder:
Ubuntu might be said to suffuse South Africa’s own constitutional order, and may inform certain of the human rights enshrined therein. But you cannot seriously suggest that the concepts of rights and constitutionalism were originally developed in Africa.
I am well aware of that. Surely you could work out that in context I meant by ‘AIDS drugs’ various anti-retrovirals like Nevirapine which have been developed by Western medicine but are now bringing benefits to Africans. It seems like you are deliberately trying to misinterpret what I was saying.
Sipho, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think you rather misunderstood my argument.
First, I think it is not possible to divorce arguments about the merit of an idea from where that idea originated, as the latter is often used in argument to justify the former. If one wants to engage with ideas one also has to engage with the justification for those ideas (which is often based on where they come from). My post was an attempt to address the widespread but mistaken argument that same-sex sexuality is wrong because it is Western. Questioning this notion is thus a valid strategy in engaging homophobia in Africa particularly (in the same way that pointing out same-sex activity in ancient Greece undermines claims in the Western tradition that same-sex sexuality has always been condemned. If the premise of an idea is shown to be false it helps to undermine the idea itself.
Second, you misunderstood my argument about Ukweshama. I did not contend that the practice must be respected because it was part of an unchanging an essensialist “African culture. My point was that those who attack the practice often has a double standard because other (Western) cultural practices regarding the mis-treatment of animals are not attacked.
Third, I do not say in my piece that we should return to a “pure” “essential” African culture (which does not exist). That is why I argue that we should look at an anti-subordination principle to develop and CHANGE notions of a fixed African culture to develop it in line with a human rights based culture of respect for the dignity of all.
I also do not claim that there was no African society in the pre-colonial era in which same-sex activity was censured. Just that the situation is far more complex and that the arguments of homophobes about the “un-africanness of same-sex sexual activity cannot be sustained. This is part of a larger argument about culture and how it is used to justify present practices which harm others (both in Africa and elsewhere. It seems to me this is a legitimate line of reasoning because it is such a strong rhetorical influence on the present day homophobia.
There is a wealth of research on various pre-colonial same-sex practices in Africa. The book Boy-Wives and Female-Husbands: Studies in African Homosexualities (Hardcover)
~ Prof. Will Roscoe (Editor), Stephen O. Murray (Editor) mentions at least fifty different places where such practices existed – although it was not called homosexuality. See the following links for more:
http://www.kubatana.net/html/archive/sexual/060323galz.asp?sector=SEXUAL
http://www.kubatana.net/html/archive/sexual/060323galz.asp?sector=SEXUAL
http://www.bidstrup.com/phobiahistory.htm
http://www.feministafrica.org/uploads/File/Issue%2011/11_5_Feature%20article%202.pdf
I get the impression that in this debate, as in many others of like nature, the pendulum has swung wildly. Pierre responds to the conventional wisdom – that traditional “African” societies were homophobic – by positing an idealised opposite; that in fact, what are now called homosexual practices were widely tolerated prior to colonial contamination.
The whole discourse on “Africa” (and even the very category of the “African” itself), can be seen as imperialist, the latest turn being the phenomenon of western gay scholars eagerly scouring “Africa” for evidence that homosexual practices (as opposed to the term itself), are universal.
James Sweet writes:
“It is no small irony that the very Westerners who first attacked African ‘sodomites’ in the sixteenth-century Portuguese Atlantic, and then introduced the idea of degenerate ‘homosexuality’ to Africa in the early twentieth century, have now tasked themselves with restoring the historical importance of African same-sex practices. There is a striking imperialism in all of these Western endeavours, despite the enlightened, progressive veneer that always seems to justify them. The west’s obsession with individual sexual habits has moved from religious concerns (sodomy), to scientific concerns (homosexuality), to political concerns (gay/queer), all the while obscuring the social imperatives that have informed gender identities in Africa across history. This systematic erasure of African interpretations of bodily self-presentation privileges a politics of power embedded in western epistemologies.”
(Mutual Misunderstandings: Gesture, Gender and Healing in the African Portuguese World, Past & Present 2009 203(Supplement 4):128-143; doi:10.1093/pastj/gtp006)
One of my principal gripes with religious teaching is that it seems people are sometimes required to accept dictates and values because a written text advocates (or could be construed to advocate) that they should. With great respect, this sort of thing is, in my view (which could very well be wrong), unsatisfactory. Thus I think it does not wash to deem homosexuality objectionable just because certain passages in the Bible – or indeed any text – give themselves to that construction.
