|
|
 |
|
|
|
register |
bbs |
search |
rss |
faq |
about
|
|
|
meet up |
add to del.icio.us |
digg it
|
|
|
|
Some comments on Homosexuality & the Bible
From noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gumby!ursa!ecater36 Wed Feb 1016:23:14 EST 1993
Article: 11761 of rec.music.christian
Path: nic.umass.edu!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!gumby!ursa!ecatr36
From: [email protected] (Evan Cater)
Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Subject: Re: Recent Homosexuality Threads- LONG
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 7 Feb 93 22:59:02 GMT
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
Organization: Calvin College
Lines: 310
There has been an *awful* lot of conversation on r.m.c. lately about homo-
sexuality and the Church. This is hardly surprising when you consider that
it is one of the most pressing issues the Church now faces, but I do agree
that this isn't really the place to discuss it at great length. I don't
mind myself too much... I think such topics intersect a great deal with
Christian music and have some place here, and besides it's easy enough to
pass up a post on a thread you don't want to read. I agree though, that
once it gets this long and seperated from music it should ideally move to
e-mail or soc.religion.christian or something like that. Having said that,
I will proceed with a post that comes from s.r.c. which has become extremely
relevant to this newsgroup. Disclaimer: I'm not saying that I agree with
anything in this. But I think it is a thoughtful treatment of a sensitive
issue and a lot of people here seem unfamiliar with this position, and could
benefit from hearing this viewpoint. Hope it is of help to somebody:
Subject: summary of reasons why Christians might accept homosexuality
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 3 Dec 92 10:43:58 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Lines: 288
Approved: [email protected]
[This is part of an FAQ that attempts to summarize the issues
involved with homosexuality.]
The most commonly cited reference by those favoring acceptance of
homosexuality in previous discussions has been John Boswell:
"Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality", U Chicago Press,
1980.
The argument against is pretty clear. There are several explicit laws
in the OT, e.g. Leviticus, and in Rom 1 Paul seems pretty negative on
homosexuality. Beyond these references, there are some debates. Some
passages often cited on the subject probably are not relevant. E.g.
the sin which the inhabitants of Sodom proposed to carry out was
homosexual *rape*, not homosexual activity between consenting adults.
(There's even some question whether it was homosexual, since the
entities involved were angels.) It was particularly horrifying
because it involved guests, and the responsibility towards guests in
that culture was very strong. (This is probably the reason Lot
offered his daughter -- it was better to give up his daughter than to
allow his guests to be attacked.) If you look through a concordance
for references to Sodom elsewhere in the Bible, you'll see that few
seem to imply that homosexuality was their sin. There's a Jewish
interpretive tradition that the major sin was abuse of guests. At any
rate, there's no debate that homosexual *rape* is wrong.
I do not discussion Leviticus because the law there is part of a set
of laws that most Christians do not consider binding. So unless NT
justification can be found, Lev. alone would not settle the issue.
The NT references are all in Paul's letters. A number of the
references from Paul are lists of sins in which the words are fairly
vague. Boswell argues that the words occuring in these lists do not
mean homosexual. Here's what he says: The two Greek words that appear
in the lists (i.e. I Cor 6:9 and I Tim 1:10) are /malakos/ and
/arsenokoitai/. Unfortunately it is not entirely clear what the words
actually mean. /malakos/, with a basic meaning of soft, has a variety
of metaphorical meanings in ethical writing. Boswell suggests
"wanton" as a likely equivalent. He also reports that the unanimous
interpretation of the Church, including Greek-speaking Christians, was
that in this passage it referred to masturbation, a meaning that has
vanished only in the 20th Cent., as that practice has come to be less
frowned-upon. (He cites references as late as the 1967 edition of the
Catholic Encyclopedia that identify it as masturbation.) He
translates /arsenokotai/ as male prostitute, giving evidence that none
of the church fathers understood the term as referring to
homosexuality in general. A more technical meaning, suggested by the
early Latin translations, would be "active mode homosexual male
prostitute", but in his view Paul did not intend it so technically.
