You Weren't Part of the Holiness Code

Because Dan McClellan says so

Two male statutes intently hugging each other in a lavish bed of flowers saying “I am Hegemonic” and “No, I am Hegemonic”

I’ll be using some theological terms in this newsletter - if you’re comfortable with them, keep on reading. If you have no clue what I’m talking about, no problem at all. Scroll down a bit and below every section I have small explainers.

What you’re reading now is part of a series where we're taking a step back and try to gain a better perspective on the infamous "Clobber Verses."

Don't worry, I won't rehash the same old arguments. Instead, I'll explain why I believe there are no clobber verses in scripture and why focusing on them might be damaging to the queer community in the long term.

As a matter of fact, we don’t need a magnifying glass to understand what the Bible says about certain topics. This understanding isn't just about queer issues - we could apply the same approach to female leadership, for example. It’s the understanding that sometimes we use conservative hermeneutics in a progressive context.

Here's the thing: During our deconstruction journeys, many of us got comfortable questioning certain things, but we never really changed our cookbook i.e. we're still using conservative hermeneutical methods, which don't leave much room for ambiguity. They draw hard lines between right and wrong, good and evil, pure and contaminated. So while we might have realized it's odd that the God who created us would reject some of us for loving someone of the same sex, we're still trying to make the text say what we hope it says. In this case, it may be hard to believe that Paul would condemn gay people, so surely we must be misunderstanding him, right?

This is where intersectional theology comes in, like a surprise ingredient that changes the whole flavor of the dish. It tries to amplify voices from the margins - you know, the ones that are usually drowned out by the noise of the patriarchal society of the first century.

When you listen to those voices, you hear a completely different story. So let’s listen to them today and see if they can offer a fresh perspective. A perspective that will require us to get comfortable with ambiguity.

I believe that the bible neither condemns nor condones homosexuality, and - here's the kicker - that leaves room for the possibility that Paul was a misogynistic and homophobic guy who can still give us some spiritual direction. It's like finding out your problematic uncle has some good recipes - you can appreciate the cooking without endorsing the cook.

Clobber Verses refer to the handful of Bible passages often used to condemn homosexuality. They're called "clobber verses" because they've been used to "clobber" or attack LGBTQ+ individuals.

Hermeneutics is the theory and methodology of text interpretation, particularly the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical texts.

Intersectional theology considers how various social categorizations such as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation interconnect and influence religious interpretation and experience.

Quick disclaimer - for the sake of full transparency. These thoughts are not necessarily my own. I’ve never been good with words and as a theology student always agreed with these thoughts but whenever I was asked to explain them, I couldn’t get the words out of my mouth. It’s because of people like Dan McClellan and Prof. Martti Nissinen that my thoughts can be properly expressed. What you see written down, while my own words and my own conclusions, is heavily influenced by those two. So if you like this, you should definitely follow their work.

Sifting Through Misinterpretations: A Fresh Look at Leviticus

Remember when I promised we'd steep ourselves in a discussion about Leviticus? Well, it's time to put that kettle on and dive deep into how both conservatives and progressives (or post-evangelicals—whatever label you prefer) often misuse these ancient texts.

Before we begin, a necessary caveat: This post will discuss sexuality in clinical terms, which some readers may find uncomfortable. Consider this your trigger warning—proceed with care.

Want to hear something funny/not funny? The most common comment I receive on social media is a quote from Leviticus 18, stating that a man shall not lie with another man as with a woman. It's served up like a stale cookie, regardless of context:

• I express joy about my bottom surgery? Leviticus 18.

• I celebrate my continued relationship with Kim? Leviticus 18.

• I argue that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality? Yup — Leviticus 18.

Let's be clear: This response is never in context. I’d be open if it was posed as a question like: "How do you reconcile Leviticus 18 with your statement that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality?" But even this approach contradicts my non-foundationalist worldview.

This knee-jerk quoting of scripture isn't limited to discussions of sexuality. Recently, a commenter on a video about the Olympic controversy involving women's appearances replied, "XX and XY genes are a thing, you're DA fool." This response completely missed the point that the controversy isn't about transgender athletes but about unrealistic expectations of how women should look. Ugh.

Shit like this highlight a bigger issue: many commenters seem to copy-paste whatever comes to mind without engaging with the actual content. It's like throwing ingredients into a bowl without considering the recipe—the result is rarely palatable.

Oops, that was a tangent, let's return to Leviticus 18 & 20. I stand by the statements I’ve made before: the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality because that would be anachronistic. The concept simply didn't exist when these texts were written. One could argue that Leviticus 18 condemns homosexual acts—specifically, men having sexual intercourse with men, but even that should be placed within it’s context.

As we continue to dig deeper in these texts, we should consider their historical and cultural context, as well as the dangers of applying ancient laws to modern concepts without careful interpretation. Like a complex recipe, understanding Leviticus requires attention to all its ingredients and the cultural "oven" in which it was baked.

Foundationalism: A philosophical approach to knowledge and belief that asserts that all justified beliefs and knowledge claims must ultimately be based on a set of foundational, self-evident truths. In theological contexts, foundationalism often manifests as the belief that certain religious or doctrinal claims are inherently true and serve as the basis for all other beliefs. In our discussion, a non-foundationalist approach to biblical interpretation challenges the idea that there are unchanging, self-evident truths in scripture, instead emphasizing the importance of context, cultural understanding, and ongoing interpretation.