I think that if the teaching is truly valid, if it is bullet-proof so to speak, then it should be able to withstand being tested. That is, in the context of say Christianity, should we spend all of our time asking what the Bible says? Or, should we with great respect and humility distribute some time to considering whether what the Bible says is right? I think that it could be the case that we would do well to consider both enquiries. The latter enquiry could reveal that the teaching is wrong. Or it could reveal that the teaching is right but that we based our belief in the teaching on feeble, flimsy or misguided grounds. The bottom line here is that testing the teaching, as it were, could conceivably yield attractive results.
Hi Pierre. Thanks for your lengthy reply. I don’t think it is so much that I misunderstood your argument but that I expressed my own points badly.
I quite agree that if someone is advancing an argument that X is justified by historical fact Y then it is a legitimate strategy to show that historical fact Y is incorrect. Clearly we both reject the argument that same-sex activity is wrong because it is Western. The point I was making was essentially that the lengths you go to to reject this argument–that is, talking in great detail about the ‘throwing off of the yoke’ of colonialism and undoing the ‘perversions of colonialism’, rather than simply pointing out that homophobia is wrong (whoever first brought it to Africa)–threatens to undermine your argument by distracting from the merits of the issues and drawing on simple contempt for all things Western. And I don’t think your doing this constitutes an attempt to show the premise of the ‘homosexuality is un-African’ argument to be false. You had already shown with reference to certain historical facts that homosexuality existed in pre-colonial Africa. Your later passage about rejecting Western ideas therefore makes it seem like you are rejecting these ideas simply BECAUSE they are Western. And, as I said in my earlier post, I do not say that this is your actual position (I believe you reject homophobia because it is morally wrong rather than because it is Western). My point is that the way you express it, couched in Africanist rhetoric, distracts from your essential point.
Again, I didn’t misunderstand your argument about Ukweshama. I know that your argument was based on your imputing to the ARA a hubristic and hypocritical attitude towards African culture. I wrote at length under that article why I think this imputation was, at best, unsubstantiated, and I won’t rehash my points here. But in my view what your two articles show is that drawing cultural lines in the sand and assessing ideas based on where they come from almost invariably leads to people making mischievous arguments in order to support their own pre-determined conclusions. In the case of your previous article, for example, it led you to label the ARA as hypocritical based on almost no evidence except the fact that the ARA was a ‘Western’ organisation criticising an ‘African’ cultural practice.
Finally, I do realise that you didn’t say we should return to a ‘pure’ or ‘essential’ African culture. I didn’t express myself clearly on this and the way I worded it is indeed very unfair on you. My real point is that, again, your choosing to couch the argument in terms of rejecting the Western ideas which came with colonialism (ostensibly BECAUSE they are Western) makes it seem like you are advocating a return to African culture as it was before colonialism. Again, I agree completely with your true position (which you express when you say ‘What is needed is a discussion on the basic principles according to which we want to develop our culture and traditions’); my worry is that you undermine that position when you rail at length against colonial ideas.
One might say that I am hypersensitive about such rhetoric. The reason is that I think the contemptuous rift between persons who subscribe to ‘Western’ ideas and those who subscribe to ‘African’ ideas is an incredibly serious threat to our country. Unfortunately my sense is that that rift is, if anything, widening. I am therefore very wary when any person uses arguments and rhetoric which threaten to lead us further from the non-racial democracy which our Constitution envisages.
Sipho, I tend to agree with you that our country is home to a troubling divide: the rift, as you call it, between people who subscribe to ‘Western’ notions on the one hand, and people who are committed to ‘African’ ideas on the other.
I truly do not mean to over-simplify this business, but it seems to me that we can identify a two-faceted solution that could potentially produce good results: first, South Africans ought to truly listen to each other. Secondly, we need to be prepared to scrutinise our beliefs.
Neither of the two abovementioned exercises is easy. But performing those exercises is, in my view, a necessary condition for the progress of our cultures and of our society.
Sipho, I think your points are very well taken.
I suspect that Pierre was being quite strategic in the way he framed his arguments. He rightly challenges the simplistic essentialism that would have it that “traditional” African society is uniformly homophobic. But then he moves towards (although does not, to his credit, entirely embrace), a reverse essentialism that idealises “traditional” society.
