For many people of the Christian faith, the bible is a well-respected source in which they turn to in times of need. The problem with this is that their interpretations can be skewed by the situation at hand. Many Christians tend to read it in a very literal sense. With this the very words of the passage are attached to the situation, and thus the answer to their problem is clear. There are other people of faith that read the bible with open eyes and open hearts. Their intention is to read each passage objectively and really understand what the message is.
In this piece I will investigate two very different approaches on how the bible is interpreted with respect to the issue of homosexuality by comparing the viewpoints of two esteemed authors on biblical texts.
The first perspective to be explored belongs to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Having a very conservative Catholic view, Ratzinger interprets the bible in a very literal sense. Take the passage Corinthians 6:9 for example. It states that “Neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts (arsenokoitai, malakoi), nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Cardinal Ratzinger believes that this passage “proposes that those who behave in a homosexual fashion shall not enter the Kingdom of God” (Ratzinger, 41). There is not any where in this passage that the term homosexuality appears, yet Ratzinger directs his interpretation of this passage specifically at homosexuality. Another note worthy point is that Ratzinger does not speak of any of the other sinful roles that were mentioned in the passage with in his own interpretation.
Cardinal Ratzinger has been a very devout Catholic his whole life. In practicing his faith Ratzinger learned that when there is a question about something in modern society, it is best to approach some one else of a higher status with in the Catholic Church. Where this becomes problematic is when there are new questions and issues from modern day culture that cannot be answered with out going outside of the church. In this event, I think the people of the magisterium decide what would best support the church and adhere to their previous interpretations. Then they seek out the passages from the bible that reinforce their answers.
In comparison to Ratzinger, Dale Martin has a different approach to reading the bible. He takes a more non-literal approach when reading and interpreting it. Martin is an esteemed scholar who published Sex and the Single Savior, a work that was released in 2006. He believes that biblical texts do not take on the same meaning now as they did in the time that they were written. Cultures change with time and there for the context of the words change as well. What Martin tries to do is teach people to take biblical texts and interpret them within their original social and historical context.
Some Christians believe the bible to be the true words of God. In the reader’s eyes, God is an “agent” that literally “speaks” to them (Cates, 3/31/08). Dale Martin refers to this concept as the myth of textual agency. His argument is that the words with in the bible have no specific meaning. Since this is the case, Martin believes that reactive readers will interpret the message according to their own lives and not stop to think about what the message really was at the point in time when this piece of text was written (Cates, 3/31/08).
Both Martin and Ratzinger have a very different approach to reading and interpreting the bible. Ratzinger interprets the bible literally and does not take into account the original social context in which the words were written. He attempts to attach the words in the passages to modern day situations to explain why that situation is a sin. On the other hand, Martin takes a non-literal approach to reading and interpreting the bible. He stops to realize that there was a certain social context in which the bible was written and that each passage may not necessarily hold true in today’s society. The approach to biblical interpretation that I find most compelling is Dale Martins. Like Martin, I believe that it is very important to stop and remember the true context with which this text was written in instead of just attaching meanings that do not apply.
My initial thinking on homosexuality has not changed; the interpretive approach that I found more compelling reinforces my original view. If my viewpoint could be so easily changed by an argument as week as the one that is being offered by Cardinal Ratzinger then it would be clear that I hadn’t really thought it through. I believe that homosexuality is not an abomination; all humans deserve to have love, passion, respect, and caring in their lives. Every person is unique and that should be celebrated and not condemned.
In closing, every person of faith takes a different approach to reading and interpreting the bible. Some approach the bible in a literal sense, while others approach it in a non-literal sense. It is some thing that has been debated for decades, but there really is no clear answer on how to interpret the bible. To quote a great country artist, Garth Brooks, “When we are free to love any one we choose. When this world is big enough for all different views. When we are all free to worship from our own kind of pew. We shall be free!”
very interpretative and informative article, thanks for sharing!!
Yes, Caribbean Girl, you’re on the right path. (Now Pope Benedict XVI), Joseph Ratzinger’s approach is indeed flawed. When you take anything written out of its cultural and historical context, then you aren’t just likely to misinterpret its meaning, it is more like guaranteed that you will misread it, and not at all understand what it’s all about.