Biblical Misinterpretation as a Weapon against the LGBTQ Community
Is the Christian God truly concerned about my skirt?
In a recent article, I discussed an email I received from an ex-friend of mine. He wrote what I named “Biblical misquotes and pharmaceutical conspiracy theories” to justify his condemnation of my gender transition.
Several people expressed interest in the “Biblical misquotes” aspect. After all, many tenets of Christian anti-LGBTQ opinion are alleged to originate in the Bible. As Fundamentalist thought states the Bible is the literal word of God, these passages would imply explicit condemnation of the LGBTQ community by the deity himself.
But how much truth is there to these claims? I named my friend’s email “misquotes” because I do not believe the Bible was ever intended to condemn the LGBTQ community. Instead, interpretation of these stories from a Western social standpoint is relatively recent and represents an attempt to rationalize hateful opinions, not to provide thoughtful analysis.
I do not hold this opinion because I choose to be Christian and hope to align my religion with being bisexual and transgender. To be clear, I am a bisexual, transgender Pagan. I believe in a Goddess and that we must revere the Earth as the source of human sustenance.
My purpose, then, is simply to cast light on three stories that have been used against me. Perhaps a few Christians will read this article and look more critically at the opinions voiced by their church’s leaders.
The curse of Ham
When I was young, one of two primary stories related to me as evidence the Christian God condemns homosexuality is the Curse of Ham. I am not a Biblical scholar, and I defer to others for a more complete analysis of the Hebrew text of Genesis. What I relate is the story as given to me.
Ham was a son of Noah — the same Noah who built an ark and put every species of animal on it before God destroyed all humans with The Flood (not the same Flood from Halo). When the Earth was dry enough, Noah planted a vineyard, made wine, and got drunk.
Now don’t misunderstand me — after floating in a boat with chickens and tigers and aardvarks that long, I’d probably tie one on as well. What makes this story curse-worthy is that — as Noah laid passed out in his tent — his son Ham “saw the nakedness of his father,” commonly interpreted to mean Ham raped Noah.
When Noah rouses from his drunken stupor, he realizes what happened and curses Ham…by cursing Ham’s son Canaan to be a servant of servants. Ham’s brothers are glorified with servants, and Ham is made out to be a goat.
And this story is used to justify the opinion homosexuality is evil.
To be clear, the text in the Bible is vague. Vagueness aside, however, that homosexuality is pulled out of this story at all is surprising.
Rape? Apparently, no problem here.
Unconscious drunken date rape? Hey, why not?
Unconscious drunken same-sex date rape? Now that just goes too far.
Do Christians truly miss the bits about rape in the story? Could this story also serve as justification for slipping sorority girls a Mickey?
And how did Noah end up so naked in his tent in the first place? Were Jewish celebrations wilder than I thought?
Sodom and Gomorrah
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is the second of two stories I heard as a child as evidence against homosexuality. In the story, God tells Abraham he intends to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for “outcry” against “sin so grievous.” What, precisely, was the sin?
Many other passages in both the Old and New Testaments refer to Sodom, and note its people were prideful, arrogant, and inhospitable. They may have committed adultery, were careless in their ease, and did not care for their poor.
Where is the bit about homosexuality? A possible reference to Leviticus 18:22 implies they committed “abominable” acts. But — as was well covered by Jonathan Poletti in his treatment of the verse — a reference to homosexuality is tenuous at best.
Leviticus is a book of Mosiac Law. It also contains verses regarding clean and unclean meat — that is, meat of animals with cloven hooves that do not chew cud is declared unclean. This verse explains why Orthodox Jews do not eat pork.
Why bring up pork? Because Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of violating Mosaic Law — or many verses across Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. While Christians will have you believe they were destroyed for homosexual sex, it is equally possible they were destroyed simply for poor menu choices.
In a grand irony, as Lot, his wife, and their virgin daughters fled the city, Lot’s wife looked back —defying God’s will — and was turned into a pillar of salt.
I wonder…if God had simply turned Lot’s unnamed wife into a pillar of salt in the first place, would broccoli suddenly have been palatable enough that Sodom and Gomorrah would have forsworn pork? It seems the easier solution over pelting a region with fire and brimstone.
Biblical crossdressing
The quote my ex-friend sent me was Deuteronomy 22:5, which reads:
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.
That seems clear — women shall not dress as men; men shall not dress as women. Crossdressers, and by extension transgender people such as myself, are abominations (see the bit about Leviticus 18:22 above for more on abominations).
Was Jewish society that concerned with fashion? In short, no. The verse above is taken out of context of the rest of the chapter and ignores Jewish custom regarding property.
Deuteronomy 22 opens with a discussion regarding objects that are lost. Animals that go astray, animals that fall into ditches, and “all lost things of thy brother” should be aided and returned to him.
Interestingly, the chapter also calls out your brother’s “raiment” — his clothing. Did ancient Jews toss around their clothing indiscriminately, to the point they were lost regularly enough to make a law about them?
While it would certainly explain how Noah got naked enough for Ham to see it, the truth is cloth was precious. It was as precious as the animals used to grow crops and later eaten for sustenance. It was as precious as marriage and the relationships among families, as detailed later in Deuteronomy 22.
Today, if we forget our favorite hoodie at the gym, we sigh and buy another. In Biblical times, clothing was a big deal. It represented wealth.
Deuteronomy 22 speaks to lost items and how to treat a wife and family. It is unconcerned with men’s and women’s fashions — at least in part because the distinction between men’s and women’s fashion was blurry when the law was written.
Don’t believe me? I leave you with the final verse of Deuteronomy 22:
A man shall not take his father’s wife, nor discover his father’s skirt.
Damn right — if my son took this purple skort I’m wearing? I’d be pissed.
It’s all made up
As Jonathan Poletti states succinctly, “Christians made it all up.” I believe my ex-friend wanted to keep me safe from his God’s anger. He wanted to see me safely in his Heaven after I die.
His toolkit — verses used to rationalize hateful opinions — is poorly stocked. I call upon Christians to investigate their foundation for hate. In the name of love, they perpetuate hate and condone death for the LGBTQ community.
And why? Because after centuries of hateful opinions based on a misinterpretation of texts, going back now requires admitting being wrong in the first place.
It isn’t only Christians guilty of this inaction — the US Congress is deadlocked for precisely the same reason. Most people are unwilling to investigate their beliefs for fear of finding they were wrong.
But fear does not justify inaction and its inevitable conclusions.