This is a good rhetorical move to counter the bigotry of the Mugabe and Nujomas. But, as you wisely point out, it also a dangerous move, because it panders to foolish “Africanism,” that lays the blame for every ill of Africa on evil colonialists.
Michael Osborne says:
December 15, 2009 at 14:32 pm
Firstly, the Bible soeaks quite clearly about homosexuality in the New Testament. And then, one has to look at the Old Testament contexts for the various prohibitions. An “abomination” (not my word, folks) is hardly comparable to the regulations around sanitation and diet in the Old Testament.
The pork issue is easily solved for Christians when one looks at the book of Acts where Peter has a vision of all kinds of all kinds of animals being shown as acceptable (this has to do with the wider acceptance of “gentiles” into the Christian “family”. One does have to do a little study to see what regulations were strictly for the Jewish people prior to the time of Christ, and which are immutable principles of right and wrong, but it is not too difficult.
The Sunday issue is interesting, and there are some areas of the Bible that imply that many of us Christians are indeed being disobedient by not honouring nthe Sabbath (aside from the multitude of very petty little rules that develped). However, there are other texts that suggest a freedom in this. I have not fully made up my mind on this (but I do not do (income-earning) work on a Sunday).
So I don’t believe that one can write off the Christian position in this way (even if we do live with some inherent tensions in our beliefs).
Leigh says:
December 15, 2009 at 19:22 pm
Despite wha many would think, I believe that healthy scepticism is, well, healthy. But the emphasis is on “healthy”, where this is honest and genuine. Many indulge in a mocking approach, merely to tear down a set of ideas. While the true inquirer should be wary of “psychologising” one’s ideological foes, one can perhaps observe that some who attack the Bible may be trying to escape its’ moral imperatives.
The Bible is NOT to be taken on blind faith. Firstly, the Bible makes no sense unless there really is a God (in an objective, rather than merely subjective, sense). The Bible also makes certain claims about itself; namely that it is a reliale record of God’s communication with man. Trust in the Bible must also rest in our view of the historical Jesus. He made claims (rather startling, to put it mildly) that he was God. He also accepted the validity of the (then) Scriptures, our Old Ttestament. In the book of Revelation, He also appears in a vision to the writer and (among other things) places a closing seal on the New Testament scriptures. Now if Jesus is not who he says he is, then it is all nonsense. But if the claims made by the Bible about itself, and the claims made by Jesus about himself have any validity, then one has to take the Bible as being authoritative, not merely for its adherents, but rather for the whole of life.
There is also the (difficult) question of how a “perfect” God could communicate reliably through imperfect people, but that is perhaps left for another time.
So while we have the injuction to be loving, it is also true that the inherent truth (or otherwise) of the Bible is highly confrontational, in a philosophical but also in a personal sense. It will offend, but the intent is not unkind.
Mike, thanks for your thoughtful response.
You make out that healthy scepticism is healthy. And you define healthy criticism as criticism which is honest, genuine and, as I would read the core thrust of your message here, sincere. I agree with your definition of healthy reproach and also with the view that criticism typically only stands a chance at being productive for the person that communicates it if the scepticism can lay claim to a healthy motivation. I remember a very rewarding talk that I had with a married couple a while ago. They are both practicing Christians and the husband was very clear about one his views: it is somewhat reckless to hang your future on teachings that you have not earnestly investigated. I tend to agree.
It is comforting that you also assert that the Bible is not to be taken on blind faith. It is also comforting that your most recent post evinces that you have been prepared to investigate the Bible in that you are prepared to concede that the Bible’s content is perhaps somewhat vulnerable to philosophical confrontation.
On a separate note, I think that one way to test the validity of the teaching reflected in the Bible is to practice it. And to do so, it seems to me that one of the earliest ports of call is to determine what one wishes to achieve by practicing the teaching. Let us suppose that person A wishes to achieve humility, peace and a greater sense of personal confidence. He approaches person B who is a priest. Person B seems humble, peaceful and confident and asserts that he attained these qualities by practicing what the text teaches. Person A can practice what B practiced in order to determine for himself, on the strength of his personal conception and experience, whether the teaching in the Bible is valid. I would just add that it is very important, I think, to note that even if A rejects the teaching based on his own experience, the teaching may or may not be valid. Person A may have misunderstood the teaching. Or, he may have understood it well enough but practised wrongly. But wanting to understand for one’s self is a useful means to combat the temptation of following blindly.
