Jennifer Wright Knust is Assistant Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Boston University. She also served as an American Baptist pastor (full bio here).
The Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins offers several reasons:
1. “God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.” So “Heterosexual sex was therefore an afterthought designed to give back the man what he had lost.”
2. “Despite common misperceptions, biblical writers could also imagine same-sex intimacy as a source of blessing. For example, the seemingly intimate relationship between the Old Testament’s David and Jonathan, in which Jonathan loved David more than he loved women, may have been intended to justify David’s rise as king.”
3. “Confident claims about the forms of sex rejected by God are also called into question by early Christian interpretations of the story of Sodom. From the perspective of the New Testament, it was the near rape of angels – not sex between men – that led to the demise of the city.”
4. “It’s true that same-sex intimacy is condemned in a few biblical passages. But these passages, which I can count on one hand, are addressed to specific sex acts and specific persons, not to all humanity forever, and they can be interpreted in any number of ways.”
5. “Only a little more than a century ago, many of the very same passages now being invoked to argue that the scriptures label homosexuality a sin or that God cannot countenance gay marriage were used to justify not “biblical marriage” but slavery.” (entire article here, bold added)
Now you don’t really have to be a Bible scholar to see what is going on here. It’s simple. Professor Jennifer Wright Knust wants biblical justification for a sinful lifestyle. Ms Knust is willing to twist Scripture out of shape for her own ends.
“So why are we pretending that the Bible is dictating our sexual morals? It isn’t.” Really!
T.C.,
Are you trying to make us aware of the arguments some people use against the traditional views on homosexuality from Christianity? We’ve heard them a plenty.
Further the conversation by arguing against the above points, don’t go “discernment ministry” on us and just flat-out, uncritically, reject what was said. Why are the above five points wrong?
John L,
Don’t assume everything, my friend.
Let me say why I think she is misguided (and misguiding):
(1) Androgyny is a great leap. Some have suggested that Gen. 1.26-27 indicates the first “human” was male and female, but that is a minority reading and in the canonical context Gen. 2-3 interpret 1.26-27 for us. Male and female is God’s design and he delights in it. We can add Paul’s statements in Rom. 1.18ff where rejecting that design is equated with idolatry (a fitting appraisal of Knust’s statements if there is one).
(2) The David-Jonathan statement is laughable. Someone must come to the text and eroticize the narrative to make this about same sex sexuality. There is not hint that the ANE author of this text was wink, winking about homosexuality nor does the canonical context support such an absurd reading.
(3) The Sodom-Gomorrah statements is oversimplification at its best. Sure, the homosexual activity is not the only reason the city was judged, but it does seem apparent that it was not something the text supported as normal and natural.
(4) I think the burden of proof is on her. I recommend Webb’s Slaves, Women, and Homosexuals for a good hermeneutical analysis on why the few text applied to slaves and women may be reconsidered but those applied to homosexuality are different altogether.
(5) This pseudo-argument about hermeneutics is a non-issue. Yes, some Christians misunderstood the biblical message to support slavery and subjugation of women. That doesn’t mean suddenly this is the same type of issue.
So all that leads me to say: Yes, T.C. is right, this woman has twisted Scripture.
Christian Ethics 101 deals with these assertions. The Feinberg’s book: Ethics For A Brave New World more than deals with each one of Ms Knust’s claims on their own grounds.
This just illustrates the power of faulty a priori beliefs; or how a faulty touchstone belief leads to a screwed up noetic structure.
She needs help. She has serious issues….
Brian L,
Point by point, I’m with you. But the sad thing is that views like these are what are considered media-friendly. And for an academic, she is quite reckless with the text.
Bobby,
I remember Feinberg’s counterpoints from my undergrad Ethics 101. Yes, good points.
Brian F,
Yes, indeed.
Yeah, that’s where we used the Feinbergs as well.
It seems to me asking what’s wrong with her theology is the wrong question. If you can’t see what’s wrong, you’re as blind as she is. No, the question isn’t the nature of her error. The question should be what idiot would make her a professor of anything biblical, let alone a pastor? Me thinks there’s a millstone awaiting that soul.
Lance,
Me thinks one precedes the other.
Touche.
The radical agenda has moved beyond even trying to engage the Bible or the church on this and other issues. I experience the post-Christian crowd as painting the church has a remnant of a bygone era. It is sad that some parts of the church are still trying to validate their existence to the secular elite.
1. Wow. An afterthought? Well that makes homosexuality a non-thought. But seriously: Genesis 1 makes differentiation rather clear. The entire chapter is about separating and joining things into their proper, ordered relationships. Is she perhaps of the view that Gen 2 was written before Gen 1? If so, fine. But that doesn’t mean Genesis 2:4 and onward can be taken apart from canonical context. And the context of Gen 1 clearly has differentiation as a key theme.
