daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (09/19/86)
[The following is an article I posted to talk.religion.misc:] >More than once on the net, I have seen someone comment that they were a homo- >sexual christian or jew. This has usually been followed by questions as to >how they could be both, that they are mutually exclusive, etc, etc. This was >brought to mind recently when I read a newspaper article about a new church >that was being founded by, and for homosexuals (Catholic?). This may be an >old subject to readers of this newsgroup, so I don't intend to start a dis- >cussion. But I would appreciate it if someone could provide references as >to where in the bible homosexuality is discussed. > >Please send me mail as I do not read this group. Thanks. > >Dave 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? Again, please respond by email, and do not cross-post to religious groups. D.R.
brad@SU-ISL.STANFORD.EDU (Bradley Clymer) (09/19/86)
I wrote this letter to daver in reponse to his posting, then I decided that it might be good to post it to the net with the idea that it might either begin stimulating discussion, or provide confort and support to someone who is gay and christian and trying to deal with the apparent conflicts in these seemingly different identities: To: daver@felix.UUCP Subject: Re: New question for biblical scholars Newsgroups: net.motss In-Reply-To: <1576@felix.UUCP> References: <1575@felix.UUCP> Organization: Information Systems Lab, Stanford University Cc: Bcc: In article <1576@felix.UUCP> you write: >>More than once on the net, I have seen someone comment that they were a homo- >>sexual christian or jew. This has usually been followed by questions as to >>how they could be both, that they are mutually exclusive, etc, etc. > >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? > >Again, please respond by email, and do not cross-post to religious groups. > >D.R. I am interested in discussion of this topic... I am the coordinator of the young adults group at the local United Methodist Church here in Palo Alto. Last fall, part of our program included a series of lectures and discussions about homophobia in the `church', and its history. One of the speakers had a PhD in English literature with specialization in the era in which the King James Version of the bible was written. She has done extensive research into the references in the bible in which sex is mentioned either explicitly or implicitly. Her research included study of the Jewish culture in the times that are estimated that the stories and laws were recorded. She gave us several interesting insights: (1) The laws that specificly condemn `man laying with another man as if a women' are part of the deuteronomic and priestly codes...the same codes that establish kosher eating and cleaning rituals, and are thought by many scholars to be largely social in origin. As much as anything, this a display of the hatred between the Jews and the tribes of the surrounding areas (a hatred that still exists thousands of years later). The Babylonians commonly practiced fertility rituals. This included homosexual as well as heterosectual orgies, and festivals. When the Jews were captive by the Babylonians, there was considerable concern among the Jewish priests and prophets that the race would be corrupted by the teachings and culture of the `heathens' that were occupying them. The laws were part of an effort to separate the two cultures, and preserve the identity of the Jewish people. Today, many Christians disregard the kosher eating laws as being primarily social, however the adhere to the sexual laws (to varying degrees) because they tend to reinforce the culture of the majority. (2) All specific stories in which motss sex is condemned (for example the story of the destruction of Sodom, the story of Noah and his son, etc.) involve RAPE. In these cases, the sex involved noncomplicitity of the part of at least one of the participants. In most cases, the action included threats of physical violence (as with Sodom) as well as intent to socially debase the person being attacked by forcing into a position lower than a woman's (and women were regarded as being socially invisible objects of possession). Many scholars see these stories as condemnation of rape rather than homosexuality. The specific examples tend to involve men raping men because that was socially considered the most degrading and violent form of rape. As I recall in the story of Sodom, Lot offered his virgin daughters that the angels be spared. This is as much a statement of the prevaling opinion of women as it is the `nobleness' of Lot in his effort to save his guests. (3) There is absolutely no mention of women having sex with other women. Either that was considered allowable behavior or (more likely) women had such low standing socially that the powers of the church ignored their sexual practices unless they involved infidelity to a man. (4) There is a story of King David and a friend, Jonathon, in which a homosexual relationship is strongly inplied, although not specifically cited. This relationship is not treated in a negative manner. Granted, not everything that David did was entirely honorable and should be copied, but he is definitely considered one of the most famous heroes of the old testiment. (5) In Christian interpretations of the messages of Jesus in the new testiment, many sects emphasize that the principal commandment is to `love your neighbor as yourself," and that this christian love transcends all laws of the old testiment. He gave examples of working on the Sabbath when the done out of love. Many gay christians see this as an acceptance of themselves and their lifestyles; how can an act of love be a sin? Granted, many gay relationships are not loving, but many heterosexual ones are not either. Well, this letter has already become much longer than I intended. I welcome discussion on this or other subjects. I am glad that you posted to net.motss. This is a topic that is not often discussed, and should be. brad clymer brad@su-isl.arpa or brad@isl.stanford.edu (I'm not sure of the uucp path)
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (09/21/86)
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.