@ Mike
1. Yes, St Paul speaks is very disapproving of homosexuality. But he also says things like: a woman must not speak in church. This injunction is blatantly ignored by many modern Christians. Why? Because you pick and choose the Scriptures you follow. Some laws are elevated; others are thrown in the dustbin.
2. Modern Christians (and liberal Jews), interpret the Hebrew Bible like hurried Christmas shoppers treat the mall: you pick and choose, from amongst an array of injunctions. I can offer hundreds of examples. A disobedient son must be stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 18:21-22.) Sex with a menstruating woman is punished by “extirpation.” (Lev 18:19). These and countless other injunctions are brazenly ignored.
3. Please do not answer that the injunctions you discard are the less serious ones. I would point out that many are repeated over and over again. Also many of them have very severe consequences attached – including death. This hardly suggests that they are God’s afterthoughts, which you can now breezily ignore.
4. Finally, I beg you not to invoke “context.” This is truly the refuge of a scoundrel who wants to argue himself out from under a law that he finds inconvenient, impractical, too harsh, or just plain silly. Ingenious gay Christians can and do come up with arguments why the clear prohibitions that affect them must be read in “context” – just as easily as you can cleverly explain, “contextually,” that sex with a menstruating women is just fine these days.
Michael Osborne,
The points that you raiise are worthy of consideration, and I don’t have easy answers to all of them.
The ladies speaking in Church is a difficult one for me to answer. I do not accept the “solution” that Paul was wrong on that. On the other hand, the prohinition does not “feel” right (am I allowing for truth to change according to context?). I do not believe that there is an ultimate conflict, but I certainly need to do more research to give a consistent response.
But if we Christians have incosistencies, then the resolution is not to drop everything and just drift along pretending that the Bible has no imperatives (that is hardly an intellectually or morally honest approach). The question is whether the difficulties affect the core truth about who Jesus is and whether the Bible is reliable and authoritative.
One can’t read the Deuteronomy scriptures without knowing something of the covenant between God and His people at the time. The menstruation issue was a health regulation relevant to the time (those OT rules were way ahead of any other nation in their hyienic validity), but the stoning had the context of what God had revealed of himself through miracles and the protection of his people. it is also important to realise what the coming of Jesus did in fulfilling and superceding the old covenant. The system of sacrifices was made redundant by his sacrifice (they alwats pointed to that anyway).
I think that you are not playing fair in prohibiting “context” as this often provides an interpretation that is different from a superficial reading. i agree that one can’t “breezily” dismiss stuff that s inconvenient. i don’t know why some parts of the Bible do not seem very plain or easy to interpret. but the real question is whether there are sufficient grounds to consider it to be relaible and authoritative. its convenience to my way of thinking is not really the issue.
@ Mike
Yes, indeed, the menstruation issue (and the ban on pork), no doubt related to considerations of hygiene that may now be redundant.
The ban on sodomy may have had similar rationales — which the availability of condoms (one might argue), takes care of now.
Or one might also argue that the ban on homosexuality was necessary at a time when it was very important that the people of Israel reproduce very quickly, to avoid being swamped by Canaanites.
The point is that, once one opens to door to contextual interpretation, almost every law can be re-interpreted away. That is why the fundamentalists have a point. Not to take everything literally is very dangerous.
Yet even the strictest of fundamentalists does not hand his disobedient son to be stoned, these days. So even he is guilty of selective interpretation of Scripture.
Michael Osborne says:
December 16, 2009 at 11:10 am
“Or one might also argue that the ban on homosexuality was necessary at a time when it was very important that the people of Israel reproduce very quickly, to avoid being swamped by Canaanites”.
A rather intriguing comment.
I am assuming that the Canaanites were homosexual men in the main, if so how were they reproducing?
Michael, I largely agree with your last post and with what I would regard as being some of the implications thereof.
People who opt for contextual constructions of certain passages in religious texts but literal ones for others may actually delude themselves sometimes. They may delude themselves in the sense that upon inspection, their commitment to their beliefs may not be as strong as they would like to believe.
