We all know which bit I'm talking about - Deuteronomy 22:5.
This is the bit that is always thrown in our faces whenever faced with the Bible Bashers as evidenced here in Lancaster not too long ago.
And, at first reading, it seems perfectly clear: "A woman shall not wear a man's apparel, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment; for whoever does such things is abhorrent to the Lord." Strong stuff. Mind you, there are many other rules dictated in the Old Testament which are also abhorrent - mixing cloths in one garment for example (and yet no-one seems to bother too much about that).
Reading deeper into it, it seems that the intent of this passage was aimed more at preventing the involvement on the part of Israelites in contemporary Canaanite religious rituals of the day, many of which involved a degree of cross dressing. So the instruction is not one of asthetics but far more at keeping the Israelites worship of God pure.
That is a very brief examination of this knotty little problem. You will find a much more in-depth examination of it here.
Friday, January 13, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Thanks for the link Selina. This point has started nagging me again lately. Not sure why... The excerpt was very informative. It left me a little more upbeat and determined to think more about it rather than just try to forget.
Thanks for the link! Was thinking of writting about this,
Okay, so what about the bit about not wearing polycotton? ;-)
A serious point. If one is allowed to intepret "awkward" sections of the Bible to suit ones personal preferences, then is all of it open for interpretation? And if so, does it then become more about what the interpreter believes in than the written truth?
I'm ignorant of Bible intepretation in the Anglican church, really. Who chooses which bits are (for want of a better word) "gospel", and which bits are open to personal interpretation? If the bible isn't ALL to be taken as truth, then maybe I'm just as a Christian as the Archbishop of Canterbury. I just choose to interpret the bits about there being a God/Heaven/etc. as being false.
Becky, in many ways the whole Bible has already been "interpreted" in that none of it was written in English. Consequently some of the original meaning is lost or has been amended in translation.
However, I believe there are certain fundamental tenets that are essential to Christian faith (believing in God, Jesus, that sort of thing). Many of the Old Testament laws are there to ensure the survival of a nomadic patriarchal race of people (the Israelites).
In the New Testament, Jesus is quoted as saying "You have heard it said...but I say..." This suggests that the O.T. laws are not intended to be immovable but as guidelines for a particular people in a particular set of circumstances. That's not to say they don't have relevance to us today - "Thou shalt not kill" is still a pretty good law to have.
What I was trying to do is point out that Deut 22:5 is often quoted out of context and is used to apply to a set of people (us) which is in contradiction to its original intent. I'm not saying that you should deliberately misinterpret the text, but that others misinterpret it in its application to us.
I think, on a tangential topic, the fact that there is no clear direction on homosexuality from such individuals as Rowan Williams (despite St. Paul writings) indicates that things are not as black and white in the Bible as the street preachers would have us believe.
Hope this hasn't confused the issue any more than it already is.
I agree 100 percent Selina. :-) My (admittedly somewhat tangential) point was that maybe by defending ourselves against and intepreting parts of the Bible that are so obviously not applicable, you inadvertently lend them more weight? As a non-Christian I would have never even heard of this "law" without having heard Christian TG's explaining it.
Christians who wear linen/wool mix jumpers don't really feel the need to defend themselves against Lev 19:19, it's obviously silly. Why not just ignore Deut 22:5?
Good point. Well presented. Deserves a good answer.
I think it's partially self-doubt and it's me rationalising myself once again. I do that when there's a letter in the month.
Actually, that was a pathetic answer.
You're right in observing that if we can all so easily ignore some of the Mosaic Laws, why not the rest?
And, In Truth, I haven't got an answer. Hilary's "Because it's there!" springs to mind.
We (or at least I) have so many hang-ups about who/what I am, that any reference tends to hit home. If I wasn't made the way I am, I probably would not worry about it (in the same way I ignore the rules about polycotton and mildew).
A lot obviously hinges on individual beliefs, but I do know some trannies who do have a problem with this passage. And ignoring it simply does not work, in the same way that "The Purge" never works either.
Forgive me for possibly oversimplifing things here but it seems from what you having been saying that the bible is basically a 2000yo (feel free to quible over that number as regards OT and NT) textbook.
Would it not, therefore, be time to update it? I hate to suggest making it more relevant (as it seems that is the politicans answer to everything these days) but as has been indicated there are passages in there which are of no relevance these days.
Of course, I imagine that such a idea/move would cause absolute chaos in a church that is having a hard enough time trying to deal with other issues...
It's a nice idea, but it still comes down to interpretation. In order to simplify we need to know exactly what was meant in the first place. Get that wrong and the new version would be even more contentious.
The existing translations are bad enough. For example, "Thou shalt not steal". I was taught (at Leeds University - not at theological college) that the word translated as steal is more correctly translated as "steal a person". The implication is that it really refers tokidnapping. But it is so much simpler (and such a good idea) to have "steal" that we have been stuck with it since Tyndale translated the Bible into English (and was executed by Henry VIII for his troubles).