wex@milano.UUCP (09/22/86)
In article <247@SU-ISL.STANFORD.EDU>, brad@SU-ISL.STANFORD.EDU (Bradley Clymer) writes: > There is absolutely no mention of women having sex with other women. Either > that was considered allowable behavior or (more likely) women had such low > standing socially that the powers of the church ignored their sexual > practices unless they involved infidelity to a man. I can think of another reason for this: many rulers (including Hebrew kings) had multiple wives. It is quite likely that lesbian activity took place among the wives. Since this didn't threaten the king (the way infidelity did), he didn't worry about it. But it would have been politically dangerous for the priests to forbid the activity (as a horde of pissed-off wives might have influenced the king to move against the priests). Sound plausible? -- Alan Wexelblat ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex "True victory is victory over oneself."
lonestar@ozdaltx.UUCP (lonestar @ OZ BBS, Dallas,Tx) (09/27/86)
In Article 3 (Newsgroup soc.motss) last week, Dave
inquired: "how can you be both a Christian and gay? Where
in the Bible are homosexual acts condemned? How do gay
people reconcile that problem? Does the new church founded
by/for gays have special Bibles with those references
removed?"
There is absolutely nothing that precludes a Christian
from being a homosexual, or vice versa. A Christian is a
believer in the risen Christ: nothing more, nothing less.
Some churches like to impose their own qualifications on
what constitues a "real" Christian; but these are latter-
day additions to or corruptions of Christianity.
The Metropolitan Community Church is not a "gay
church", but a Christian church with an outreach to the gay
community. It came into existence because many gay
Christians were excluded from membership or participation
in their traditional congregations. It's not surprising
that a large percentage of MCC members come from
fundamentalist backgrounds; but the MCC serves Catholics
and Protestants alike.
No, gay Christians do not have special Bibles with
references to homosexuality removed. It might be tempting
to say, "Why don't we compile a new Bible and just cut-out
those bits that we don't like?" Well, where do you quit
cutting? Are you going to delete the Resurrection because
you find it inconvenient? See the problem? We can't
remove bits from the Bible like that because our integrity
would be lost. We have to take the Bible as a whole and
read it in context, not in bits-and-pieces.
The first, and most quoted, reference to homosexuality
in the Bible is Leviticus 18:22. "Thou shalt not lie with
mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".... .usually
delivered by homophobes of a somewhat theatric bent in
ringing tones! Other Biblical references to homosexuality
are clearly cases where the writer borrowed from the author
of Leviticus.
Asking how gay Christians reconcile the problem with
this condemnation is rather like asking how straight people
deal with the Biblical condemnation of adultery. Which
straight people? Which gay people? Not all gay people
think alike--anymore than do straight folks. Some worry
about it, some don't; some reconcile it this way, some that
way; some never reconcile it at all.
Most Biblical Literalists perceive an irreconcilable
problem in this single verse of scripture. Their view of
the Bible is that "God wrote it, every word is true, and it
contains no errors." But no thinking person can accept
that notion. The Bible is full-up with errors, mainly of
four types. The first is Biblical self-contradictions.
One example: Noah's flood lasts for 40 days in Genesis
7:17 and for 150 days in Genesis 7:24. Not bad...only
eight verses apart, and they can't decide how long it
lasted. The second is errors in natural science. The
universe was believed to be wrapped in waters that are held
back by a solid bell-shaped barrier called the firmament of
heaven. Clearly, this is wrong. Third: errors in
history. There are so many of those that it's hard to know
where to start, but perhaps the best example is the fifth
chapter of Daniel, which is just rife with them from start
to finish. Finally, there are moral errors. Probably the
worst example was the system of "heran". This was the
total destruction of an enemy people, considered as enemies
of oneself and therefore enemies of God. Their total
destruction (men, women, children, and cattle) was
understood to be both the will of God and righteous.
Another example is God's blessing of slavery (Leviticus).
In 1986, we must say that these are moral errors.
How do you deal with that? If you insist upon
Biblical Literalism and inerrancy, don't you attribute
those errors to God himself? Compelled as we are by our
integrity to reject the Bible as literal history, and
therefore also to reject it as inerrant, we're left with
one alternative: interpretation.
Interpretists believe that it is the task of every
generation to interpret the story of the faith in and for
its own time. No word or portion of the holy scripture is
binding upon us just as it is written-down, without
interpretation. It is not sufficient to just quote the
mere words of the text. What is the context of the words?
