Support the Café

Search our Site

WWGD? (That’s Galileo)

WWGD? (That’s Galileo)

An excerpt from The Rev. Susan Russell’s response to an email with the subject line “The Clear Truth Of Scripture”, found in The Huffington Post:

They say that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it — and an excellent example of that theory is the folks who, 400 years later, are throwing around isolated scripture passages to support outdated understandings of human sexuality, just as others have done through the ages, on everything from slavery and integration to equality for women.

So here’s the “takeaway” from this today’s object lesson on life, the universe, Galileo, and heresy: the Bible is no more a textbook on human sexuality in the 21st century than it was a textbook on astronomy in the 17th. And the folks who get that part confused repeatedly end up on the wrong side of history as the arc of the moral universe continues to bend toward justice.

And here’s the good news: we live in a country where the First Amendment protects not only your right to read the Bible any way you choose but your right to be on the wrong side of history. It does not, however, protect your right to write your theology into our Constitution and take away the equally protected rights of all Americans from some Americans because you’ve gotten the Bible confused with a textbook on human sexuality.


Café Comments?

Our comment policy requires that you use your real first and last names and provide an email address (your email will not be published). Comments that use non-PG rated language, include personal attacks, that are not provable as fact or that we deem in any way to be counter to our mission of fostering respectful dialogue will not be posted.

Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

Mr Naugthon,

I understand the context very well. I don’t think Gospel-believing Christians should bend on polygamy because of cultural values, either. The Anglican Communion’s desire to “listen” to dialogue regarding both homosexuality and polygamy come from a desire to compromise with cultural values, not godly ones. In context, my friend, that was my original point.


James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

Jim Naughton

James, the discussion in the Anglican Communion regarding polygamy has not been of the slippery slope variety. The discussion has concerned how to incorporate the great many polygamist Africans who have converted to Christianity into the church. Were you to read the materials that are described quite briefly in the link you provide, that is what you would find.

In the Anglican Communion, polygamy is practiced primarily in those countries most opposed to marriage equality, and opposed most strongly in those countries more favorable to marriage equality.

This doesn’t bear directly on your argument, but I think it might help you make better sense of the Anglican context, if that is something in which you are interested.

James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk

Mr Fisher,

Here’s an Anglican Communion source that mentions polygamy in the same context as homosexuality. If you don’t think there’s a slippery slope, guess again…

BTW, Paul uses the word “arsenokoitais” in 1Co 6:9 to mean “male bed partner” as derived from Leviticus. No “male bed partner” nor “malakoi” (i.e., “soft one”) can enter God’s kingdom. If God and Jesus are the same, then Jesus did call homosexuality (i.e., man having sex with a man per Leviticus) an abomination. Your discussion of certain vocabulary terms is irrelevant. Leviticus simply describes an action without naming it “homosexuality.” Moot point.


James Pirrung-Mikolajczyk


Even in U.S. society, there’s the beginnings of a movement toward the recognition of polygamy (watch the media).

Mr Pirrung-Mikolajczyk: Even if I accepted your assertion (I don’t: there’s NO serious discussion of the recognition of polygamy in the U.S., outside of the sects which—regrettably—still secretly practice it), it’s irrelevant to the practice of “the clear truth of Scripture” as found in TEC. I’m only (slightly!) responsible for TEC; it’s the only community of faith whose interpretation of Scripture I’m committed to.

If we believe that Jesus and God are one and the same, Jesus did in fact call homosexuality in abomination in Leviticus. His servant Paul was also correct in saying that God does not recognize non-celibate gays in his kingdom.

Neither of these statements are true. “Homosexuality”—the sexuality of persons with an innate homosexual orientation—has only been understood since no earlier than late 19th century. You’ve really got to examine this facile anachronism.

[Does *God* understand homosexual orientation? Of course: God created it! And called it (with and amongst all his Creation) “GOOD”! :-D]

JC Fisher

Ann Fontaine

James – a-theist is not against God – an Atheist just does not believe God exists. Most are content with allowing others to believe whatever they want to believe about God’s existence.

re: comments – we delete liberals and conservatives when they go over the line. A good discussion helps us all.

~ed. on Tuesday – Ann

Support the Café
Past Posts

The Episcopal Café seeks to be an independent voice, reporting and reflecting on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican tradition.  The Café is not a platform of advocacy, but it does aim to tell the story of the church from the perspective of Progressive Christianity.  Our collective sympathy, as the Café, lies with the project of widening the circle of inclusion within the church and empowering all the baptized for the role to which they have been called as followers of Christ.

The opinions expressed at the Café are those of individual contributors, and, unless otherwise noted, should not be interpreted as official statements of a parish, diocese or other organization. The art and articles that appear here remain the property of their creators.

All Content  © 2017 Episcopal Café