For a more conservative view, I consulted Gordon Fee's commentary on I
Cor. He cites evidence that /malakos/ often meant effeminate.
However Boswell warns us that in Greek culture effeminate is not
necessarily synonymous with homosexual. Given what Boswell and Fee
say taken together, I suspect that the term is simply not very
definite, and that while it applies to homosexuals in some cases, it
isn't a specific term for homosexuality. While Fee argues against
Boswell with /arsenokotai/ as well, he ends up suggesting a
translation that seems essentially the same. The big problem with it
is that the word is almost never used. Paul's writing is the first
occurence. The fact that the word is clearly composed of "male" and
"f**k" unfortunately doesn't quite tell us the meaning, since it
doesn't tell us whether the male is the subject or object of the
action. Examples of compound words formed either way can be given.
In theory it could refer to rapists, etc. It's dangerous to base
meaning purely on etymology, or you'll conclude that "goodbye" is a
religious expression because it's based on "God by with ye". However
since Boswell, Fee, and NIV seem to agree on "homosexual male
prostitute", that seems as good a guess as any. Note that this
translation misses the strong vulgarity of the term however (something
which Fee and Boswell agree on, but do not attempt to reproduce in
their translation).
In my opinion, the only unambiguous reference to homosexuality in
general in the NT is Romans 1. Boswell points out that Rom 1 speaks
of homosexuality as something that happened to people who were
naturally heterosexual, as a result of their corruption due to
worshipping false gods. One could argue that this is simply an
example: that if a homosexual worshipped false gods, he would also
fall into degradation and perhaps become heterosexual. However I find
this argument somewhat forced, and in fact our homosexual readers have
not seriously proposed that this is what Paul meant.
However I am not convinced that Rom 1 is sufficient to create a law
against homosexuality for Christians. What Paul is describing in Rom
1 is not homosexuality among Christians -- it's homosexuality that
appeared among idolaters as one part of a whole package of wickedness.
Despite the impression left by his impassioned rhetoric, I'm sure Paul
does not believe that pagans completely abandoned heterosexual sex.
Given his description of their situation, I rather assume that their
heterosexual sex would also be debased and shameless. So yes, I do
believe that this passage indicates a negative view of homosexuality.
But in all fairness, the "shameless" nature of their acts is a
reflection of the general spiritual state of the people, and not a
specific feature of homosexuality.
A number of discussions in the past centered around this sort of
detailed exegesis of texts. However in fact I'm not convinced that
defenders of homosexuality actually base their own beliefs on such
analyses. The real issue seems to rest on the question of whether
Paul's judgement should apply to modern homosexuality.
The claim is that Paul had simply never faced the kinds of questions
we are trying to deal with. He encountered homosexuality only in
contexts where most people would probably agree that it was wrong. He
had never faced the experience of Christians who try to act "straight"
and fail, and he had never faced Christians who are trying to define a
Christian homosexuality, which fits with general Christian ideals of
fidelity and of seeing sexuality as a mirror of the relationship
between God and man. It is unfair to take Paul's judgement on
homosexuality among idolaters and use it to make judgements on these
questions.
Some people make an argument that I'm in no position to validate, but
which sounds plausible: In Paul's time homosexuality was associated
with a number of things that Christians would not find acceptable. It
was part of temple prostitution. Among private citizens, it often
occured between adults and children or free people and slaves. I'm
not in a position to say that it always did, but there are some
reasons to think so. The ancients distinguished between the active
and passive partner. It was considered disgraceful for a free adult
to act as the passive partner. (This is the reason that an active
mode homosexual prostitute would be considered disgraceful. His
customers would all be people who enjoyed the passive role.) This
supports the idea that it would tend not to be engaged in between two
free adult males, at least not without some degree of scandal. (Note
that this is at most a tendency. One can find examples in literature
of homosexual relationships between free adults.) Clearly Christian
homosexuals would not condone sex with children, slaves, or others who
are not in a position to be fully responsible partners.
Some people have argued that AIDS is a judgement against
homosexuality. I'd like to point out that AIDS is transmitted by
promiscuous sex, both homosexual and heterosexual. Someone who has a
homosexual relationship that meets Christian criteria for marriage is
not at risk for AIDS.
Note that there is good reason from Paul's general approach to doubt
that he would concede homosexuality as a fully equal alternative,
apart from any specific statements on homosexuality. I am not sure
that I'd want to be bound to his use of the Genesis story, but in all
honesty I do think his use of it would probably lead him to regard
heterosexual marriage as what God ordained. However the way he deals
with pastoral questions provides a warning against being too quick to
deal with this issue legally.
I claim that the question of how to counsel homosexual Christians is
not entirely a theological issue, but also a pastoral one. Paul's
tendency, as we can see in issues such as eating meat and celebrating
holidays, is to be uncompromising on principle but in pastoral issues
to look very carefully at the good of the people involved, and to
avoid insisting on perfection when it would be personally damaging.
For example, while Paul clearly believed that it was acceptable to eat
meat, he wanted us to avoid pushing people into doing an action about
which they had personal qualms. For another example, Paul obviously
would have preferred to see people (at least in some circumstances)
remain unmarried. Yet if they were unable to do so, he certainly
would rather see them married than in a state where they might be
tempted to fornication.
I believe one could take a view like this even while accepting the
views Paul expressed in Rom 1. One may believe that homosexuality is
not what God intended, that it occured as a result of sin, but still
conclude that at times we have to live with it. Note that in the
creation story work enters human life as a result of sin. This
doesn't mean that Christians can stop working when we are saved. The
question is whether you believe that homosexuality is in itself sinful
or whether you believe that it's a misfortune that is in a broad sense
due to human sinfulness. If you're willing to consider the latter
approach, then it becomes a pastoral judgement whether there is more
damage caused by finding a way to live with it or trying to cure it.
The dangers of trying to cure it are that the attempt most often
fails, and when it does, you end up with damage ranging from
psychological damage to suicide, as well as broken marriages when
attempts at living as a heterosexual fail.
This is going to depend upon one's assessment of the inherent nature
of homosexuality. If you believe it is a very serious wrong, then you
may be willing to run high risks of serious damage to get rid of it.
Clearly we do not generally suggest that people live with a tendency
to steal or with drug addiction, even though attempts to cure these
conditions are also very difficult. However these conditions are
intrinsically damaging in a way that is not so obvious for
homosexuality. (Many problems associated with homosexuality are
actually problems of promiscuity, not homosexuality. This includes
AIDS. I take for granted that the only sort of homosexual
relationships a Christian would consider allowing would be equivalent
to Christian heterosexual relationships.)
In the course of discussing this over the last decade or so, we've
heard a lot of personal testimony from fellow Christians who are in
this situation. I've also seen summaries of various research and the
results of various efforts for "conversion". (Here I'm relying
primarily in the minority report generated by the report on human
sexuality of the Presbyterian Church (USA) -- NB: I'm referring here
not to the notorious report you all read about in the newspapers, but
to the minority who recommended against acceptance of homosexual
ordination. There's a separate FAQ that summarizes our readers'
reports on this question.) The evidence is that long-term success in
changing orientation is rare enough to be on a par with healing
miracles. Furthermore, the danger in advising Christians to depend
upon such a change is very high. When "conversion" doesn't happen,
which is almost always, the people are often left in despair, feeling
excluded from a Church that has nothing more to say but a requirement
of life-long celibacy. Paul recognized that such a demand is not
practical for most people, and I think the history of clerical
celibacy has strongly reinforced that judgement. The practical result
is that homosexuals end up in the gay sex clubs and the rest of the
sordid side of homosexuality. Maybe homosexuality isn't God's
original ideal, but I can well imagine Paul preferring to see people
in long-term, committed Christian relationships than promiscuity. As
with work -- which Genesis suggests wasn't part of God's original
ideal either -- I think such relationships can still be a vehicle for
people sharing God's love with each other.
There's an issue of Biblical interpretation underlying this
discussion. The issue is that of "cultural relativism". That is,
when Paul says that something is wrong, should this be taken as an
eternal statement, or are things wrong because of specific situations
in the culture of the time? Conservative Christians generally insist
on taking prohibitions as absolute, since otherwise the Bible becomes
subjective -- what is to stop us from considering everything in it as
relative?
When looking at this issue, it's worth noting that no one completely
rejects the concept of cultural relativism. There are a number of
judgements in the New Testament that even conservative Christians
consider to be relative. The following judgements are at least as
clear in the Bible as anything said on homosexuality:
- prohibition against charging interest (this occurs 18 times in
the OT -- it's not in the NT, but I mention it here because
until relatively recently the Church did consider it binding
on Christians)
- prohibition against swearing oaths
- endorsement of slavery as an institution
- judgement of tax collectors as sinner
We do not regard these items as binding. In most cases, I believe the
argument is essentially one of cultural relativism. Briefly:
- prohibition of interest is appropriate to a specific
agrarian society that the Bible was trying to build,
but not to our market economy.
- few people believe that American judicial oaths have the
same characteristics as the kind of oaths Jesus was
concerned about
- most people believe that Paul was simply telling people
how to live within slavery, but not endorsing it as
an institution
- for people believe that the IRS is morally equivalent to
Roman tax farming
The point I'm trying to make is that before applying Biblical
prohibitions to the 20th Cent., we need to look at whether the 20th
Cent. actions are the same. When Christian homosexuals say that their
relationships are different than the Greek homosexuality that Paul
would have been familiar with, this is exactly the same kind of
argument that is being made about judicial oaths and tax collectors.
Until fairly recently Christians prohibited taking of interest, and
many Christians regarded slavery as divinely endorsed. (Indeed,
slavery is one of the more common metaphors for the relationship
between God and human beings -- Christians are often called servants
or slaves of God.)
I am not trying to say that everything in the Bible is culturally
relative. Rather, I'm trying to say that *some* things are, and
therefore it is not enough to say that because something appears in
the Bible, that ends the discussion. We need to look at whether the
action we're talking about now has the same moral implications as the
one that the Bible was talking about. If Christian want to argue that
there are reasons to think that the prohibitions against homosexuality
are still binding, I'm willing to listen. Those who claim that no
such reasons are needed are kidding themselves (unless they are part
of the small minority who really obey all the rules listed above).
One thing that worries me is the great emotions that this issue
creates. When you consider the weakness of the Biblical evidence --
some laws in Leviticus, a passage in Rom whose subject matter is
really idolatry rather than homosexuality, and a couple of lists whose
words are ambiguous -- the amount of concern this is raising among
Christians seems rather out of proportion. This should suggest to
people that there are reasons other than simply Biblical involved.
This is true on both sides -- clearly homosexual Christians are as
strongly motivated to find ways of discrediting the Biblical arguments
as conservative Christians are to find Biblical arguments. But I
can't help feeling that the Bible is being used as a way of justifying
attitudes which come from other sources. This is a dangerous
situation for Christians.
|
|
|
To the best of our knowledge, the text on this page may be freely reproduced and distributed.
If you have any questions about this, please check out our Copyright Policy.
totse.com certificate signatures
|
|
|
About | Advertise | Bad Ideas | Community | Contact Us | Copyright Policy | Drugs | Ego | Erotica
FAQ | Fringe | Link to totse.com | Search | Society | Submissions | Technology
|
|
|
|
|
|
