Homosexuality & The Bible: Zondervan Under Fire
Many of you will have recently read about the lawsuit filed against Zondervan by Bradley Fowler, demanding $60 million as recompense for the suffering caused by what he sees as a misinterpretation of Scripture. MSNBC reports here:
“His suit centers on one passage in scripture — 1 Corinthians 6:9 — and how it reads in Bibles published by Zondervan. Fowler says Zondervan Bibles published in 1982 and 1987 use the word homosexuals among a list of those who are “wicked” or “unrighteous” and won’t inherit the kingdom of heaven. Fowler says his family’s pastor used that Zondervan Bible, and because of it his family considered him a sinner and he suffered.”
I am by no means a legal expert, but I highly doubt that this lawsuit will stand up in court. First, the publisher is printing an interpretation of an historical document. If anything, the lawsuit should be filed against the interpreters (though, again, it is doubtful this case has much merit). In truth, the more accurate translation would likely has resulted in the conclusions and treatment by the people the plantiff cites.
However, aside from the legal merits of this case, I believe the issue Fowler raises- that is the misuse of the word “homosexual” in Bible translations- is a very valid one. While the meaning behind the terms in the pre-translated text might ultimately parallel with the meaning most Christians attach to the word “homosexual”, the translation is both inaccurate and inappropriate.
The question is this: Does “homosexual” mean someone who practices homosexuality or does it mean someone who primarily or exclusively attracted to those of the same sex? Is there a difference between these options? A man in prison might have sex with other men, but have no sexual attraction for the same sex, while someone (like myself) might live with same-sex attraction their whole life, but never act on it. By some definitions I am a homosexual and the prisoner is not, others say I am not, but the prisoner is, while still others say that neither example are homosexuality.
My point is not to suggest that this Scripture is ambiguous about the issue of same-sex relationships (though it is, perhaps, far less clear than some Christians would like to believe), but rather that the term “homosexual” comes with such loaded meaning in our era that it is irresponsible to use it in these context without going beyond translation into interpretation. Obviously, all translations inevitbaly makes this over-step on some level, but especially so in this situation. I believe we will better preserve the authentic message and meaning of Scripture by avoiding terms that, in our own context, mean something different than originally intended, even if only by small degrees.
Again, I do not believe that Bradley Fowler has a case, either with the publishers or the translators, in respect to his alleged suffering. However, I do believe he raises a valid concern about the reliability of culturally loaded translations of Scripture.
What do you think? Is it just semantics? Please let me know what you think.
UPDATE: For clarity sake, let me reiterate that in this post I am not arguing the morality of homosexuality, or even trying to establish a firm definition for the term “homosexual”. Rather, I am arguing that the term has too much baggage to be used in a Biblical translation. This is NOT suggesting that the Bible doesn’t address the issue of same-sex attraction/involvement, but simply that the word itself (not the meaning we attribute to it) is inaccurate in that context.
Zondervan Homosexuality Homosexual Bible Christianity Lawsuit Bradley Fowler
very good point, I agree with you that it’s a bad choice of wording for that passage…esp. in today’s context
Thanks Mak. I say this as much for those involved in the realities of this issue as I do for the sake of Biblical authenticity.
Peace,
Jamie
The first thing that came to mind as I read this was the idea of cultural influence. I’ve been sitting here wondering if this is all a matter of semantics and if so, then what does that suggest? This topic makes my head very full as I sort through many thoughts…
For example, with regard to cultural influence I can’t help but think how at one time the bible was used to reinforce slavery…
Then my thoughts go to legalism. The guy says his family considered him a sinner. Newsflash – we are all sinners. We all need Christ’s redemption! It is by grace alone that we are saved.
And as for the definition of homosexuality – this is a tricky question. Is it a matter of having the attraction or acting on the attraction? Hmmm… Is someone who is pre-disposed to alcoholism considered an alcoholic even if they don’t drink? I know these thoughts are taking me down a road of relativism. And yet, if we simply thought and acted the way we were inclined to act and respond – wouldn’t we all be considered sinful and evil and selfish? I mean, in our pursuit of Christ aren’t we striving for something counter to our own sinful nature (which generally clouds our perspective because of The Fall)
I can’t say I have any clear answers – only more questions to add to the dialogue.