There is much to respond to her claims of androgyny. The text itself is highly gendered, after all. Sexual differentiation is only explicitly mentioned among humans — masculinity and femininity are sacred treasures given to us that the animal world only approximates. Also, note what we were allowed to eat. We were not vegetarians. We could only eat fruit with seed in it. Seed is a rather masculine word. How can this not be gendered? It’s not gender-neutral.
2. Which biblical writers? I’ve considered the possibility of David and Johnathan having that sort of relationship, and I don’t find it convincing. The substance of how they bonded is completely unknown to us. David doesn’t exactly have a life pattern of male friends who might be more than friends, so we can’t really say much from one suspicious and vague relationship. My guess is that David and Johnathan both bonded through music. Johnathan might have helped write some of the Psalms, for all we know. Given his early death, it wouldn’t be many.
Also: there’s no way they would use the word “blessing” in reference to the male-male emulation of sex. For canonical context on what “blessing” means, Genesis 1 gives us the first definition: prosperity & progeny. Progeny doesn’t happen from male-male interactions.
3. Angels in human form, like Raphael who took on the form of “Azariah” in the book of Tobit. She presents a false dichotomy. Sodom did many things wrong. Strike one was the way the king of Sodom tried to take advantage of Abram in Gen 14. Their desire to take advantage of anyone for their own sadistic selfish gain is the central flaw of Sodom.
Condemnation of homosexuality is not the point of Genesis 19 whatsoever. No — but it’s presented by the author for dramatic effect. The author intends to evoke disgust in the reader towards the men of Sodom. If the author assumes that homosexuality will invoke disgust, then that is informative indeed about the worldview of biblical authors, regardless of the story’s main point.
4. Translation: “Well, it’s not addressed to me by name, so I don’t have to consider it binding.” Perhaps the same applies to whether she has assurance of salvation, based on texts she could just as well disregard.
5. *Yawn.* If we were forced to abandon texts that have a history of being misinterpreted, then we’d be left with no Bible. If an octopus can get in and out of a beer bottle (and it can), then should we assume that the octopus was made specifically with the intent of living near/in beer bottles?
It saddens me that this lady fell into such grievous error. What’s that passage? Something about “and those who approve of those who do such things.” Yeah.
Gary,
There’s really no substance to her rereadings- nothing substantial. For an academic, her handling of the text is quite lacking.
Her bio as an author and faculty member looks impressive. Could I get that far with such little substance in argumentation? Maybe I should stop pushing carts and publish my blog posts.
Well, you got to get a PhD from an impressive school behind your name first.
I went to the school of Hard Knocks (Revelation 3).
Dr. Knust also is mentioned here in Newsweek.
Gary,
Well, these are the media-friendly pieces.
Party. Foul. I hate the type of statement that comes at the end of this article. It’s what I’ve come to detest about the arguments of my fundamentalist brethren, frankly. If someone disagrees with me, they MUST be looking to sin. It can’t simply be that they are scholars, have studied, and come up with different answers than I have. It can’t simply be that they love the Lord, too, and are searching for truth as I am.
You know, I think that there may have been a time in church history when we weren’t convinced that we had all the correct answers and that we might have wanted to show respect to those whose study and come up with different conclusions. When will those times return? There is nothing so sacred to me (and I do mean “nothing”) which should cause me to resort to slanderous remarks about someone’s motives (which I can’t possibly ascertain) based on their theological position.
Somehow I think we have just plain lost Jesus in the midst of all of our knowledge. Was it Constantine? The Wycliffe Bible? The fundamentalist movement? Who knows. But it just looks kind of sad. The more I read the gospels, the more I think we have become the very thing that Jesus detested: a religious, judgmental group of people who insist upon being “right” and tying up loads for others to carry.
Frowny face.
CW,
Thanks for stopping by and offering an input. Here’s the grind: Dr. Knust views are not new. In fact, they have all been advanced before and they have all been debunked. But the media is often oblivious and is therefore willing to run with a Dr. Knust “latest” findings.
I thought I would bump this thread to mention two responses to Knust’s article from Gagnon. One is also on CNN’s blog (a href=”http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/03/my-take-the-bible-really-does-condemn-homosexuality/”>here) and the longer part is on his own website (here).
If you listen to the NPR interview with the professor (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/10/133245874/unprotected-texts-the-bible-on-sex-and-marriage) it is interesting to hear a note of disappointment-cum-exasperation from interviewer Terry Gross when Prof. Knust claims that the Bible both condemns and supports homosexual sex. The interviewer doesn’t say (but seems to think), Wait a minute – are you suggesting we are mistaken when we say the Bible condemns it? Liberals see what is hard to miss.