Op-ed in Uganda’s Independent: Put down the stones

This appeared on the website of the Independent.

At Uganda Talks we welcome guest blogs from our readers. Today, associate professor of psychology at Grove City (a Christian college in the U.S.), Warren Throckmorton, writes about Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill.

Put down the stones

Christians believe that when Jesus was confronted by the religious leaders of His day, He had just the right response. However, I fear that many of my Ugandan brothers and sisters now doubt that Jesus was correct in His example. Let me explain.

In the 8th chapter of the Gospel of John, the Pharisees and teachers of the law brought a woman to Jesus for Him to judge.

They said, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” The woman expressed no repentance, no remorse; she was coerced to this degrading situation by the religious leaders who used her as a scapegoat and example.

Jesus did not speak but instead wrote in the dirt on the ground before He spoke. We don’t know what He wrote, but we do know what He said: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”

No one tossed so much as a pebble. They all walked away, leaving the woman untouched by the wrath of men. Rather, she had been touched by the mercy of her Benefactor.

Jesus asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

We do not know whether or not she left her life of sin. The Bible does not say. However, we do know that Jesus prevented this woman from being stoned to death. She had sinned and was free to go.

Was Jesus wrong?

As I read the Anti-Homosexuality Bill proposed in Uganda by MPs David Bahati and Benson Obua, I wonder if perhaps these gentlemen think Jesus should have picked up a stone. Instead, Jesus intervened on behalf of the woman, was He wrong?

Clearly, He did not believe adultery was proper. But He signaled a new way of dealing with sin, one which emphasizes mercy and freedom, rather than coercion and death. People must choose to follow the teachings of Christ, not be coerced by Pharisees or government officials. The human heart cannot be changed by laws, but through the freely chosen grace of Christ.

Brothers and sisters, jailing or killing gays or those suspected of being gay or those who know gays cannot create a righteous people, and in fact may further a self-righteous people. One may disapprove of homosexuality, and still treat homosexuals as you would want to be treated. Who among us could stand if our private sins were judged in such a manner as the Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009?

I urge my brethren in beautiful Uganda to follow the example of Jesus. Please, for the sake of Christ, put down your stones.

21 thoughts on “Op-ed in Uganda’s Independent: Put down the stones”

  1. Kigingi Busagwa ~ This is not a time to negotiate truth.Laws are made for law breakers in order to protect other people in society according to the word of God. God knows that laws cant change hearts of people to do right but these laws will finally lead these law breakers towards His mercy otherwise how will God give mercy and these civil laws protect society.

    Uganda is a theocracy with your brand of Christianity in charge? Funny, I thought people were free to determine religious ‘truth’ in your country according to their own faith. Who knows, there may be some who see homosexuality in a whole different theological light than you, as well as interpret their god or gods in different ways.

    These people who say that it is a private affair and that everyone has their own privacy to do what they want in their bedrooms,are mistaken because if the love making your parents did in private brought forth you in the world and you have become part of our public-it is wrong for you to think That the gays have a right to do their thing in private and it will not affect the public.

    It’s wrong because it is wrong?

  2. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery to “go and sin no more”.He did not say go back to your old life. God is a God of mercy and rejoices with the truth not a lie. Its in the new testament 1Corinthians 6 that the bible warns us that homosexuals will not enter heaven.This is not a time to negotiate truth.Laws are made for law breakers in order to protect other people in society according to the word of God.God knows that laws cant change hearts of people to do right but these laws will finally lead these law breakers towards His mercy otherwise how will God give mercy and these civil laws protect society.I wonder if Warren will turn away from civil laws in the name of laws dont change hearts? Civil laws that are made to protect the family and marriage cannot be graded as satanic and anti-God.These people who say that it is a private affair and that everyone has their own privacy to do what they want in their bedrooms,are mistaken because if the love making your parents did in private brought forth you in the world and you have become part of our public-it is wrong for you to think That the gays have a right to do their thing in private and it will not affect the public.

  3. Yes, those two laws could be an adequate foundation. But a foundation without building blocks serves no purpose, provides no protection, no stronghold, no shelter, no stability. If those two laws were all we needed, Christ would have simply repeated that same message everywhere He went…and the Epistles would have just regurgitated them over and over again as a mantra of sorts.

  4. We all want the Jesus that stops and judges the mob…

    Less so the Jesus that tells us to “Sin no more.”

    No additional comment; I just thought it was worthy of being repeated.

    David, Eddy,

    So, so, true!

  5. The mob caught her in adultery. (They were right. There was sin.)

    The mob felt justified in stoning her. After all, that was God’s law, wasn’t it? And they were righteous, law-abiding people, weren’t they? (Narcissism and sadism.)

    Jesus invited the sinless to throw first.

    No one did. (Individual conscience enlightened by God.)