Simplifying is a nice idea, but would probably cause more problems than it solves.
Heheh, that's exactly the argument that Jane and I had when we discussed this earlier. I was all for consigning the Bible to it's place as a historical tome, and starting again with Bible 2.0, which cut out the bollocks about shellfish and Canaanites, and made more relevent.
Jane, ever the pragmatist, explained why it wasn't quite as simple as that. :-)
Moving towards the ever so slightly flippant, is Bible 2.0 going to be compatible with Web 2.0, e.g. tagging goodness etc?
If Bill Gates has anything to do with Bible 2.0 then, as Sgt. Frazer would have it, "We're doomed".
But think of all the people it would reach if it was integrated into windows a la IE. :)
I'll get my coat - and thus let this discussion get back on topic.
I'm in favour of freedom of interpretation. But then then I've just finished off a bottle of Romanion(?) Pinot Noir.
> Romanion
Bloody papists.
And I see they have their own bible to mock us with
If you take it strictly as written in English, it is rather plain though. "nor shall a man put on a woman's garment" So if I actually OWN the skirt i'm wearing, it's not some woman's skirt, it's mine, so that's okay, Right? Or in other words, "I think he said, 'Blessed are the cheesemakers!'"
> If you take it strictly as written in English
But if you take it strictly as written in Hebrew...
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but thats the basic tenant of the link isn't it? In many cases when the Bible get's translated into another language, the original meaning is slightly distorted.
What's worrying is that people then take that distortion and present it as The Word Of God. But what they're actually quoting is the equivalent of running a text back and forward in Bablefish from English to French to English a few times.
(Sorry for the melodramatic "This comment has been romved" thing BTW - I just double posted in a drunken stupor last night, that's all)
Siobhan - I guessed.
At the heart of the argument (not that anyone seems to be arguing) you have spotted the problem - we don't use the original text (some of it being written in Hebrew, some in Aramaic, some in Greek). So the translation has "corrupted" (oops - that'll get the fundamentalists fuming) the meaning. Hence, one unsupported phrase seems to be dodgy ground to condemn even one individual.
Again, I'm not trying to convince people one way or another. I'm not trying to convert people to Christianity (and I promise that that is not on the agenda if I ever meet any of you). All I'm doing is trying to (a) give some support to others who are struggling with this awkward bit; (b) give some ammunition to use (in self-defense) when you meet the Bible Bashers.
Just wanna point out that my last comment was indeed a joke. My favourite part of the movie "Life of Brian" is the sermon on the mount, where Christ himself is RIGHT THERE telling them the beatitudes, spoken directly from his own lips, and some people still got it wrong.
When anybody asks me about the Bible being "open for interpretation" than I must say Of COURSE it's open for interpretation, seeing that it had to be interpreted into English in the first place. Most of what is good and/or evil is entirely dependant on the individuals point of view, or translation of the law. Evil people don't usually think what they are doing is evil. Not only that, of all that Deuteronomy gives us as "laws", being told to not dress in womans garments is actually one of the least worrisome.
Emily,
I recognized the quote.
"Oh it's the meek. I glad they're gonna get something 'cos they've had ever such a hard time".
However, not only did the crowd get it wrong but some of the viewers got it all wrong as well and launched an attack on the Pythons back n '79 (ish). And, you guessed it, the Church was right at the forefront.
Recently a British poll voted "Life of Brian" the funniest film ever. WHen they polled the UK clergy half agreed and half still thought it blasphemous.
We never learn
The problem with Bible 2.0 is that would be OUR interpretation, relevant to 20-21st century life, in another 2000 years we would need Bible 3.0. Actually I think (if anyone cares what I think) that Bible 1.0 is pretty relevant today if you read it with your brain switched on and consider the context it was written in. Even the awkward bits.
"The problem with Bible 2.0 is that would be OUR interpretation, relevant to 20-21st century life, in another 2000 years we would need Bible 3.0."
2000 years? If Microsoft got hold of it, it wouldn't last 18 months. ;-)
"Where would you like to sin today?
So the translation has "corrupted" [...] the meaning. Hence, one unsupported phrase seems to be dodgy ground to condemn even one individual.
Exactly. If it was today, and GOd had sent Moses an email or something, there would have been tonnes of emoticons just to make sure he wasn't being misunderstood...
You shall have no other gods before me >:(
The thing is though, people do use unsupported phrases to add weight to their predjudices. People quote the Bible left right and centre to denounce homosexuality, for example - when all they're doing is fluffing up their own sense of self-importance and self-righteousness by putting others down. They're saying "I am a good person, because this thing says you're a bad person."
And the problem is that there's no possible way of presenting any argument against it. When people have 'blind' faith, they tend not to respond to rational discussion. (I'm not saying that Christianity is "blind" faith, I'm just saying that some - the more vocal perhaps - take things without much question. And if people take things without question, then there's not a lot you can do to make them question things, is there?)