They may opt, as you make out, for contextual interpretations of injunctions that they personally would find difficult to see through. And they may happily abide by literal constructions of injunctions that they would welcome. I think that this approach suggests two fronts on which such people could be delusional: the first is that while they may purport to be sincerely committed to their beliefs, their commitment may be offered with a hidden proviso. That rider is that they will honour the injunctions as long as they do not suffer measures of inconvenience that they would find too difficult to abide in so doing. The second delusion is that in actuality, they may be using religion as a means to justify their hidden, untested prejudices.
But the foregoing aside, it could be the case that some passages ought to be placed in context – but then you do not deny this.
@Maggs
conversion.
Yes, Sipho, rights and constitutionalism were developed in Africa, by the ancient Egyptians, from whom the colonising Greeks the stole all their best ideas. See Martin Bernal, Black Athena. Bernal helps us understand that almost all good things in the world are ultimately “out of Africa.” (Continental affiliation is so very important to me.)
As for Nevirapine, this is a poisonous substance invented by white liberals to kill black babies. Perhaps you were not aware of this. (Oops, this may not longer be the ANC line. Will get back to you if revision is necessary.)
[The above written while choking back tears on hearing the news of Manto's passing on. How terribly, terribly sad!]
@ Maggs
According to ancient scrolls, Canaanites, who were indeed mostly gay, reproduced using those old-fashioned Xerox machines. (High quality ink was much cheaper those days.)
Hi the Mike(s), Leigh and others
Firstly, I think we may be drifting of the focus of Prof’s initial post as this could easily deteriorate into a discussion about the merits meaning and purpose of the Bible.
Having said that, we need to be very cautious about our hermeneutical methods and out looks. Certainly your statement Mike, about context:
“Finally, I beg you not to invoke “context.” This is truly the refuge of a scoundrel who wants to argue himself out from under a law that he finds inconvenient, impractical, too harsh, or just plain silly.”
Needs to be strongly challenged. We were always taught “a text, taken out of its context, becomes a pretext”. Thus various causes (including apartheid) misused texts in order to justify their causes. Fundamentalist Christianity has no ‘majority’ or absolute right to insist on their Biblical literalism, there is abundant good New Testament studies to show that interpreting Paul’s comments as condemnation of modern, faithful monogamous gay relationships is akin to insisting slavery and the prohibition of women (even speaking much less) leading in the Church, is ok because ‘it’s ‘Scriptural’!
For a good scholarly analysis of Romans try Stanley K. Stowers (1994) “A Rereading of Romans” (Yale University Press: New Haven); There are numerous Studies on the Greek understandings of these texts which one can access on the net, which will show that these are complex matters that do lend themselves to simplistic ‘condemnation’ without doing some serious violation of textual analysis.
One simply cannot afford to take such ancient texts without good contextual study. To use revelation as a position to ‘sanctify’ the New Testament is to overlook the very principles which gave rise to the understanding of what is the ‘authorised’ cannon of Scripture. Looking at how the early church took the Hebrew scriptures (Septuagint) and often ‘reinterpreted them’ in the revealed light of Grace (above all the operative word, the Churches ‘Ubuntu’) such as in the episode of Acts 10, then realise that nowhere was this process of continuous revelation and new understandings – curtailed. If it were we would still be in the dark ages! Save us from simple, unscholarly, easy condemnations and generalisations – the New Testament – especially is not a ‘law’ book or a ‘manual’, but a collection of the thoughts, experiences and wrestling’s of the early Church. As such it can sow life and if we misuse it – it will sow death.
AN Leigh, I understand perfectly that the meaning of any text must be grasped in terms of the larger text in which it is embededded. And that larger text itself must in turn be situated within other contemporaneous texts. (A process which leads towards infinite regression, and raises the specter of general indeterminacy – but that is a different question.)
So when I begged Mike Atkins not to invoke context, my concern was that he, like many other Christians, invoke “context” selectively.
So, the injunctions against homosexual practices are taken literally, at face value, and without consideration of the social, political and cultural environment in which those words were written.
But when I point Mike to scriptural prohibitions that most modern believers ignore — like avoiding contact with menstruating women – he was quick to come up with broadly “contextual” factors, like hygiene, etc. — to explain why the prohibition may no longer be of any force today.
Dirk wrote:-
> the truly homophobic persons I’ve met have their fears deeply
> rooted in their own insecurities
This type of PeeCee slogan-speak makes me sick! Fear is a essential for intelligence.