The text must be examined with meticulous care, using all
the tools of scholarship available to us in all
denominations. It must be checked for accuracy. It must
be related to other passages, one passage set against
another, to see how these things balance-out; not taken in
isolation. It must be examined for its historical setting.
What were the time and circumstances in which it was said;
not taken on its own, as though it had no place. And then
it must be checked against the overall message of the
Gospel as we know it. How does what it says measure-up
against the doctrine of Love? If it doesn't, it's probably
wrong. Then, when you're finished with all that, you can
relate it to the present time.
What is the context of Leviticus 18:22? The book of
Leviticus was written as a guide to the priests of the day:
containing instructions for rituals, sacrificial offerings,
and maintaining cleanliness. There were over 600 laws that
the Hebrews had to obey, 365 couched in the negative!
Homosexuality was just one of them. Some other sins and
abominations in Leviticus included eating rabbit, pork, or
crabmeat; touching a woman during her menstrual period;
eating rare meat; and the selling of land. (How eagerly
some people use the Bible to beat homosexuals over the
head, but dispense with the other laws. Selective
enforcement of the law!)
The laws condemning homosexual relationships
originated in Jewish history upon the return from
Babylonian exile. It's significant that both mouth-genital
contacts and homosexual activities had previously been
associated with the Jewish religious service. But now, in
about the 7th century BC, there was an attempt to
disidentify themselves with customs which they had
previously shared with the Babylonians. Homosexuality and
many other condemnations were based upon the fact that the
pagan Babylonians do thus-and-such; and therefore we won't.
(Ref: The Hite Report on Male Sexuality, p. 797).
Through misinterpretation of intent, many Christians
have misconstrued the Biblical condemnation of homosexual
acts as a matter of morality. Perhaps the most important
thing about the Bible and homosexuality is that Jesus, who
had so much to say about so many sins, said not one word
about it! For many gay Christians today, there simply
isn't a problem to be reconciled.tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) (10/03/86)
> The first, and most quoted, reference to homosexuality > in the Bible is Leviticus 18:22. "Thou shalt not lie with > mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination".... .usually [ enter un-serious mode ] 1. It sounds like this is against gays who have a lot of partners ( note it says "mankind" ). So perhaps only one or two are ok? 2. Also, it seems to only call it an abomination when you *lie* with mankind. Perhaps if you *stand* during sex then it is ok? Taking 1 and 2 together, it seems that what the Bible is against is gay orgies where everyone lies down. [ un-enter un-serious mode ] -- member, all HASA divisions POELOD ECBOMB -------------- ^-- Secret Satanic Message Tim Smith USENET: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim Compuserve: 72257,3706 Delphi or GEnie: mnementh
daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) (10/07/86)
In article <414@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (Vincent Manis) writes: >In article <1576@felix.UUCP> I write: >>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. [remainder of article deleted] My question was based on ignorance, as are most sincere questions. I hesitate when using the word "ignorance" because I feel it has taken on a somewhat negative connotation, and I sense that it was used by Vincent with that inten- tion. I mentioned a new church. I did not say it was THE FIRST gay church, or even the first gay church of which I was aware. I simply said that I had read about a new gay church, and that it had sparked the discussion that prompted my question. Isn't the phrase "incredibly ignorant" sort of like "incredibly unique"? Vince, it's too bad you had to ruin an otherwise superlative article (pun intended) with the condescending crap in front. The article is the most com- plete and useful response that I've seen. I only wish you had answered by e-mail as I requested, as it was pure chance that I saw it in this group. I've been reading news on this net for about a year, and have not seen this subject discussed before. If it is frequently discussed in this newsgroup, then I am sorry for taking up your valuable time and net space with my query. But again, if everyone had replied by e-mail, that is ALL the space that would have been taken up. Dave
manis@ubc-cs.UUCP (10/07/86)
In article <1635@felix.UUCP> daver@felix.UUCP (Dave Richards) writes: >My question was based on ignorance, as are most sincere questions. >I hesitate >when using the word "ignorance" because I feel it has taken on a somewhat >negative connotation, and I sense that it was used by Vincent with that >intention. > >Vince, it's too bad you had to ruin an otherwise superlative article (pun >intended) with the condescending crap in front. The article is the most com- >plete and useful response that I've seen. I only wish you had answered by >e-mail as I requested, as it was pure chance that I saw it in this group. > >I've been reading news on this net for about a year, and have not seen this >subject discussed before. If it is frequently discussed in this newsgroup, >then >I am sorry for taking up your valuable time and net space with my query. But >again, if everyone had replied by e-mail, that is ALL the space that would >have been taken up. Dave, let me say that I'm sincerely sorry that my remark offended you (since the original remark was posted, so too should the apology). I would stop there, except that you (and other people who just "happened" across this newsgroup) may not know the context within which I made that remark. About once every three months, somebody posts something like the following: "Please forgive my ignorance, but how do gay people reconcile their beliefs with the fact that gays are garbage?" This then sparks off a heated debate in which the original poster defends his (I can't remember a "her" in this position) right to post and right to hold offensive positions. I used the phrase "incredibly ignorant" to suggest that perhaps you really didn't know about MCC, Dignity, etc., etc., and that perhaps you weren't planning to start off one of these debates. Again, I am sorry that you took offense; I would encourage you to remain in this newsgroup, and to participate. As a postscript, the notion of a group of gays getting together to prepare an expurgated/amended version of the Bible strikes me as extremely funny; by the time that the committee on lesbian participation, the committee on solidarity with people of colour, and the committee on the correct political position on pornography had all submitted their reports, the organisation sponsoring the rewrite would undoubtedly have fractured into three competing organisations.