So, this is all bad. My question though, is what to do about it? I was starting to form the opinion that it would take a few clergy to go out there and be open, and slap a few heads together, but then I remembered the furore over that gay Bishop.
It sometimes seems to me that the Church isn't run by the Church - it's run my the parishoners.
This is a very similar discussion to one happening here in canada. The anglican church is really infighting over alot of gay issues.
The local top clergy guy, for the diosese of New Westminster has been in all kinds of extremely hot water over his openness to quite a few queer isues including gay marriage. Splits has happended and all sorts of crazy stuff has been said.
I wonder if this focus on Deuteronomy is a bit of a red herring. I realise that it is quoted often these days by fundamentalists but I don't think it really gets to the heart of Christian objections to cross-dressing.
In the early centuries the Church was surely opposed to transvestism because of its association with the pagan world, in particular with certain cultic activities (Cybele and so on)and with the theatre. But I don't suppose that has much influence these days.
From the sixteenth century, however, with the concomitant rise of Protestantism and the bourgeoisie, we get a certain ideology, opposed to Catholicism and the aristocracy, that values openness, honesty, simplicity, plain-speaking and the unadorned truth, the natural, a sense of the proper and the appropriate, of what rightfully belongs to a man and a woman. Most people these days don't go so far as the Puritans but these attitudes are still prevalent. How many think of make-up on a woman as excessive, artificial, distorting, unnatural, dishonest and so on? (And on a transvestite it's all that and improper and unsuitable, too). How often do you hear of natural or unadorned or inner beauty instead? Of course, these Protestant/bourgeois attitudes have been criticised often enough - but within the Church? I doubt it, really, because I suspect such criticism leads to a suspicion of the notion of a soul and its relation towards a personal God.
The previous comment shouldn't have been anonymous...
Phew! Stephanie. Had to re-read that a number of times to try to understand it (scientists don't really understand philosphy - that's why they are given Doctorates in Philosophy :-) )
The Deuteronomy bit is the one that's often flung at us (because it's the easiest one to use). But do most Christians actually have a problem with cross dressing? Certainly in the realms of theatre I suspect the answer is "no" (otherwise pantomime has got serious problems).
And you're right in your understanding of the early church and its relation to paganism (although, most Christian feasts are actually pagan ones that have been "Christianised" - after all, if the people are used to having a party on that day, why stop them? Let's just Christianise it and "party on").
Your final paragraph sounds plausible, however, it does seem to suggest that this "anti-tranny" position is actually a form of "anti-Catholicism". But the Catholic Church are not particularly friendly to transgendered folk either.
And, to really muddy the waters, it is necessary to realise that the Church of England is NOT a protestant church. It is catholic - but reformed. That might sound like sitting on the fence, but I like to think that it is simply a case that we didn't (unlike the Puritans and Lutherans) throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't find the appearance of a made-up woman excessive, artificial, distorting, unnatural or dishonest (and I know you never suggested I did). But I know many others who don't find that to be the case either. Perhaps I'm the exception to the rule (and sometimes, I think to myself, "God, I hope so"). But you're right in stating that the Church doesn't criticise itself often enough - primarily, I would suggest, because it would never find any agreement.
It is more than just possible that I've completely misunderstood you. I'm simply trying to say that we're not all bigoted. Some of us are really quite nice.
I wouldn't begin to suggest that all Christians are bigoted - I'm pretty sure that the whole range of possible responses to transvestism is represented among the millions who make up the church.
It's not really important what individual Christians might think, though - what concerns me is that, because we live in what is, historically, a Christian culture certain values have become commonplace in our society even among those whose who are not practising Christians. The concept of nature, for example.
It is very easy to take up an anti-transvestitic position on the basis of those values. Hence my anti-make-up-pro-natural-look example (common among feminists and hippies and so on - who are using secularised versions of what were originally Christian arguments).
I would argue that it is more difficult to hold on to those values and take up a pro-transvestitic viewpoint. I'm curious how people like yourself do it. Eg don't you, as a Christian, have to live with the idea that the two sexes are, in their nature and essence, their role and purpose, divinely ordained? Where does transvestism fit in with that? And what's the cost, to you as a Christian, of challenging that idea too much?
I suspect we godless materialists have it easier:)
I would argue that it is more difficult to hold on to those values and take up a pro-transvestitic viewpoint.
It is difficult. It causes immense amounts of angst and it is really the reason I started this particular thread.
I'm curious how people like yourself do it. Eg don't you, as a Christian, have to live with the idea that the two sexes are, in their nature and essence, their role and purpose, divinely ordained?
That's another difficult one. But, by extension, it could be argued that any physical attributes which are formed in the womb are divinely ordained. And yet the majority of us don't flinch from medical science correcting congenital abnormalities.
Again, I think it all comes back to recognising the fact that many of these laws were written for a particular society at a particular time and are there to guide us in today's moral maze. And seriously, I don't think God is too bothered what I wear so long as I love God and my neighbour.
It is, as Siobhan observed, the parishioners who have the real problems with it.
Post a Comment