If you have ‘deep fear’ of jumping off the Eifell tower with a parachute, such fear
is ‘deeply rooted in’ your genes via evolution. Read & underdstand Darwin!
Similarly, if you’re brought up in a statistically-normaal family [without any
exposure to homosexuality] then it’s repulsive to you, on first encounter.
Of course you can learn to get used to it, like jumping off the Eifell tower.
The real tragedy of old fashioned attitudes to homosexuality: the false belief that
it’s “social”, and not genetic; is being repeated in the attack on so-called
“racism”: the absurd lie that races are not genetically distinct, but mere social
constructs. So: “homosexuality is bad and can be un-learned & racial discrimination
[the appropriate reaction to the acknowledged different attributes] is bad and can
be un-learned”. Race is only a matter of colour = children differ from adults only
by size. Or ??
————–
During a long train journey I had the opportunity to observe how “well” a Zim.
Ndebele family/group handled a “homosexual situation”. Let’s call her: Suzy was
obviously very big, athletic and masculine. Yet the rest of the family/group
treated her very gently and sympathecically; [BTW that's a european word, which
perhaps expains the afrikaans/bantu words: respect, dignity which I don't understand]
and “she” behaved accordingly – within the constraints of “her” physical reality -
and everybody seemed happy. You really have to admire the bantu sometimes.
So I can understand the hatred that the “western analysis” caused with the Simenya
case. Everybody was living in peace and harmony before the mzungus interfered.
——
mzo said:
> I would then wonder why is it that you hardly (if at all)
> find homosexuals in the deep rural KZN or EC (only mentioning
> places where I grew up).
Don’t speak, don’t ask, like the ZimNdebele family and Simenya, compared to
gay-pride-marches/demonstation of the mzungus ?
Michael Osborne,
If you can come up with any cogent argument that the Old Testament and New Testament “prohibitions” of homosexual practice were merely due to the conditions of the day, then i will be willing to listen.
@ Mike Atkins
What about the two I have mentioned:
1. Homosexuality needed to be discouraged because it would stand in the way of the rapid population growth necessary when a small people was surrounded by more populous and stronger enemies.
2. Sodomy may have spread venereal disease, a factor no longer present today given the availability of condoms.
I do not find these arguments especially compelling. But no less so than the idea that the menstruation taboo was linked to hygiene, or that the imperative to stone naughty kids to death was linked to a hight rate of juvenile delinquincy.
@ Mike Atkins
I have given you a number of factors especially in context and the Greek study of the setting and location of the supposed word ‘naming’ homesexuality in the new testament. Could you respond to my post?
I’m sceptical of analyses of African history that paint the precolonial era as one free of discrimination and attribute just about every modern day evil to colonialism. Human beings worldwide and their conservative cultures are generally patrirchal and homophobic, why would pre colonial be the exception?
I think it is idealistic for the professor to claim pre colonial africa was free of homophobia. Pre colonial Africa was populated by human beings with conservative cultural beliefs (as was the rest of the world) and this is enough to say that homophobia has links in genuinely African culture.
Homophobia already present in Africa may indeedd have been reinforced by Christian conceptions of sexuality but it is giving far too much credit to colonial influences to say they are wholly responsible for modern day homophobia in Africa. Give Afircans some credit, surely we have created something of modern identities? Even the negative aspects.
@ Prof: December 15, 2009 at 16:48 pm
Thanks for the links Pro. It seems to me like the research proves that this practice was opposed than practised. Would you not agree?
It seems to me being gay is more of a practice enforced upon pepole than a practice accepted by people.
“Bisexuality immediately doubles your chances for a date on Saturday night.” – Rodney Dangerfield
openly lesbian in Ugandan citizen or world citizen is against the law of God and who ever practice homosexuality and lesbianism should face the death penalty not in Uganda if a new Bill imposing that penalty for “repeat offenders” of homosexuality should becomes by law in Uganda only but should be imposed in the international aswell. The Bill is being justified on the basis that homosexuality is “un-African” and not in keeping with Ugandese traditions, not only that but homosexuality in the world is unGOdly Unlawful in the law of God so the Law should be imposed so that Africa and the world can become a clean and God fearing Nation.
We learn from History that God destoried a Nation because of homosexuality and lesbianism Jesus slave of God.