Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!qantel!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ubc-vision!ubc-cs!manis From: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: soc.motss Subject: Re: New question for biblical scholars Message-ID: <414@ubc-cs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 20-Sep-86 17:37:36 EDT Article-I.D.: ubc-cs.414 Posted: Sat Sep 20 17:37:36 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 25-Sep-86 05:34:59 EDT References: <1575@felix.UUCP> <1576@felix.UUCP> Reply-To: manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) Organization: UBC Department of Computer Science Lines: 185 In article <1576@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >An additional question for soc.motss readers: Since I'm pretty sure that >homosexual acts ARE specifically condemned in the Bible, how do homosexual >christians reconcile the problem? Do they have special Bibles that have had >those references removed, or what? Since Dave mentioned a new church for gays, and since things like Dignity, Integrity, and MCC have been around for a long time, it's safe to assume that he's merely incredibly ignorant. Perhaps there should be an automatically-posted message which, every month or so, summarises the following points. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- (People who argue theological points with which one disagrees are often accused of having axes to grind. Here are mine: I am a gay Jew, who disagrees strongly with the fundamentalist interpretation method. I will attempt to represent that position fairly, but please don't expect perfection. It will also become apparent that I have a high regard for Paul, though I differ strongly from him on the matter of Jesus.) There are two basic ways in which the Bible can be interpreted: fundamentalists argue that sacred writings are *the truth*, while others argue that these writings represent the understanding of people at a particular moment in time. (The fact that most Christians and Jews do not make any particular effort to avoid wearing clothes with two kinds of fabric (Leviticus 19:19) suggests that most people do not consider the Bible to be absolutely binding.) I will call the second group "liberals", though it includes theological interpretations which are so widespread as to be totally incompatible. For a "liberal" (many Reformed Jews, Methodists, Quakers, etc.), the Bible represents a view of human-Divine relationships which is incomplete, as it does not include the last two thousand years. Thus such a person will attempt to live in conformity with what s/he considers to be Divine Law, which includes the importance of loving relationships. Such a person will then consider any sexual act in the context of the particular relationship, asking how it furthers or hinders that relationship. The question is then not "who does what with what to whom?" but "how does this act enhance or detract from the relationship?". Put another way, the "liberal" generally looks not at a particular act or Biblical text, but at the overall context in which the act or text is embedded. Seen in this light, homosexual acts are precisely as moral or immoral as heterosexual acts. The motives, emotions, and intentions of the participants are more important than the acts themselves. A fundamentalist would obviously not agree with this position. (However, not all fundamentalists take the missionary position all the time :-) It is, however, quite improper for a fundamentalist to criticise a "liberal" as irreligious: it is merely the case that the religious bases of the two individuals are very different. A gay/lesbian fundamentalist, on the other hand, must account for those passages of the Bible which would appear to condemn homosexual acts. Since none of these passages directly condemns gay people, anti-gay fundamentalists must then distort the meaning of these passages in various ways. What follows is a brief listing of some of the most famous passages, along with explanations. A number of books have been written on this subject, including "Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition", by D.S. Bailley (which was published in the 1950's and is marred by a poor understanding of sexuality and an overzealous attempt to protect the reputation of the religious establishment), "David Loved Jonathan" (I can't remember the author, but it was published in the early 1970's as an apologetic), and Troy Perry's book, whose title escapes me (Perry is the founder of the Metropolitan Community Church). (excerpts are from the Jerusalem Bible.) Leviticus 18:22 "You must not lie with a man as with a woman. This is a hateful thing." Superficially, this passage would be binding on everyone. However, Christians are explicitly not bound by the Holiness Code (this is Paul's interpretation in Romans). Modern day society tends to ignore the holiness code, as the proliferation of cheeseburgers, blended fabrics, and unrounded beards suggests. In any case, Lev. 18:19 says a man cannot have sex with his wife during her period, a thing which I've never heard Jerry Falwell condemn. Another interpretation, popular today, emphasises, "as with a women". In other words, the stricture can be said to demand that sexual relations be for mutual benefit of both (all?) partners: "as with a woman" suggests that the offender is using the other man for sexual release. Put another way, what is prohibited is not homosexuality but objectification. -------------- Aside: lest you think I'm going far afield, let me say that I do not share the fundamentalist interpretation. However, a fundamentalist is required to believe that each text has one