FEATURE ARTICLE


Nnaemeka Luke Aneke, MDWednesday, April 14, 2004
advertisement
[email protected]
Westbury, NY, USA

ANNOUNCE THIS ARTICLE TO YOUR FRIENDS


CHRISTIANITY, HOMOSEXUALISM, AND THE BIBLE:
A COMMENTARY ON MR. NWACHUKWU'S "HOMOSEXUALITY IS NOT A BIBLE AFFAIR" (PART I of II)


advertisement
n the later half of 2003, the controversy-ridden ordination of Gene Robinson as Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, USA, was expectedly followed by a plethora of writings dealing with the fallout of the ordination. Names such as Steve Nwabuzor, Samuel Arowolaju, Femi Awodele, Remi Oyeyemi, Chukwu Nwachukwu, N.H. Ibanga and others contributed articles that furthered and enlightened the subject to one degree or the other.

But there was the article by Chukwu Nwachukwu titled ''Homosexuality is not a bible affair'' published in Nigeriaworld.com on August 16, 2003 that tended not only to justify homosexualism, but to compare it with blackness. I believe that for the sake of balancing and also elucidation of some implicitness in the article, a commentary is necessary and appropriate.

Mr. Nwachukwu's first attempt to legitimate homosexuality was to imply that homosexuality is a known fact in African culture and that people like the Anglican bishop of Owerri, whom he referred to, are simply trying to hide the fact. I do not know the Anglican Bishop of Owerri or what he believes in, so I am not writing in defense of him, but to address some of the facts presented. Mr. Nwachukwu cited the relationship in high schools between senior and junior students in both male and female schools as examples of homosexualism and also the phenomenon of women marrying women in some African communities.

Mr. Nwachukwu is correct that relationships existed in the female high schools, which he called "mother and daughter" relationship similar to what existed in the boys' high schools too. But as mush as "mother and daughter" relationship was common place in female high schools, Mr. Nwachukwu agrees that it has "a very slim dividing line" with lesbian relationship. I will not waste the reader's time since it has been agreed that "mother and daughter" relationship is not lesbianism but that the line dividing them is "very slim". I believe that the line between "mother and daughter" relationship and lesbianism is quite clear and broad but I will save the energy of the argument and let a "very slim" line do for now.

Also, Mr. Nwachukwu's second example of women marrying women as an indication of lesbianism in the African society lacks viability and potency. First of all, women marrying women, under some circumstances, is not uniquely African. The commonest cause of course, is infertility in the older women or lack of male offspring in those cultures where male offsprings range from necessary to indispensable. Hence, the older woman, if forced to "marry" a wife for her husband, (or if her husband is deceased, for the closest next-of-kin of her husband) to "go in unto her" for consummation of procreation. This is not different from what Sarai, Abraham's wife did when, she, being sterile, gave her maid to Abraham in marriage. It was Sarai that initiated the marriage and encouraged the consummation (Gen. 16:1-4) because those women regard the offspring of the second woman their own kids indeed. There are other examples with Rachel, the wife of Jacob who "married" her maid for her husband (Gen. 30: 1-6) and the incident raised by the Sadducees with Christ to ridicule the ides of resurrection: (Luke 20: 27-33). To give the impression that the practice is uniquely African, and then to extrapolate it as an indication of lesbianism in African society is fallacious and paralytic.

Again, in attempting to use "woman marrying woman" as a proof of homosexualism or lesbianism in the African society, Mr. Nwachukwu said in part:

In Igbo culture there is the accepted practice of a woman marrying another woman (though the male members of the kindred arrange who lies with the woman to raise children for the family, but it has not been proved that the woman-husband never gratifies herself sexually with the woman-wife).

The problematic phrase here is the assertion "but it has not been proved that the woman-husband never gratifies herself sexually with the woman-wife". Mr. Nwachukwu is implying somewhat that sexual gratification takes place between the woman-husband and the woman-wife but states that "it has not been proved". The question is: "It has not been proved by who? Whose responsibility is it to prove it?" In the practice of law, he/she who makes an allegation has the burden of proof of the allegation. You cannot make an allegation and maintain it is true unless the contrary is proved. It is Mr. Nwachukwu's responsibility to prove that in Igboland (which he used as an example) that women who marry women engage in sexual gratification with them. And where he cannot prove it (and I doubt if he can) he cannot shift the burden to the society to prove the contrary or insist that they prove that a negative does not exist?

The next is Mr. Nwachukwu's attempt to discredit the bible and water down its condemnation of homosexuality which the bible makes clearly, forcefully, and unmistakably. Anybody can attack the bible, and people have made a living of attacking the bible. Notwithstanding, the bible has a multi-pronged capability of defending itself, and that is why experienced Christians do not waste their precious time defending the bible. So what I plan to do here is not to defend the bible, but to point out to the reader, the lack of intellectual and academic credibility in the attacker's attack of the bible.