What I can say is this – you, Jamie are NOT defined by who you are sexually attracted to. Ok, I understand and appreciate your vulnerability in sharing your story and yet I recognize that this is but ONE part of you, a part of what makes up the person that you are. I say this because my hope is that you will continue to blog and that you won’t withdraw, feeling like you have no voice now that you have shared such a vulnerable part of yourself.
I would say the difference, and perhaps the defining point on which one falls into the realm of sin is how they act (or don’t act) on their desires. If you have the power to be attracted to a specific gender and never act on it…more power to you. I would say that is not a sin, but rather an exercise of will and self-control. I would say that moment we step out of God’s design, specifically sex between husband and wife, we start tredding the grounds of sin. I would say this includes practicing homosexuality as well as pre- or extra-marital sex.
We all have sin, and honestly no one is apart from at least one of the sins that is listed out several times in the bible. I would say desire is one thing, but acting, whether internally in the heart of mind, or externally through tangible action is a completely different thing. When we move from the realm of desire and temptation into the realm of action (internal or external) we move into the realm of sin. It is hard to accept and swallow, but at the same time all sin should be hard to swallow…our flesh wants to make it seem okay, wants to justify it. It is what it is, and none of us are beyond it, if we were Christ would have never been needed to atone for it.
Semantics…I would say yes, but my opinion is one that sees sin not in what we are tempted by, but rather actions we take in response to such temptations or fleshly urges (and thats for everything, not just homosexuality).
Hey Anonymous,
Thanks for the comment (and the encouragement). It is indeed a complicated issue. In my mind, however, the issue of the the use of the word “homosexual” is entirely separate from the issue of homosexuality in general. By this I mean that, regardless of where one lands on this issue, the use of the word is still (in my mind) inaccurate.
Peace,
Jamie
Hey wingfiea,
I appreciate the thought put into your response. You have articulated much of what I would say on the issue of homosexuality. However, like my last comment stated, this post was not about the issue of same-sex attraction as much as it is about the accuracy of using the term “homosexual”- a term loaded with very broad and sometime ambiguous meaning- in relation to a translation from a cultural context where the term could not have been used in that way.
Not picking on you, as I think most people are missing this issue by focusing on the morality question- an important question, to be sure, but not the one I am raising here. Thanks for your great thoughts!
Peace,
Jamie
Jamie, what word would fit better?
I think there is translation, but that is different than interpretation. The NRSV has ’sodomite’. That doesn’t seem quite fitting these dasy
I also notice that the passage adds “sexually immoral”. Is that our thoughts or our actions? The NRSV translates it as fornicators, so I guess action.
We run into a problem of having a term but needing a word that works. Where is the responsibility of interpretation?
Also interesting… he might get them on ‘homosexual’ but a $60 million dollar suit runs right into 1 Corinthians 6:10. He’s greedy!! And sort of misses the earlier verses of the chapter about no lawsuits.
Sin abounds at every turn. Who will save us from this body of death?
Hey Patrick,
Some have argued that no better term in our culture exists, but I think the older translations would suffice, as would some better translations. While interpretation will inevitably come through in translation, translation should attempt to remain as accurate to the original context while still communicating to our current context. The use of “homosexual”, in my opinion, does not do this. Thanks for weighing in.
Peace,
Jamie
Check out the Resurgence Greek Project:
http://www.zhubert.com/bible?source=greek&verseref=1+corinthians+6%3A9
You can mouse over the words to get the translation. It seems to clearly speak about men who have sexual relations with other men, which means you’re right on target here.
Thanks for bringing this up. It’s always good to hear your thoughts on this issue.
Thanks Ed. Yeah, even Strong’s is not an adequate tool for word meanings (as the use of “sodomite” demonstrates). Thanks for the link!
