Is “infestation” Biblical language?

[Szdfan]

[/font]Lately, there's been back and forth between John and me about the language of "infestation." Specifically, his use of the word to describe gay and lesbian people.

The most recent example:

It's utterly fascinating how you have objected to one of my biggest objections to Trump (the infestation of perverts like homosexuals in his cabinet); protesting that is "dehumanising". It isn't "dehumanising"; anyone could just choose not to engage in such perversions. I consider perverts in public office, church offices, etc. to be an infestation, because they are something that needs to be removed.

I want to be clear what this thread is about and what it’s not about.

I am not attacking John as a person. I am not challenging his beliefs on homosexuality. I am not accusing him of being a Nazi or a white supremacist. I am not claiming he is calling for violence against anyone.

I’m asking a narrower question: is it appropriate for Christians to use “infestation” language to describe fellow humans they believe are committing grievous sins?

I realize this is going to be a long post and that I come across as intense and obsessive, unable to let things go. I assure you that I’m aware of these aspects of myself.

I’m also a teacher on summer break.

But there are a few reasons why I can’t let this go and why I feel like I should challenge this language:

1) One of my deepest theological convictions is that God’s Creation is good, even though it is fallen. Sin may warp Creation and distort it out of His intentions, but that does not change the foundational claim of Genesis 1 that it is good. Likewise, I also believe that since humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27), we all have an inherent dignity, regardless of who we are, where we come from and what we believe. Language that reduces humans to vermin, disease or infestation violates the God created dignity in all of us.

2) As many of you know, I spend a considerable part of my childhood in Berlin and have absorbed the German way of understanding and wrestling with World War II. The Nazi era is still within living memory, especially during my childhood in the 1980s and 90s. Part of the German reckoning over their past is to ask what enabled a highly educated, cultured and historically Christian population to go along with the Holocaust? One of the answers is language.

3) I believe that we are at a moment when many of the old patterns of dehumanizing rhetoric are increasingly common. This concerns me as a Christian. Language shapes how we think about and imagine about people. If we speak about other people as vermin or disease, then we often treat other people as if they are vermin and disease, forgetting that they are also made in the image of God.

John recently wrote:

I would expect to be called out on stuff the Bible teaches against.

b]I believe using dehumanizing language against other people damages Christian witness and violates the goodness of God’s creation.[/b] So I think it’s appropriate to put this metaphor under a microscope and ask whether it is compatible with Christian discipleship.

To justify this language John wrote the following:

Homosexuality spreads disease and parasites, and it is indeed an infestation along with being an abomination in God's eyes.

God created people in his image, but that doesn't mean everything a human does is okay. It is perfectly fine to speak about it with the same language used in the Bible. It is not dehumanising language to speak this way, as homosexuality is a choice - those who practice can turn away from it at any time.

Is it? Is “infestation” the same language used in the Bible? Does the Bible actually describe categories of people as infestation?

So far, I haven’t found a single example in Scripture that describes a category of people as an infestation or contamination.

Again, this not about whether people believe homosexuality is a sin. Plenty of conservatives Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, but do not use this language of “infestation.”

So if there is a biblical basis for this language, there should be examples where Scripture calls a particular group of people an “infestation.”

First of all, John is correct that the Scriptures condemn sin in hash terms.

In Romans 1:24-32, Paul condemns a list of sins in the harshest terms found in the Bible, including same-sex behavior. Paul condemns impurity, shameful lusts, depravity, malice, greed, murder, deceit, and every kind of wickedness. Yet, Paul never describes the people themselves as an infestation or disease.

In Ezekiel 16, the prophet compares Israel’s unfaithfulness to prostitution. Israel chooses to prostitute itself despite God’s faithfulness, yet also never stops being God’s chosen people.

Even in Matthew 23, where Jesus condemns the Pharisees in the harshest terms possible, he calls them hypocrites and compares them to whitewashed tombs, snakes and a brood of vipers, he never uses metaphors that suggest infestation, contamination or disease.

Yet despite the fact that Scripture does condemn sin in extremely harsh terms, I have not been able to find a single scripture that compares the people themselves to disease or contamination. The closest I found was 2 Timothy 2:17, in which talk spreads like gangrene, but not people.

However, I think John is incorrect that “infestation” is the language of the Bible. As far as I can tell, the pattern seems to be that while Scripture condemns sin, it still treats people as people accountable to God and not as disease or contamination.