    It occurred to me just now that Narcissim violates the first of the Great Commandments and self-righteous Sadism violates the second.

    I know you balk somewhat, David, at the idea that these two commandments could be an adequate foundation for moral conduct, but I still think these two laws (if obeyed) would be all we really need for true “morality” and true justice.

    http://philosophy.csusb.edu/~tmoody/Past%20classes/F05%20191%20Compassion.htm

  6. Christ says, “Awaken your conscience, stop sinning” and by implication, “live.”

    I really like that.

  7. @ Michael,

    I agree that It is important that one live according to one’s own conscience before God — whatever the mob might do or say.

    You misunderstood me…I think that often, the mob is right (there has been sin, for example), but their motives are poisoned by narcissism…and sadism.

    It is not just my conscience before God, it is also my conscience in community, sometimes a hostile, belittling and stupid community.

    My conscience is never wholly my own, it is an amalgamation of multiple generations, several cultures, my childhood and my adult experiences. It can be just as fallen or corrupt as the mob…

    The power of the mob is in the accusation that by our behavior we have demonstrated that our conscience is totally corrupt and that we are beyond redemption.

    Christ says, “Awaken you conscience, stop sinning” and by implication, “live.”

  8. David, I agree that It is important that one live according to one’s own conscience before God — whatever the mob might do or say.

    “Justice is conscience, not a personal conscience but the conscience of the whole of humanity. Those who clearly recognize the voice of their own conscience usually recognize also the voice of justice.” —

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn:

  9. In my own life, I have often feared the ridicule of the mob. A mob that could be righteous, but more often sought to marginalize because of their power, my weakness, stupidity or sinfulness.

    Too often I confused the mob with my conscience…when I silenced the mob, I still had my conscience…

  10. We all want the Jesus that stops and judges the mob…

    Less so the Jesus that tells us to “Sin no more.”

    No additional comment; I just thought it was worthy of being repeated.

  11. I won’t challenge the assessment that the passage in John is not part of the original. All the sources I am familiar with attest to that, including Metzger, Ehrman and the Jesus Seminar Fellows. But the point still remains that this is a part of the “Biblical Canon”, which is to say those teachings which lend to the edification of the Church. Additionally, it can be debated just how much of the entire Gospel of John is historically authentic. If we accept the dating to be some where between 90 – 110 AD then we are already dealing with a document which is more the proclamation of the Christian community and an interpretation of the ministry of Jesus.

  12. More Trouble:

    Nearly all modern scholars agree that this Pericope de Adultera is not authentic. Bruce Metzger, a leading biblical scholar, put it this way:[4]

    The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as Papyrus66.75 Aleph B L N T W X Y D Q Y 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al. Codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it is highly probable that neither contained the pericope, for careful measurement discloses that there would not have been space enough on the missing leaves to include the section along with the rest of the text. In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc.s. and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospels do not contain it.

    found here, for what it is worth: http://conservapedia.com/Adulteress_story

    Don’t know it there is a better example, Warren, of the Biblical idea you want to share…

    But your point is still well taken.

  13. But He signaled a new way of dealing with sin, one which emphasizes mercy and freedom, rather than coercion and death. People must choose to follow the teachings of Christ, not be coerced by Pharisees or government officials. The human heart cannot be changed by laws, but through the freely chosen grace of Christ.

    I think this passage is about the narcissic and devaluing nature of public piety…of which public humiliation and coercion are part and parcel.

    There are also problems with using this passage, as it is one of the weakest passages attributed to John (probably added a couple of hundred years after the first rendition of the Gospel of John).

  14. We all want the Jesus that stops and judges the mob…

    Less so the Jesus that tells us to “Sin no more.”

  15. One from within Uganda speaks out against the bill:

    Opinions | November 3, 2009

    Why anti-gay Bill should worry us

    Sylvia Tamale

    .

    Given the various views that have accompanied the release of the ‘Bahati Bill’ on homosexuality, it is necessary to soberly assess what the Bill is really about. It is questionable how many of those that support the Bill have actually examined it beyond the words “anti-homosexuality.” In many respects we are like wood cutters standing at the edge of the woods, only seeing individual trees and not the forest (the bigger picture). But even those of us that vehemently oppose homosexuality should be asking ourselves a number of questions: Why bring a new law when homosexuality is already criminalised under existing ones? How will the Bill affect me personally?

    .

    The fact is that out of the 18 clauses that make up this Bill, only six introduce new legal provisions, two of which are minor. The other 12 simply repeat what already exists on the law books. Most significant is the fact that the provisions of the other four substantive new clauses blatantly violate Uganda’s Constitution and many other regional and international instruments. And for those who think that the Bill is only directed against ‘the homosexuals,’ they should look again.

    .