Peace,
Jamie
Thanks for blogging on this important issue.
yes, Fowler has a (theological) point..but not a (legal) case.
What would you..or others..recommend as the best translation(interp) for that particular scripture: “Practicing homosexuals?”
dave waisncott
Hey Dave,
From my (limited) understanding of the Greek, it would naturally read “men who lie with other men” or some such variation.
Peace,
Jamie
Got here through Erika’s blog.
Really appreciated the post and the comments.
I think this is one of the most important ‘frontier’ issues for current evangelicalism.
An old timey formula that I like for acceptable Christian teaching combines our best current attempts at understanding Scripture, our Christian tradition, and our current experience in as balanced a way as possible while giving primacy to our current attempts to interpret Scripture.
Christian tradition (practically) seems to have mostly treated people with homosexual orientation brutally. I’m not sure there’s any other way to say it. May be some hints of the longer term doctrinal truth there, but not sure I’m confident about looking in that direction for too many answers.
You and others on the thread get to the heart of the current evangelical debate about the Scriptural teaching. Nothing to add there.
Current experience seems to point in a different direction. I consider science and disciplined observation to be a more sophisticated version of ‘experience.’ Christians–at least those who aren’t fundamentalists–have always valued current experience in the way they interpret Scripture. Post modernists may push current experience too far, but it has always played a critical role in acceptable Christian teaching.
Seems like the most disciplined scientific inquiry indicates that homosexual–or heterosexual–orientation is genetic. Putting that differently, how many people reading this blog chose their sexual orientation? I’m hetero and I certainly didn’t.
In my current experience, and I think the experience of many other evangelicals, homosexual folks seem to be as spiritually and ethically committed as anybody I know.
How do evangelical folks of your generation make moral sense of repressing committed homosexual relationships in light of current experience? Is it the idea that homosexual orientation is a general result of the ‘fall’ which led to genetic ‘abnormalities?”
I raise these questions seriously and with respect. You and your readers are obviously thoughtful people. I was moved by your post and your honesty.
Hey Tom,
Thanks for weighing in. While this post is not specifically on the issues that your question raises, I thought I would try to give at least a brief answer. It is a huge issue, so I am sure I will barely brush the surface.
I am open to the possibility that homosexual orientation is a result of genetics (whether it be an intended genetic trait or an abnormality is a topic too big for this comment thread), but it should be noted that there is no conclusive evidence (yet) in this respect. Again, it is possible that it is the case, but I just want to make sure we clear on the current state of scientific discovery.
I cannot speak for all evangelicals of my generation, nor can I speak for all who live with same-sex attraction. I hold my convictions on this topic very carefully. I am not unwaveringly confident, especially when I consider what is at stake. This issue deeply grieves me for the suffering many live with as a result. I wish I could be more certain.
However, given my conviction (one developed through years or study, prayer and research, NOT simply inherited from previous generations of- often- bigoted Evangelicals) I stand where I stand on the issue. I know this probably doesn’t answer your question, but I am not sure I could adequately do so in this thread.
Thanks again for your thoughts and very gracious questions.
Peace,
Jamie
Greetings
What a thoughtful thread! Thanks.
Biblical translation is indeed frought. The original context is often lost; concepts translate poorly from language to language and culture to culture.
I was disappointed with the translation of today’s Gospel reading Mt 13:33 the woman HIDES (encrypts!) the yeast in the flower - just as the finder hides the treasure in the field.
Some translations appear to go out of their way to mislead:
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/newsviews/esv.html
http://www.liturgy.co.nz/worship/matters_files/explanation20080401.html
What is worth highlighting, whatever our position, and so well done in this thread, is the complexity of translation and interpretation. “I just believe what the Bible says” is not as simple as it looks
Blessings
Bosco
http://www.liturgy.co.nz
So very true, Bosco. Thanks! By the way, when leaving a comment, if you use the “Identified author” option, you can leave your website hyperlinked.
Peace,
Jamie
i think it is better if you can write more.