rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (05/25/84)
THE GAY CHRISTIAN EXPERIENCE: An Historical Perspective
[Summary of a talk given May 21, 1984 at the Church of the Covenant in
Boston by John Boswell, author of the ground-breaking study CHRISTIAN-
ITY, SOCIAL TOLERANCE & HOMOSEXUALITY (U. Chicago Press, 1980) and
professor (at a tender 37 years of age) of history at Yale.]
[All errors of logic or fact or stylistic inelegance are mine. Much of
the summary's wording is taken verbatim from Boswell but not quoted to
make reading easier. --- Ron Rizzo ]
PART TWO
These four hypothetical criticisms may reflect an uneasy feeling
readers have, which may be expressed as follows: "Isn't Boswell merely
putting the best face on a (very) bad picture? Isn't the book so much
whistling in the dark?" Boswell thinks these qualms arise from a mis-
understanding of the relation between religion and "eros" (erotic or
romantic love, either heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, as opposed
sex subordinated to familial interests). The particular situation of
the modern West, a secular culture in which sex sells ideas as well as
material goods, has affected even the perceptions of historians (even
today societies differ widely: Iran, Zambia, & the USSR are decidedly
nonerotic: media, literature, opinion & daily life reveal little interest
in any form of eros; yet 13th-century Iran & 19th-century Russia were
both intensely erotic & religious). He described two syndromes that
scholarship has displayed:
1. The "Why are there so many divorces?" view, which overlooks genera-
lizations by focussing too strongly on details. In fact, there were
many more broken homes in 1900 because more parents abandoned child-
ren or died in childbirth. But the turn-of-the-century US was a
relatively nonerotic culture. Compared to other EROTIC cultures,
we don't have more divorces today; the higher divorce rate results
from making romantic fulfillment rather than the establishment of
families the goal of relationships.
An instance of this view occurs when scholars attempt to explain
the origins of the centuries-old Western preoccupation with roman-
tic love. They trace it to the institution of "courtly love" prac-
ticed by medieval troubadours, yet are bewildered: why did it begin
then & so abruptly & without precedent in the unerotic Middle Ages?
Boswell says "courtly love" seems problematic only because the pre-
ceding medieval centuries were so unerotic, and that culture had
begun a shift back toward an interest in eros that had characterized
the ancient West.
2. "Christianity gave eros a poisoned drink" (Nietzsche). This view
admits that Christianity has seemingly accomodated much of exist-
ing erotic life but only to ultimately control, limit & rob it of
meaning. Boswell cites his own book's findings to contradict this
view.
In fact, Christianity, like other world religions, has displayed a
varying attitude to eros. Boswell listed four variations, found also
in these other religions:
1. Indifference, by far the most common attitude. Religions are no-
toriously very conservative culturally in that they cling to their
"initial environments" long after these have ceased to have any
social reality. Christianity was born (legitimized) during a major
shift in Western culture (in the 4th century) from an erotic to a
nonerotic society.
2. Hostility, the next most common. While Christianity as a whole has
never been hostile to eros as whole, it's had its share of Khomeini's.
Boswell thinks these two attitudes largely suffice to explain the per-
manence of Christian homophobia once it was officially adopted in the
13th century. An institution which was always largely indifferent would
never feel moved to suppress expressions of homophobia, which would occur
occasionally as minority or crank opinion even before 1200.
To emphasize how indifference and marginal hostility can interact to
produce results utterly divorced from the moral teachings of scripture,
Boswell outlined how misogyny became church principle & practice.
[TO BE CONTINUED]
[I sense a weakening of logical ties between parts of the above argument.
The fault is mine; I've lost some of the threads. -- Ron Rizzo]