Now to be fair, John does emphasize agency. Part of his justification is that homosexuality is a choice:

It is not dehumanising language to speak this way, as homosexuality is a choice - those who practice can turn away from it at any time.

However, John also used the same word to describe immigrants:

It wouldn't make any difference. It simply doesn't work to have this many people flooding the country.

Incidentally the #3 group of illegal aliens by country are Indians. India is a long way from America and it involves either a plane ride or a very long boat ride to get here. Why are so many infesting this country?

Indians of course can’t help the fact that they’re are from India. They can’t stop their ethnicity. To me this suggests that John is using the metaphor for something more than just behavior. Rather, it appears language to describe groups of people whose mere presence is considered a social or cultural contamination. Otherwise, I don’t understand why someone would use the same word to describe homosexuality and immigration. What does same-sex behavior have to do with cultural or national identity?

There are, of course, several other reasons why I don’t think John’s “infestation” metaphor is biblical or appropriate for Christians. It ignores that Scripture actually treats disease not as contamination or moral disgust, but as an opportunity for healing and a sign of God’s love and grace in the world. It also ignores that Jesus never treated sinners as vermin or disease, choosing to eat with tax collectors and prostitutes.

And then there are also historical and social research reasons why this language concerns me, but I want to first look at the Scriptures themselves to see if it supports John’s claim that “infestation” is Biblical language. I don’t see any support for that.

[Soloist]

Sin is spoken of with corrupting terms.
Enemy is called locust which could also be called infestation.

Abomination is a stronger term in my opinion and it’s used several times.

[R7ehr]

A brood of vipers? If one has a whole brood of vipers in their house, wouldn’t it be accurate to say their house was infested with snakes?

[barnhart]

...it appears language to describe groups of people whose mere presence is considered a social or cultural contamination. Otherwise, I don’t understand why someone would use the same word to describe homosexuality and immigration. What does same-sex behavior have to do with cultural or national identity?

Some of the early reformers interpreted Jesus' parable of the tares to justify an expansive church identity that includes tares as a defence against the Anabaptist vision of a pure church. The thinking you are describing looks related to me, it implies the duty to create a pure society by sweeping out unwanted or unbiblical people.

I've always been more comfortable with the interpretation where the field is the world which God will judge in his time, it's not the duty of the church to cleanse society.

[Soloist]

I’ll qualify my response was to the connection to Biblical use question.
The strongest is again is about yeast being compared to sin, not a people group although Old Testament language was often used about people groups.

I have no business judging the atheist homosexual. God will do that. Now one in the church is different.

I don’t know what I think about immigration and my opinion has no relevance anyway.

[ken_sylvania]

I agree that "infestation is not found in the Bible, but people and especially their false teachings and practices are described in terms of disease and contagion.

But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”

But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

[Szdfan]

I agree that "infestation is not found in the Bible, but people and especially their false teachings and practices are described in terms of disease and contagion.

But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”

But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

I agree that the Bible uses disease and contagion metaphors when it comes to false teaching and other corrupting influences. As far as I can see, it doesn’t compare people themselves to disease or infestation.

[ken_sylvania]

I agree that "infestation is not found in the Bible, but people and especially their false teachings and practices are described in terms of disease and contagion.

But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort,

Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”

But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

I agree that the Bible uses disease and contagion metaphors when it comes to false teaching and other corrupting influences. As far as I can see, it doesn’t compare people themselves to disease or infestation.

Are you differentiating between the person and his teachings? And suggesting that a person cannot be a corrupting influence?

We are told that certain things like false teaching and ungodly behavior are like disease or cancer. And we are told to drive such people out from among us and have no fellowship with them. So no, I guess in a sense it doesn't compare people to disease - it simply compares evil or corrupt people to disease-ridden people who refuse to be healed and instead go about spreading infection to other people.

[Bootstrap]

The example of Jesus is relevant here. He treated people as well, even people guilty of sins like adultery. But he also said, "go and sin no more!"

When we treat other people as less than human, imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal, etc., we are not following the example of Jesus. And in general, that kind of dehumanization has really bad consequences.

But holiness is important.

[GaryK]

The example of Jesus is relevant here. He treated people as well, even people guilty of sins like adultery. But he also said, "go and sin no more!"

When we treat other people as less than human, imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal, etc., we are not following the example of Jesus. And in general, that kind of dehumanization has really bad consequences.

But holiness is important.

Did anyone imply that cruelty toward those people is no big deal?