    Homosexuality is already an offence under the Penal Code of Uganda as is same-sex marriage, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Bill expands the meaning of the Penal Code offence of having “carnal knowledge against the order of nature” and defines the term “homosexuality” in such a broad fashion as to include “touching another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality.” This is a provision highly prone to abuse and puts all citizens at great risk. Such a provision would make it very easy for a person to bring false accusations against their enemies simply to “destroy” their reputations. Just ask Pastor Kayanja!

    .

    The offence of “aggravated homosexuality” is a duplication of the Penal Code provision on “aggravated defilement.” It is therefore superfluous and redundant in the ‘Bahati Bill’. Additionally, the provisions on attempt to commit, aiding and abetting, conspiracy to commit, using threats, detention with intent to commit, and keeping brothels, are all detailed in the current Penal Code. Many of us say, “Those homosexuals should be dealt with in the harshest terms possible.” Others ask the question: “Why should I lift a finger about this Bill that does not concern me?” Actually it concerns us all.

    .

    The Bill introduces several new substantive provisions. First is “Promotion of Homosexuality.” That clause introduces widespread censorship and undermines fundamental freedoms such as the rights to free speech, expression, association and assembly. Under this provision an unscrupulous person aspiring to unseat an MP can easily send the incumbent MP unsolicited material via e-mail or text messaging, implicating the latter as one “promoting homosexuality.” After being framed in that way, it will be very difficult for the victim to shake free of the “stigma.”

    .

    Secondly, by criminalising the “funding and sponsoring of homosexuality and related activities,” the Bill deals a major blow to Uganda’s public health policies and efforts. Take for example, the Most At Risk Populations’ Initiative introduced by the Ministry of Health in 2008, which targets specific populations to curb the HIV/Aids scourge. If this Bill becomes law, health practitioners as well as those that have put money into this exemplary initiative will automatically be liable to imprisonment for seven years!

    .

    The third concept the Bill introduces is the “Failure to Disclose the Offence.” Under this provision any person in authority (including parents) is obliged to report a homosexual to the relevant authorities within 24 hours of acquiring such knowledge. So a mother who is trying to come to terms with her child’s sexual orientation may be dragged to police cells for not turning in her child to the authorities.

    Another new provision relates to extra-territorial jurisdiction, which basically confers authority on Ugandan law enforcers to arrest and charge a Ugandan citizen or permanent resident who engages in homosexual activities outside the borders of Uganda. The Penal Code already provides for crimes that call for extra-territoriality. These are limited to treason, terrorism and war mongering.

    It is important to note that serious offences such as murder, rape or grievous bodily harm do not invoke extra-territorial jurisdiction in our laws.

    .

    Are the drafters of this Bill suggesting that sex between consenting adults is worse than murder? And how exactly will they enforce this provision? Is the government going to storm the bedrooms of consenting adults, or deploy spies to follow them when they travel abroad in order to establish who they have slept with and how they did it? What about our constitutional right to privacy? This Bill carries hidden venom that is bound to spread beyond persons that engage in homosexuality.

    .

    Hence the term “homosexuality” in the title of the Bill should not blind our eyes to its wider implications. Those sitting back and thinking, “Get them Bahati!” may be shocked one day when it is them that this law throws in jail.

    .

    Perhaps the most shocking aspect of this Bill is the one requiring Uganda to opt out of any international treaty that we have previously ratified which goes against the spirit of the Bill. The drafters of the Bill should know that under international law, Uganda cannot unilaterally negate or declare a withdrawal from its international treaty obligations. Moreover, it is completely unconstitutional and illegal for Parliament to usurp the powers of the President regarding the ratification of international treaties.

    .

    Politicians find that homosexuals are a great scapegoat or red herring to divert attention to more pressing issues that affect the ordinary Ugandan such as unemployment, corruption, poor health facilities, reform of electoral laws and so forth. If we are to be absolutely honest with ourselves, we should ask whether there are not more pressing issues of moral violation in other areas such as domestic violence, torture and corruption. None of these areas have specific laws outlawing their practice. That is where the likes of Hon. Bahati should expend their energies.

    .

    Ms Tamale is a Makerere University Law don

  16. Will this OP-ed be available to the general popullis in Uganda? -or- will it be suppressed by the gov’t and its ministers?

  17. Seems the Ugandian’s in favor of the bill are framing their oppositition to those who see homosexuality as a human right. They have not addressed the idea of being given life as a gift from God and sin being something we all work on. The gay activists in America and Europe frame it as a human right to be gay – but that’s not the posittion of many who oppose the bill. We oppose the penalty for having sin.

  18. Thank you Dr. Throckmorton – I can think of many things to say but none will mean as much as telling you how grateful I am for the truth and light you bring to a very complex subject matter.

Comments are closed.