truth, and that only careful thought will allow the student to determine what that one truth is. There's nothing different in procedure between what I did in the previous paragraph and what Hal Lindsey does in his grotesque books which purport to prove that Andropov or Chernenko or Gorbachev are the anti-Christ, based on texts wrenched out of Daniel and Revelation. -------------- Romans 1:24-28 (excerpts) "...they have given up the divine truth for a lie, ... that is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions ... their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other ... getting an appropriate reward for their perversion." The parts I deleted contains the only explicit reference in the Bible to lesbianism (excluding the love story of Naomi and Ruth). However, the essential parts are here: people who do not believe in God abandon themselves to sensual gratification, eventually finding that they have lost control over themselves. It's of course a truism: anyone who lives only for satiation eventually finds it a hollow and meaningless existence. However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality: Paul only uses homosexual acts as an example of damnable (sic!) behaviour, and after 1:28, homosexuality makes no further appearance in Romans. Modern fundamentalists can interpret this passage in a number of ways: it should be noted that (in my edition) Romans 1:18-32 is headed "God's anger against the pagans", and purports to demonstrate that hiding God's truth leads to wickedness (1:18), and in particular the wickedness of comparing the good with the inferior and choosing the inferior (1:23, 1:27, 1:32). It would be quite within the scope of a fundamentalist interpretation to say "For me, heterosexuality would be an imitation, an inferior choice. Therefore, I am bound to choose homosexuality." It would also be reasonable to say: "Paul speaks divine truth here, but his choice of homosexuality was poorly chosen, and represents a view in which there were no homosexuals, only heterosexuals who engage in homosexual acts to be perverse. I should ignore his poor example, lest it cause me to reject his divine message." 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "You know perfectly well that people who do wrong will not enter the kingdom of God: people of immoral lives, idolators, adulterers, catamites, sodomites, thieves, usurers, drunkards, slanderers, and swindlers will never inherit the kingdom of God." This one pretty conclusively proves that being gay is a sin: a homosexual is as bad as the guy who sets the interest rates on your VISA card (usury). Unfortunately, there is an entire industry devoted to determining what Paul meant by "catamites" and "sodomites" ("malakoi" and "arsenokoitai", respectively). Neither word is found in either Classical or Koine Greek, and the literal meanings ("soft ones" and "ass-fuckers") aren't precise enough to specify homosexual acts specifically. It is widely considered possible that Paul was referring to male prostitutes who took the "passive" or "active" role (respectively). Other readings have included "masturbators" for "malakoi" and "heterosexual male prostitutes who engaged in 'deviant' sex" for "arsenokoitai". Since it's unlikely that we'll ever know what Paul meant precisely, this text too loses some of its force. John Boswell, in "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality", includes an extensive discussion of the subject. 1 Timothy 1:10 "those who are immoral with men" I deliberately wrenched this one out of context. It would appear to condemn homosexuals. However, consider the entire passage: 1:8-11 "We know, of course, that the Law is good, but only provided it is treated like any law, in the undertanding that laws are not framed for people who are good. On the contrary, they are for criminals and revolutionaries, for the irreligious and the wicked, for the sacrilegious and the irreverent; they are for people who kill their fathers or mothers and for murderers, for those who are immoral with women or with boys or with men, for liars and for perjurers--and for everything else that is contrary to the sound teaching that goes with the Good News of the glory of the blessed God, the gospel that was entrusted to me." Paul is saying the exact opposite of what Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart would claim he is saying here: there is morality and immorality. If you are naturally moral, you don't need an elaborate set of rules. Otherwise, you need laws which regulate your behaviour, including your sexual behaviour. While Paul might disagree with modern notions of morality, his texts doesn't suggest that homosexual acts are particularly immoral (in fact, one could even twist this text to suggest that homosexual acts are no more immoral than heterosexual ones, which I doubt was Paul's intention). To sum up, there are some texts which may be troubling to a fundamentalist gay or lesbian. Since no one of these texts explicitly condemns homosexual behaviour, a gay/lesbian fundamentalist (or a gay/lesbian supportive fundamentalist) must attempt to determine what the correct interpretation of these passages might be. There certainly are non-condemning interpretations which can be arrived at using fundamentalist methods, and therefore the Bible cannot be fairly used, even by a fundamentalist, to condemn all gays or lesbians. I might note that I define fundamentalism of the Falwell/Swaggart/Robertson variety as the belief that every word in the Bible is the divine word of God, with the exception of Leviticus 19:18, Deuteronomy 5:20, Luke 10:29-37, and Romans 13:8-10, not to mention the entire Book of Ruth.