Mr. Nwachukwu's attacks on the bible included both outright and insinuative comments such as "The Bible cannot tell us much about the human body and how it works. Its writers only knew little of the human body compared to what science knows today. It is only from the knowledge which these writers had and the aim of preserving their religious system.". "The bible is not a book that gives answers" and "It does not encourage. It does not consider the human situation. It does not analyse. It instils (sic) fear" Again, I will be doing the reader a disservice in responding to these assertions where the author is incapable, in the first place, of separating his opinions from established facts. Furthermore, Mr. Nwachukwu mentioned several studies without citing even one of them for the reader to refer to. The best he gave us was to repeatedly and severally tell us that "studies have shown.", "studies have shown." and "studies have shown.". Which studies? Why not cite or reference even one of those studies and at least enable interested readers to check your claims and assertions, if they wish?

In Mr. Nwachukwu's treatise, the bible is blamed for the unpleasant consequences of "misunderstanding of the bible" and "arguments of the bible"-whatever that means. In trying to moderate his blatant attacks on the bible, Mr. Nwachukwu wrote "I do not disregard the Bible. It is an important book of faith. It contains stories which can lift us up when we feel low. It contains stories that can give us courage in the face of adversities. I read it often but not as a fundamentalist" But there are also books written by Shakespeare, Wale Soyinka and Chinua Achebe that can lift you up when you feel low and give you encouragements in times of adversities. These are not the distinguishing features of the bible. Again, we are not told the difference between Mr. Nwachukwu method of reading the bible and that of a fundamentalist.

What is indeed more dangerous than the foregoing is the overt fallacies stated by Mr. Nwachukwu about the bible. In his further attempt to undermine the bible, he writes: "The bible cannot tell us about the origin of the world neither can it tell us about its end." It is an outright fallacy and a deliberate intellectual distortion to state that the bible cannot tell us about the origin of the world or its end. The bible is full of references and texts about the origin and fate of the world, indeed more than any other book of comparable significance. The fact that you don't believe it or prefer to believe it as an ancient myth of the near East does not undo the historical and scriptural narrative contained in the bible. Again after lots of narratives about what the bible is not, Mr. Nwachukwu didn't tell us what the bible is.

In his further quest to denigrate the bible, Mr. Nwachukwu advanced another fallacy that, on its face, is easily identifiable even by a novice, in stating that, as opposed to facts, the biblical texts were "mere reflections of people who lived many years after the said events took place". The first pathetic observation here is the broad generalization of "these texts", referring to the bible without exception, which, of course, is preposterous. The second part that calls biblical texts "mere reflections of people", as against factual events, is too sterile to merit any commentary or waste the reader's time. In other words, the bible is not a factual record but reflections /conclusions of the writers based on those facts. Of course that misrepresentation is so blatant and its falsehood so evident, that no analysis is needed to help the reader identify accordingly.

In furtherance of his effort to undermine the bible, Mr. Nwachukwu stated that the events of the New Testament were written many years after Jesus. He said in part: "It may shock some people to learn that the first texts of the New testament, were written many year after Jesus must have lived and died and that the writers of these texts never saw Jesus face to face." Why should it shock some people to know that about 30 to 40 years elapsed between Jesus death and the first gospels? Or should that interval and the fact that some of the writers did not see Jesus face to face undermine the credibility of the story on its face? That insinuation is invertebrate. The fact of the matter is that it is not unusual for people to remember things in details 30 to 50 years after they happened depending on the impact of the event, especially an event like Jesus' life on earth.

For instance, Alexander the Great, a major historical figure, died in 323 B.C. His first two biographies by historians, Arrian and Plutarch, were written more than four hundred years after his death. Yet, historians and scholars consider them to be authentic and reliable. This implies that for five hundred years, the story of Alexander the Great was preserved successfully enough for historians to rely on them today. So, compared with the story of Alexander the Great, what is the big deal that Jesus' story was not written till thirty or more years after he died.

There is also another instance. In July 1967, 37 years ago, I was a first year pupil in a High School in Enugu. One evening, the Principal of our school called the school together to tell us that the school was being closed till further notice because Nigerian forces have invaded Biafra and that battles were ragging at Nsukka, Ogoja and Gakem. Yet today, I still remember details of that speech and I can reproduce it 99%, and so can many of my classmates. Today, I can still describe with more than 99% accuracy the air raids at our refugee camp in Biafra:- what time the plane came, how low they flew, how many bombs they dropped and the deaths and dismemberments.

When I was home last Christmas, my aunt who attended Lt. Col. Ifeajuna's rally at Enugu Secretariat in June 1967 could still reproduce than 90% of what Ifeajuma told them. So this business that things that were recorded many years after they happened were factually compromised is nonsense. Some of the Nigerian generals who wrote about the Nigerian Civil war did so more than twenty years after the war. Yet, they had their facts correct and their accounts are regarded with credibility by historians. In addition, at least for Christians and those that believe the bible, Jesus Christ promised his disciples that the Holy Spirit will help them to remember the things he told them (John 14:26). Hence, to imply in anyway that the bible lacked any measure of authenticity because of the short interval between Jesus' death and the writings is both disingenuous and historically unpersuasive.

To be continued in Part II

Dr. Nnaemeka Luke Aneke, MD, JD lives in Westbury, New York.