Selective Literalism/Selective Inerrancy

 

This concern may be the most difficult for me to comprehend and may be the biggest barrier in my ability to communicate with and understand people whose religious and political standards and principles are to the right of mine. Without stereotyping everyone to my right, I recall very few times when I have been able to engage any of them in a civil conversation on any topic more wide-ranging than Aunt Myrtle’s hysterectomy. And the deal-breaker almost always is selective literalism and/or selective inerrancy.

We all are inconsistent and imperfect in living out our faith and all of us put greater emphasis on some biblical passages than others; but there’s a world of difference between giving emphasis versus absolutizing a verse or passage taken out of context and eliminating or ignoring other related passages.

Perhaps the clearest example is the iconic anti-gay passages (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13) and the word, “abomination.” There are significant translation issues within the primary verse (18:22), which I’ll touch on later; but the greatest issue is the selectivity of choosing these two verses as the basis for irreversible condemnation while ignoring several other verses in Leviticus that also use that word, “abomination.” Here’s the list:

·      Eating sacrificed meat on the third day (7:18)

·      Eating bacon (unclean flesh) (11:7)

·      Eating shellfish (11:10)

·      Wearing a garment made of two materials (so much for that wool/silk suit!) (19:19)

·      Cutting the side of your hair or trimming your beard (19:27)

·      Getting a tattoo (19:28)

There are seven additional “abominations” mentioned in Leviticus, but it’s highly unlikely that anyone today would engage in those activities.

But there’s more: Proverbs 6:16-19

¹⁶ There are six things that the Lord hates,
    seven that are an abomination to him:
¹⁷ haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    and hands that shed innocent blood,
¹⁸ a heart that devises wicked plans,
    feet that hurry to run to evil,
¹⁹ a lying witness who testifies falsely,
    and one who sows discord in a family.

Are any of us exempt or not guilty of these abominations?

So, the selective reading of two verses as an eternal absolute while ignoring twenty other “abominations,” e.g. arguing that LGBTQ+ affirming Christians are not real Christians while wearing cotton-polyester clothes, getting a high-and-tight haircut, and enjoying bacon-wrapped shrimp—is at best of questionable integrity.

But it gets even more convoluted! The key verse (Leviticus 18:22) is corrupted in the oldest and most reliable manuscript; therefore, we don’t know for certain exactly what it says. All subsequent translations are “best guesses.” The most likely literal translation is “You shall not lay lyings of woman.” The intent is obscure at best, and there are no cognate examples available in Hebrew Scripture or concurrent secular writings; so the exact meaning remains uncertain even if the translation is accurate.

It is the context that affords the best evidence of its meaning. The verse, along with 20:13, appears in a section of Leviticus called the “Holiness Code” (chapters 17-26). It is thought to have been written or at least adapted close to its present form during the reform movement of King Josiah in the late 7^th century BCE and used in the training of priests.

It emphasizes the separation of Israel’s worship from the pagan worship practices of the surrounding cultures. The Hebrew word to'evah (תּוֹעֵבָה) is translated abomination. It is used more than 100 times in the Hebrew Scriptures and doesn’t mean hated or condemned. It means ritually or morally forbidden, depending upon the context. In the Holiness Code it refers to forbidden worship practices in those surrounding pagan religions.

The most problematic of the pagan religions were the fertility cults. Worship in these cults included sexual intercourse with the priests and priestesses (you can see why it presented a problem for the Israelites!) and even with sacred animals. The idea was that the gods were thus vicariously gratified and would bless the worshipers with fertile fields, livestock, and marriages. Whatever is meant or intended by the original writer of Leviticus 18:22, it was related to worship in the fertility cults. It does not refer to homosexual relationships outside the pagan temples.

So what we have is selective absolutizing of a passage of Scripture that doesn’t even refer to what is being condemned.

I’m not declaring that God either affirms or condemns LGTBQ+ relationships. I’ll leave that for another blog. What I am declaring is (1) Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 cannot be used to condemn queer people and (2) that even if those verses could justifiably be used to condemn them, the selective ignoring of all the other abominations becomes hypocritical. If one claims biblical literalism or inerrancy, integrity demands that one also live on the basis of the whole, rather than being selective about it.

That’s the way it looks through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim