The following is the text of a talk delivered at the Unitarian Universalist church where I attend. The speaker was Dr Johanna Steibert, who works in the religious studies department at University of Tennessee. I apologize in advance if the formatting is difficult to read. I use a Mozilla-based browser, and this forum appears to be optimized for Internet Explorer. Dr. Johanna Stiebert, Religious Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville For questions and comments, please contact me on: [email protected] (please note: in the preceding email address a digit ‘one’ not lower-case ‘L’ follows the letters ‘jstiebe’) Readings: 2 Samuel 1:17, 25-27 and Ruth 1:15-18 Homosexuality is a hot topic. Often on the news, it incites strong reactions. A few examples: there is the gay clergy debate, whether Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, ought to have been ordained; there is the Michigan bill, allowing doctors to refuse to treat homosexuals and there is the ongoing debate concerning the legitimating of same-sex unions. Homosexuality has moved out of the bedroom and private sphere and into the public sphere and media spotlight. On the one hand, homosexuals have increasingly become a presence, to some extent even accepted, or at least tolerated, in the public and popular culture spheres – we need only point to the popularity of such figures as Ellen Degeneres, to the critically acclaimed movie “Brokeback Mountain” and to such shows as “The L-Word”, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and “Will and Grace” – but on the other hand, the topic tends to inhabit debates about morality and there is a large and vocal lobby designating homosexuality “immoral.” Consequently, the need felt by many homosexuals to hide their orientation, as well as gay-bashing and other forms of homophobic discrimination are not rare. Depression and suicide among homosexuals, meanwhile, are considerably more common than among heterosexuals. The most vocal anti-homosexual lobby, touting the moral card, is a wing of religious conservatism. The power of this lobby was apparent in the last presidential election where “moral reasons” – which, more particularly, pertained especially to fierce objection to first, same-sex unions and secondly, abortion – were cited as the main reasons for swing voters to cast the Republican vote. The dominant religious tradition in this country is, of course, Christianity. In fact, Christianity is THE dominant religion worldwide now. While in much of the western world church attendance may be declining, this is not true of the United States where especially the congregations of evangelical Protestant churches are growing in size. In the developing world also (most dramatically so in sub-Saharan Africa) Christianity is thriving. Let it be said that where attitudes to homosexuality are concerned, Christian attitudes cover a broad spectrum. Some condemn homosexuality as an abomination and especially deviant sin; other Christians have sympathy or pity for homosexuals, seeking to help them from this “affliction” as though it were a malady not unlike alcoholism; yet other Christians claim to have no problem with the orientation itself but rather, with any sexual activity resulting from it; on the other end of the spectrum there are Christian groups who embrace homosexuality, regarding homosexual love as a gift from God, welcoming gay clergy and blessing gay unions. Between these directions are many more shades and nuances – there is simply no unified Christian opinion – often not even within denominations. Particularly among the fastest growing Christian groups – which can be characterized as Protestant, evangelical with a tendency to fundamentalism – the word of the Bible is of fundamental importance in determining a stand on homosexuality and any other matters deemed moral. The reason is that the Bible is considered authoritative, or canonical, because it is considered the word of God, or divinely inspired revelation. Because the Bible is, therefore, so often cited to underpin moral opprobrium leveled at homosexuality, it is important to get a sense of what it has to say on the matter. Actually, as we shall see, the Bible has very little if anything relevant to say on the topic of homosexuality. More of that in a moment. First of all, let us be clear about the term “homosexual” which I have used interchangeably with the word “gay.” Homosexuality is the sexual orientation of persons who are primarily or exclusively attracted to persons of their own rather than the opposite sex – the latter is called heterosexuality. This means, homosexual women are attracted to women (also called lesbianism) and homosexual men to men. Sexual acts may or may not result from this attraction – this is an important point: because the word “sexual” appears in the designation ‘homosexual’ we all too readily think of homosexuality being only about sex – which is not the case. One can be homosexual or heterosexual for that matter, but not sexually active or interactive; one can be homosexual in orientation but have sex with members of the opposite sex. Importantly, both homosexual and heterosexual drives are not just sexual – these drives are also emotional, psychological, sometimes spiritual. A homosexual therefore is someone who is more likely to seek and find self-revelation, intimacy, connectedness, bonding and commitment (in other words, the whole package that is romantic and erotic love) with a member of the same sex. Where such a complex set, which we call an “orientation,” is concerned, we find the Bible silent – certainly in explicit terms. There is no reference to and no vocabulary for what we today call homosexual orientation anywhere in the Bible. There is some limited and not entirely clear, reference to some kind of sex act between men – and a single reference to sex acts between women (? Romans 1:26). There is also some allusion to intense emotional bonding between two men – David and Jonathan – as well as between two women – Ruth and Naomi – but it is conjectural whether either of these close relationships also had an actual sexual component. Let us remember here, that whether they did or not they could still be termed homosexual… Now let us look at the biblical passages which do have something to say about same-sex sex acts, remembering that this is a very limited way to look at homosexuality. Also, let us confine our discussion to the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament. This is because however confident some Bible translators of New Testament Greek may be when they refer to “homosexuals” or “fornicators” or “sodomites” or “catamites” at Romans 1(:18-21 and 24-28), 1 Corinthians 6(:9-11) and 1 Timothy 1(:9-10), any honest Bible scholar will tell you that the nature of the condemned persons, called in Greek ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ is far from clear. It is not clear what kind of sexual deviants these are – whether sexually insatiable persons, or effeminate men, or prostitutes, or some particular variant of any or none of these. Alongside this uncertainty, making matters yet more problematical is that these passages (like much of Paul’s writings) are altogether negative about anything less than undivided focus on the imminence of the kingdom of heaven. Their context is eschatology – that means, they are focused on the imminent end of time as we know it. At such a time, according to the ideology of the writer, sex of any kind should not be preoccupying the Christian. Jesus, incidentally, had nothing to say – condemning or otherwise – about homosexuals and some have suggested that Jesus’ resuscitation of the Roman centurion’s servant in Luke 7 suggests indirect approval. Given Roman social conventions and how desperate the centurion is to have his servant brought back to life, a case may indeed be made that the male servant was his lover. I do not consider this implausible but also consider it best not to second-guess either Jesus’ or God’s opinions on this or any other matter… As is so often the case, the biblical text leaves question marks. Back to male-male sex acts in the Hebrew Bible: here there are two references in a legal text called Leviticus, a text which is above all preoccupied with purity regulations. Both references are short and not completely transparent. Leviticus 18:22 very literally translated and addressed to a male, says, “You shall not lie with a male the lyings of a woman – it is an abomination.” The word abomination has a wide meaning referring to ethical and purity offences. Leviticus 20:13 is similar and repeats the strange prohibition, adding a punishment “both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” Something then is strongly condemned – so strongly that it carries the death penalty. What the act of the lyings of a woman is exactly is unclear – some have suggested penetrative sex, or sodomy, others any intimate act between two men. Why it is prohibited is another source of un-clarity – given the wider context it appears to be because of a purity not an ethical violation, because of improper mixing – just as it is improper to mix two types of grain in one field, or two types of fiber in one garment. Most of such mixing is now permitted by all but ultra-orthodox Jews – yet some Christian groups continue to pluck out these two verses to condemn all forms of homosexuality, purporting to understand them clearly where many biblical scholars admit defeat. The only other Hebrew Bible references to sex acts between men occur in two brutal narratives. The first in Genesis 19 is a story set in Sodom – the name of a proverbially sinful city from which is derived our word ‘sodomy’ – a fact, incidentally, which is likely to have influenced adversely the perception of male homosexuality. In the story a man called Lot is visited by two divinely sent messengers who seek to help him and his family escape God’s imminent destruction of Sodom. While they are inside, men of Sodom surround Lot’s house and demand to know the visitors – know is a verb sometimes used of sexual relations, though some commentators have suggested that the men of Sodom wish to investigate the strangers whom they suspect of being spies. This seems unlikely seeing that Lot seeks to divert the men’s intentions by offering them his two virgin daughters who have not known a man – here very clearly a sexual usage of the verb… Biblical commentators in times past saw this offer as a sign of Lot’s virtue and hospitality, as indicating the great lengths he was prepared to go to, to protect his visitors – to modern sensibilities the offer is entirely offensive, because it suggests that the rape of women is somehow preferable to the rape of men. In this story rape is averted by the intervention of the divine messengers. Let me mention as an aside that in the earliest interpretations of the Sodom story, to be found in the book of Ezekiel and in the Apocrypha, neither sodomy, nor rape is implicated as the sin of Sodom – instead, a lack of hospitality and pride are associated with the sinful city. A similar story where we find our final biblical mention of a male-male sex act is in the book of Judges 19. This story is yet more violent. Here another group of scoundrels, the men of Gibeah, surround the house of a different man who has taken in a Levite traveler and his wife. Again, the men demand to know the male Levite. Again, the host offers female substitutes – his own virgin daughter and his guest’s wife. This time, to avert male rape the Levite thrusts his wife to the mob and she is gang raped all night – one of the Bible’s most sadistic stories. Both of these stories while memorable for their threatened and actual sexual violence do not offer us much to go on regarding homosexuality. As we have said, homosexuality is about sexual attraction but also about much more than that – about emotional, psychological, spiritual fulfillment through and with a member of the same sex. These two stories are not about attraction or fulfilling relationships; they are about sexual abuse and sexual power. Homosexual rape is an awful crime just as heterosexual rape is an awful crime (though both stories mitigate the cruelty of rape of women) – male-male rape has less to do with orientation or attraction than with power and perversion. For similar reasons it is also not appropriate to bring pedophilia – the sexual abuse of children, whether by a member of the same or opposite sex – into our discussion, as is, unfortunately, not infrequent in public debates on homosexuality. Rape and pedophilia are unquestionably morally wrong and cannot be compared to, much less adequately illuminate the quality of consenting intimate relationships between same-sex adults. Male rape, incidentally, is, as some research suggests, often committed by men who identify as heterosexual. We are most familiar hearing about this cruel practice in the prison context and in contexts attending war. Its intention tends to be to humiliate the rape victim. As with rape of women, male rape is under-reported and deeply damaging. Now, where does all this leave us? We have two short legal pronouncements prohibiting some kind of male-male sex act. The nature of this act and the reason for its being objectionable and worthy of the death penalty are obscure. Additionally, we have two brutal narratives in which male rape is threatened and, in the New Testament, a list of sexual deviants which might include some persons we could possibly today subsume under the label ‘homosexual’… We also have expressions of deep emotional affection between two men: David and Jonathan; and between two women: Ruth and Naomi. With the male pair, in particular, there appears to be an indication of a physically affectionate dimension – though we cannot be certain – the intimacy could also be attributed to different social or poetic conventions. At any rate, same-sex affection is acknowledged of such celebrated figures as Ruth and David, prototype of the messiah. Incidentally, it is acknowledged also of Jesus himself: John 21:20 mentions the disciple whom Jesus loved, who would lean back against him at supper. What do we do with all this? Well, we can disregard it – all of it – and remind ourselves that the Bible is a problematic text. It is problematic because, due to its internal diversity, its antiquity and the obscurity of its texts’ origins and meanings, we cannot really understand it fully. Why assume its authority and pertinence for our lives? We lack the contexts in which the texts were written, produced and used, originally and over time. We do not really know what ‘the lyings of a woman’ in Leviticus are and we do not know precisely what the terms ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ of the New Testament mean. The Bible is a foreign amalgam of texts from an alien world, written over the course of more than a millennium in a language of which there are no native speakers. Some of its texts, yes, have an appeal that reaches through time – some might even be said to have close to universal appeal – that is one reason why the Bible continues to be around and to be compelling. Other texts, such as laws prescribing what to do with a goring bull or how to behave when a spot on the skin sprouts white hairs (Lev 13), are less than useful in contemporary Knoxville…; some, prescribing slavery and genocide and ordering raped women to marry their rapists are offensive and best disregarded. If we argue that all of the Bible is true and right for all time, as some fundamentalists claim, then the door is not only wide open for restoring practices that modern sensibilities generally (and in my view justly) consider outrageous – such as, marrying captive women, regardless of their consent, keeping slaves and stoning disobedient sons – but sometimes we’d also be left utterly stumped because the Bible is so internally inconsistent – one need only compare the slavery laws (some forbid, others permit keeping Hebrew slaves – other laws forbid killing others while some prescribe it in some cases; in some passages God visits wrath on subsequent generations, in others the wrongdoer only suffers for the wrongdoing – it all gets very baffling!). So, the Bible must in some cases at least be firmly disregarded. I would go much further and say the Bible should not hold any special status at all in determining moral choices in present times. What fundamentalists are really doing when they say they are using the Bible as a basis and justification for their condemnation of homosexuality is picking and choosing. If they weren’t picking and choosing, they’d also be picketing their banks and mortgage companies for charging interest and keeping the dietary laws (both of which receive far more coverage in the Bible than anything we might draw into a discussion on the topic of homosexuality). And if picking and choosing is okay, what’s wrong with picking and choosing texts like those of our readings – about David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi? Picking and choosing from the Bible, if we are going to use the Bible at all for furnishing guidance for behaviour, is what we must do – nothing else is possible, given its internal inconsistency, not to mention the difficulty, even impossibility of following the myriad, sometimes bizarre laws. So, how do we make moral choices on such matters as homosexuality? Is homosexuality a suitable topic for moral debates? Like heterosexuality it can be, given the multiple dimensions of sexual choices, drives and actions. In themselves both are probably best described, however, as morally neutral, or as having a potential moral charge. Where the state of the world is concerned there are so many more unequivocally immoral realities that create a burden of responsibility for all humanity – I am speaking of environmental destruction, poverty, war, casualties from preventable diseases, to list just a few. All of these are dangers to millions of people and they are affronts to us all on the basis of our common humanity. Our shared humanity is what should entitle us to dignity, quality of life, safety, health, education and personal fulfillment. And if that is in some part achieved through love between human beings – does it really matter who they are and whether they share a gender? While as a biblical scholar I might be talking myself out of a job here, should we today care what a strange collection of ancient writings might have to contribute to the matter? If love – homosexual or otherwise - can bring comfort, dynamism, passion, creativity, tenderness and vibrancy to a world sorely in need of it, that’s good enough for me. Recommended reading: (Jewish perspectives) Jewish Explorations of Sexuality, edited by Jonathan Magonet (Berghan Books, 1995) (Christian perspectives) What Christians Think About Homosexuality, by L. R. Holben (BIBAL Press, 1999)
Homosexuality and the Bible (long)
by gaiagirl 11 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
serendipity
I'll attempt to put paragraphs in this.
******************************** The following is the text of a talk delivered at the Unitarian Universalist church where I attend. The speaker was Dr Johanna Steibert, who works in the religious studies department at University of Tennessee. I apologize in advance if the formatting is difficult to read. I use a Mozilla-based browser, and this forum appears to be optimized for Internet Explorer. Dr. Johanna Stiebert, Religious Studies, University of Tennessee, Knoxville For questions and comments, please contact me on: [email protected] (please note: in the preceding email address a digit ‘one’ not lower-case ‘L’ follows the letters ‘jstiebe’) Readings: 2 Samuel 1:17, 25-27 and Ruth 1:15-18 Homosexuality is a hot topic. Often on the news, it incites strong reactions. A few examples: there is the gay clergy debate, whether Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire, ought to have been ordained; there is the Michigan bill, allowing doctors to refuse to treat homosexuals and there is the ongoing debate concerning the legitimating of same-sex unions. Homosexuality has moved out of the bedroom and private sphere and into the public sphere and media spotlight. On the one hand, homosexuals have increasingly become a presence, to some extent even accepted, or at least tolerated, in the public and popular culture spheres – we need only point to the popularity of such figures as Ellen Degeneres, to the critically acclaimed movie “Brokeback Mountain” and to such shows as “The L-Word”, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” and “Will and Grace” – but on the other hand, the topic tends to inhabit debates about morality and there is a large and vocal lobby designating homosexuality “immoral.” Consequently, the need felt by many homosexuals to hide their orientation, as well as gay-bashing and other forms of homophobic discrimination are not rare. Depression and suicide among homosexuals, meanwhile, are considerably more common than among heterosexuals. The most vocal anti-homosexual lobby, touting the moral card, is a wing of religious conservatism. The power of this lobby was apparent in the last presidential election where “moral reasons” – which, more particularly, pertained especially to fierce objection to first, same-sex unions and secondly, abortion – were cited as the main reasons for swing voters to cast the Republican vote. The dominant religious tradition in this country is, of course, Christianity. In fact, Christianity is THE dominant religion worldwide now. While in much of the western world church attendance may be declining, this is not true of the United States where especially the congregations of evangelical Protestant churches are growing in size. In the developing world also (most dramatically so in sub-Saharan Africa) Christianity is thriving. Let it be said that where attitudes to homosexuality are concerned, Christian attitudes cover a broad spectrum. Some condemn homosexuality as an abomination and especially deviant sin; other Christians have sympathy or pity for homosexuals, seeking to help them from this “affliction” as though it were a malady not unlike alcoholism; yet other Christians claim to have no problem with the orientation itself but rather, with any sexual activity resulting from it; on the other end of the spectrum there are Christian groups who embrace homosexuality, regarding homosexual love as a gift from God, welcoming gay clergy and blessing gay unions. Between these directions are many more shades and nuances – there is simply no unified Christian opinion – often not even within denominations. Particularly among the fastest growing Christian groups – which can be characterized as Protestant, evangelical with a tendency to fundamentalism – the word of the Bible is of fundamental importance in determining a stand on homosexuality and any other matters deemed moral. The reason is that the Bible is considered authoritative, or canonical, because it is considered the word of God, or divinely inspired revelation. Because the Bible is, therefore, so often cited to underpin moral opprobrium leveled at homosexuality, it is important to get a sense of what it has to say on the matter. Actually, as we shall see, the Bible has very little if anything relevant to say on the topic of homosexuality. More of that in a moment. First of all, let us be clear about the term “homosexual” which I have used interchangeably with the word “gay.” Homosexuality is the sexual orientation of persons who are primarily or exclusively attracted to persons of their own rather than the opposite sex – the latter is called heterosexuality. This means, homosexual women are attracted to women (also called lesbianism) and homosexual men to men. Sexual acts may or may not result from this attraction – this is an important point: because the word “sexual” appears in the designation ‘homosexual’ we all too readily think of homosexuality being only about sex – which is not the case. One can be homosexual or heterosexual for that matter, but not sexually active or interactive; one can be homosexual in orientation but have sex with members of the opposite sex. Importantly, both homosexual and heterosexual drives are not just sexual – these drives are also emotional, psychological, sometimes spiritual. A homosexual therefore is someone who is more likely to seek and find self-revelation, intimacy, connectedness, bonding and commitment (in other words, the whole package that is romantic and erotic love) with a member of the same sex. Where such a complex set, which we call an “orientation,” is concerned, we find the Bible silent – certainly in explicit terms. There is no reference to and no vocabulary for what we today call homosexual orientation anywhere in the Bible. There is some limited and not entirely clear, reference to some kind of sex act between men – and a single reference to sex acts between women (? Romans 1:26). There is also some allusion to intense emotional bonding between two men – David and Jonathan – as well as between two women – Ruth and Naomi – but it is conjectural whether either of these close relationships also had an actual sexual component. Let us remember here, that whether they did or not they could still be termed homosexual… Now let us look at the biblical passages which do have something to say about same-sex sex acts, remembering that this is a very limited way to look at homosexuality. Also, let us confine our discussion to the Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament. This is because however confident some Bible translators of New Testament Greek may be when they refer to “homosexuals” or “fornicators” or “sodomites” or “catamites” at Romans 1(:18-21 and 24-28), 1 Corinthians 6(:9-11) and 1 Timothy 1(:9-10), any honest Bible scholar will tell you that the nature of the condemned persons, called in Greek ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ is far from clear. It is not clear what kind of sexual deviants these are – whether sexually insatiable persons, or effeminate men, or prostitutes, or some particular variant of any or none of these. Alongside this uncertainty, making matters yet more problematical is that these passages (like much of Paul’s writings) are altogether negative about anything less than undivided focus on the imminence of the kingdom of heaven. Their context is eschatology – that means, they are focused on the imminent end of time as we know it. At such a time, according to the ideology of the writer, sex of any kind should not be preoccupying the Christian. Jesus, incidentally, had nothing to say – condemning or otherwise – about homosexuals and some have suggested that Jesus’ resuscitation of the Roman centurion’s servant in Luke 7 suggests indirect approval. Given Roman social conventions and how desperate the centurion is to have his servant brought back to life, a case may indeed be made that the male servant was his lover. I do not consider this implausible but also consider it best not to second-guess either Jesus’ or God’s opinions on this or any other matter… As is so often the case, the biblical text leaves question marks. Back to male-male sex acts in the Hebrew Bible: here there are two references in a legal text called Leviticus, a text which is above all preoccupied with purity regulations. Both references are short and not completely transparent. Leviticus 18:22 very literally translated and addressed to a male, says, “You shall not lie with a male the lyings of a woman – it is an abomination.” The word abomination has a wide meaning referring to ethical and purity offences. Leviticus 20:13 is similar and repeats the strange prohibition, adding a punishment “both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.” Something then is strongly condemned – so strongly that it carries the death penalty. What the act of the lyings of a woman is exactly is unclear – some have suggested penetrative sex, or sodomy, others any intimate act between two men. Why it is prohibited is another source of un-clarity – given the wider context it appears to be because of a purity not an ethical violation, because of improper mixing – just as it is improper to mix two types of grain in one field, or two types of fiber in one garment. Most of such mixing is now permitted by all but ultra-orthodox Jews – yet some Christian groups continue to pluck out these two verses to condemn all forms of homosexuality, purporting to understand them clearly where many biblical scholars admit defeat. The only other Hebrew Bible references to sex acts between men occur in two brutal narratives. The first in Genesis 19 is a story set in Sodom – the name of a proverbially sinful city from which is derived our word ‘sodomy’ – a fact, incidentally, which is likely to have influenced adversely the perception of male homosexuality. In the story a man called Lot is visited by two divinely sent messengers who seek to help him and his family escape God’s imminent destruction of Sodom. While they are inside, men of Sodom surround Lot’s house and demand to know the visitors – know is a verb sometimes used of sexual relations, though some commentators have suggested that the men of Sodom wish to investigate the strangers whom they suspect of being spies. This seems unlikely seeing that Lot seeks to divert the men’s intentions by offering them his two virgin daughters who have not known a man – here very clearly a sexual usage of the verb… Biblical commentators in times past saw this offer as a sign of Lot’s virtue and hospitality, as indicating the great lengths he was prepared to go to, to protect his visitors – to modern sensibilities the offer is entirely offensive, because it suggests that the rape of women is somehow preferable to the rape of men. In this story rape is averted by the intervention of the divine messengers. Let me mention as an aside that in the earliest interpretations of the Sodom story, to be found in the book of Ezekiel and in the Apocrypha, neither sodomy, nor rape is implicated as the sin of Sodom – instead, a lack of hospitality and pride are associated with the sinful city. A similar story where we find our final biblical mention of a male-male sex act is in the book of Judges 19. This story is yet more violent. Here another group of scoundrels, the men of Gibeah, surround the house of a different man who has taken in a Levite traveler and his wife. Again, the men demand to know the male Levite. Again, the host offers female substitutes – his own virgin daughter and his guest’s wife. This time, to avert male rape the Levite thrusts his wife to the mob and she is gang raped all night – one of the Bible’s most sadistic stories. Both of these stories while memorable for their threatened and actual sexual violence do not offer us much to go on regarding homosexuality. As we have said, homosexuality is about sexual attraction but also about much more than that – about emotional, psychological, spiritual fulfillment through and with a member of the same sex. These two stories are not about attraction or fulfilling relationships; they are about sexual abuse and sexual power. Homosexual rape is an awful crime just as heterosexual rape is an awful crime (though both stories mitigate the cruelty of rape of women) – male-male rape has less to do with orientation or attraction than with power and perversion. For similar reasons it is also not appropriate to bring pedophilia – the sexual abuse of children, whether by a member of the same or opposite sex – into our discussion, as is, unfortunately, not infrequent in public debates on homosexuality. Rape and pedophilia are unquestionably morally wrong and cannot be compared to, much less adequately illuminate the quality of consenting intimate relationships between same-sex adults. Male rape, incidentally, is, as some research suggests, often committed by men who identify as heterosexual. We are most familiar hearing about this cruel practice in the prison context and in contexts attending war. Its intention tends to be to humiliate the rape victim. As with rape of women, male rape is under-reported and deeply damaging. Now, where does all this leave us? We have two short legal pronouncements prohibiting some kind of male-male sex act. The nature of this act and the reason for its being objectionable and worthy of the death penalty are obscure. Additionally, we have two brutal narratives in which male rape is threatened and, in the New Testament, a list of sexual deviants which might include some persons we could possibly today subsume under the label ‘homosexual’… We also have expressions of deep emotional affection between two men: David and Jonathan; and between two women: Ruth and Naomi. With the male pair, in particular, there appears to be an indication of a physically affectionate dimension – though we cannot be certain – the intimacy could also be attributed to different social or poetic conventions. At any rate, same-sex affection is acknowledged of such celebrated figures as Ruth and David, prototype of the messiah. Incidentally, it is acknowledged also of Jesus himself: John 21:20 mentions the disciple whom Jesus loved, who would lean back against him at supper. What do we do with all this? Well, we can disregard it – all of it – and remind ourselves that the Bible is a problematic text. It is problematic because, due to its internal diversity, its antiquity and the obscurity of its texts’ origins and meanings, we cannot really understand it fully. Why assume its authority and pertinence for our lives? We lack the contexts in which the texts were written, produced and used, originally and over time. We do not really know what ‘the lyings of a woman’ in Leviticus are and we do not know precisely what the terms ‘arsenokoitai’ and ‘malakoi’ of the New Testament mean. The Bible is a foreign amalgam of texts from an alien world, written over the course of more than a millennium in a language of which there are no native speakers. Some of its texts, yes, have an appeal that reaches through time – some might even be said to have close to universal appeal – that is one reason why the Bible continues to be around and to be compelling. Other texts, such as laws prescribing what to do with a goring bull or how to behave when a spot on the skin sprouts white hairs (Lev 13), are less than useful in contemporary Knoxville…; some, prescribing slavery and genocide and ordering raped women to marry their rapists are offensive and best disregarded. If we argue that all of the Bible is true and right for all time, as some fundamentalists claim, then the door is not only wide open for restoring practices that modern sensibilities generally (and in my view justly) consider outrageous – such as, marrying captive women, regardless of their consent, keeping slaves and stoning disobedient sons – but sometimes we’d also be left utterly stumped because the Bible is so internally inconsistent – one need only compare the slavery laws (some forbid, others permit keeping Hebrew slaves – other laws forbid killing others while some prescribe it in some cases; in some passages God visits wrath on subsequent generations, in others the wrongdoer only suffers for the wrongdoing – it all gets very baffling!). So, the Bible must in some cases at least be firmly disregarded. I would go much further and say the Bible should not hold any special status at all in determining moral choices in present times. What fundamentalists are really doing when they say they are using the Bible as a basis and justification for their condemnation of homosexuality is picking and choosing. If they weren’t picking and choosing, they’d also be picketing their banks and mortgage companies for charging interest and keeping the dietary laws (both of which receive far more coverage in the Bible than anything we might draw into a discussion on the topic of homosexuality). And if picking and choosing is okay, what’s wrong with picking and choosing texts like those of our readings – about David and Jonathan, Ruth and Naomi? Picking and choosing from the Bible, if we are going to use the Bible at all for furnishing guidance for behaviour, is what we must do – nothing else is possible, given its internal inconsistency, not to mention the difficulty, even impossibility of following the myriad, sometimes bizarre laws. So, how do we make moral choices on such matters as homosexuality? Is homosexuality a suitable topic for moral debates? Like heterosexuality it can be, given the multiple dimensions of sexual choices, drives and actions. In themselves both are probably best described, however, as morally neutral, or as having a potential moral charge. Where the state of the world is concerned there are so many more unequivocally immoral realities that create a burden of responsibility for all humanity – I am speaking of environmental destruction, poverty, war, casualties from preventable diseases, to list just a few. All of these are dangers to millions of people and they are affronts to us all on the basis of our common humanity. Our shared humanity is what should entitle us to dignity, quality of life, safety, health, education and personal fulfillment. And if that is in some part achieved through love between human beings – does it really matter who they are and whether they share a gender? While as a biblical scholar I might be talking myself out of a job here, should we today care what a strange collection of ancient writings might have to contribute to the matter? If love – homosexual or otherwise - can bring comfort, dynamism, passion, creativity, tenderness and vibrancy to a world sorely in need of it, that’s good enough for me. Recommended reading: (Jewish perspectives) Jewish Explorations of Sexuality, edited by Jonathan Magonet (Berghan Books, 1995) (Christian perspectives) What Christians Think About Homosexuality, by L. R. Holben (BIBAL Press, 1999)
-
serendipity
I thought this was an interesting point:
What fundamentalists are really doing when they say they are using the Bible as a basis and justification for their condemnation of homosexuality is picking and choosing. If they weren’t picking and choosing, they’d also be picketing their banks and mortgage companies for charging interest and keeping the dietary laws (both of which receive far more coverage in the Bible than anything we might draw into a discussion on the topic of homosexuality).
-
Mysterious
Thanks for the formatting serendipity, it'd be a shame if this fell by the wayside for having a uniparagraph. I have in fact read this particular passage before and I couldn't agree more, but it seems the most vocal opposers are not willing to reason when it comes down to it. Any takers to prove me wrong and dicuss this like intellectuals?
-
Frank75
John 8:7 NIV " When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."
I believe that we have judged each other enough.
Frank75
-
gaiagirl
Many thanks for formatting my post, Serendipity. I was present when Dr. Steibert presented this information, and those in attendance were quite enthusiastic in their appreciation. The congregation is a "welcoming" congregation to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual persons, and perhaps 10% of those attending belonged to one or the other of those groups. However, EVERYONE participated in a standing ovation for Dr. Steibert, as Unitarian Universalists agree with the portion regarding "picking and choosing", and tend to rely much more on reasoning than on blind faith.
-
Dansk
there is the Michigan bill, allowing doctors to refuse to treat homosexuals
Unbelievable! My haematologist is a homosexual. What the heck would I have done if he had to refuse treating heterosexuals?! Those Michigan politicians have got rocks in their brains!
Biblical commentators in times past saw this offer as a sign of Lot’s virtue and hospitality, as indicating the great lengths he was prepared to go to, to protect his visitors – to modern sensibilities the offer is entirely offensive, because it suggests that the rape of women is somehow preferable to the rape of men. In this story rape is averted by the intervention of the divine messengers. Let me mention as an aside that in the earliest interpretations of the Sodom story, to be found in the book of Ezekiel and in the Apocrypha, neither sodomy, nor rape is implicated as the sin of Sodom – instead, a lack of hospitality and pride are associated with the sinful city. A similar story where we find our final biblical mention of a male-male sex act is in the book of Judges 19. This story is yet more violent. Here another group of scoundrels, the men of Gibeah, surround the house of a different man who has taken in a Levite traveler and his wife. Again, the men demand to know the male Levite. Again, the host offers female substitutes – his own virgin daughter and his guest’s wife. This time, to avert male rape the Levite thrusts his wife to the mob and she is gang raped all night – one of the Bible’s most sadistic stories.
How can ANYONE believe that crap! I'd die before I'd let any horny b******s rape my wife or girls, or even guests in my house. The Bible is one sick book! Ian
-
freetosee
Hi Gaiagirl,
thanks for the article. I am ever so happy not to be living in bible times. It was always confusing to read some of those disturbing accounts. Sadly some of that thinking still prevails today.
freetosee
-
Narkissos
Very good article. Confirming my intuition that it is very difficult to reach a honest interpretation of Bible texts unless you drop seeing them as authoritative: as long as you feel you have to agree with them there is a strong temptation to twist them to mean what you want them to mean.
Imo the case for court homosexuality (or rather bisexuality) in the Jonathan-David story gains strength when you add Saul into the picture. Saul first picks up David as a personal servant for his beauty and the ongoing story makes a lot more sense as it involves jealousy in a triangular relationship.
Also, the complete silence of the OT about feminine homosexuality (or bisexuality) is telling, especially in a polygamous context (think of Solomon's harem, even if it is nothing more than a male fantasy).
-
carla
I know a few people who think male rape is much worse than female rape. The come to the conclusion that because female rape is 'more natural' and therefore not as horrific as if a male is raped. I know a man that was beaten and raped, it completely destroyed his life. Some could see why this would happen to him (his complete destruction) but could not see why women cannot 'carry on' after a rape. (he died years back) I think it is the value put on men vs women, though some call me a woman libber for that. I believe it is equally horrific for men or women to be brutally raped.