By Mankhrawbor Dunai
This write-up is a rejoinder to Kong Patricia Mukhim’s article entitled “Striking Down #377 and Societal Response” (ST September 14, 2018). I would firstly like to thank Kong Patricia for bringing this issue up through the paper as it has generated varied responses from different sections of society. The fact that it has been actively addressed both in the print media and also in the public space is a testament to the need of society to take up the issue.
Certain misconceptions have arisen about Section 377 and I suppose Kong Patricia’s wording of her article is reflective of this misunderstanding. Contrary to what many think, Section 377 was not struck down by the Supreme Court; it only struck down part of the Section 377 which criminalised same sex and attracts ten years of imprisonment. I clarify this point because many people have the impression that Section 377 is only about homosexuality when in fact issues of bestiality, sexual acts without consent and any sexual acts with minors is still covered in Section 377. In essence, the issue is about what is morally permissible from a sexual stand point. Sexuality as understood in the secular space and its view from within the Christian framework are completely at odds. In the secular space, sex becomes an act or an expression of intimacy or a recreational activity (among other things). In the Christian context, sex is viewed as sacred; it is a union within a sacred space. A Christian marriage therefore is a sacred union between a man and a woman bound together by a commitment not just to each other but to God as well. This view of marriage is at odds with the view of marriage from a secular view as it may be viewed primarily as a social contract between two consenting (ideally) adults. How one interprets the body (whether it is sacred or simply a ‘personal space’) is fundamental in understanding how sexuality and sexual expression is viewed by the different sections that are part of the LGTQ debate.
Another pertinent point that Kong Patricia has brought up is the assertion that the Bible is a text that has been written by men and the text therefore reflects the moral leanings of said writers. This is a really contentious assertion as it touches upon the idea of Biblical Inspiration and is in essence challenging its validity. Though it would be difficult to do justice to a topic such as this given the paucity of space and words, an attempt to clarify still needs to be made. If the Bible is to be understood as the ‘’Inspired Word of God’, it means that it is a text that has not been directly authored by the divine. Rather, it is a text that has been authored by humans with God as the “chief-editor” whereby the Holy Spirit leads these people as they contribute to the biblical narrative. The assertion therefore that there is some disjunction between the Old and New Testaments is flawed. Consequently, it follows that authorial intent within the biblical framework is always tempered with the editorial nuance of ‘divine inspiration’ and this is reflected in the continuity of core values and doctrines that have remained the same despite it being written by more than 40 authors covering a period of thousands of years.
In her section on Societal Responses, Kong Patricia has rightfully pointed out that individuals who seek answers to the emotional and social difficulties that come along with the LGTQ choices need to be addressed. She has however made the assertion that the Church can’t help these people as it has failed to give due representation to women; forget transgenders and such other marginal groups. There is this obsession with cherry-picking verses out of context both from adherents and opponents alike; my sincere request is that we should at least do some biblical exegeses before inserting our subjective and ill-informed opinions on the text. Though this issue will require an entire article in itself, women have played a profound role within the biblical narrative in ways that we tend to overlook because we like to focus on ‘seemingly’ offensive verses. As for the society and the Christian response, the Church if it is to truly reflect Christ must mirror the stance of Christ as he attends to the marginalised and the ones in need. By mingling with the prostitutes and the tax collectors, he did not condemn them but offered them something beyond the life they chose; a life liberated and grounded in God. And here is where it truly pinches because we arrive at the whole idea of what a naturalistic, Judeo-Christian, Islamic or pantheistic worldview interprets the idea of the self. And depending on which worldview one subscribes to, it makes objective assertions and we all must live with the logical consequences of the choice of worldview we adhere to. Living in a pluralistic society, we must understand how we must learn to co-exist in a world of competing worldviews otherwise the society we know will crumble into one of hate and bigotry.