david@gladys.UUCP (David Dalton) (10/11/86)
In article <426@ubc-cs.UUCP>, manis@ubc-cs.UUCP writes: > > As a postscript, the notion of a group of gays getting together to prepare > an expurgated/amended version of the Bible ... An expurgated version of the Bible probably isn't necessary. A better course would be to apply good scholarship to statements in the Bible that are generally held to apply to gay people. It is possible to make an excellent case for the argument that the Bible isn't nearly as harsh on gay people as is generally believed. John Boswell, a professor of history at Yale University, published an excellent book in 1980 which I am ashamed to say I read only recently. The book is _Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality,_ University of Chicago Press. I should be very cautious in attempting to condense Boswell's major points; Boswell is cautious even with 400 pages in which to make his case. However: --------- -- A harsh Christian attitude toward gay people is a fairly new invention. It arose about the time the Inquisition got started -- the 13th Century. Before the 13th Century, gay people generally were quite well accepted. In many periods and places there were no laws against homosexuality at all. When there were laws, homosexuality was generally held to be no worse than gluttony, or heterosexual dallying -- sins of excess and indiscretion, in other words. Punishment, when there was any, was light, and in many cases the punishment for homosexual acts was less than that for heterosexual fornication. The problems began in the 13th Century, when theologians advanced the idea, for the first time, that homosexuality was a much greater crime, as bad as, or worse than, murder. Gay people were not the only minority to suffer. Boswell writes, "The Jews were in fact one of the first casualities of the intolerance of the later Middle Ages. For centuries they had lived among European Christians quietly and with little difficulty.... During the later half of the twelfth century, however, an increasingly conformist European society found the persistent distinctiveness of the Jews more and more irritating." Things got worse. "During the decades surrounding the opening of the fourteenth century, the Jews were expelled from England and France; the order of the Templars dissolved on charges of sorcery and deviant sexuality; Edward II of England, the last openly gay medieval monarch, deposed and murdered; lending at interest equated with heresy and those who supported it subjected to the Inquisition; and lepers all over France imprisoned and prosecuted on charges of poisoning wells and being in league with Jews and witches." It has persisted for centuries: "Moreover, whatever its effect on public lives, the change in public attitudes had a profound and lasting impact on European institutions and culture as a result of the permanent and official expression it achieved in thirteenth-century laws, literature, and theology, all of which continued to influence Western thought and social patterns long after the disappearance of the particular circumstances which produced them." -- Translations of, and popular contemporary understandings of, biblical references to homosexuality are by no means firmly supported by good scholarship. Boswell is a historian and a linguist. He is quite familiar with, and frequently quotes at great length from, primary sources. Boswell writes, "In spite of misleading English translations which may imply the contrary, the word 'homosexual' does not occur in the Bible: no extant text or manuscript, Hebrew, Greek, Syriac, or Aramaic, contains such a word. In fact none of those languages ever contained a word corresponding to the English 'homosexual'... "None of the many Old Testament passages which refer to Sodom's wickedness suggests any homosexual offenses, and the rise of homosexual associations can be traced to social trends and literature of a much later period." The story of the destruction of Sodom is an excellent example of contemporary and historical misinterpretation of Biblical stories. Boswell writes, "Since 1955 modern scholarship has increasingly favored interpretation (4) [that the city was destroyed for inhospitable treatment of visitors sent from the Lord], emphasizing that the sexual overtones to the story are minor, if present, and that the original moral impact of the passage had to do with hospitality. Briefly put, the thesis of this trend in scholarship is that Lot was violating the custom of Sodom (where he was himself not a citizen but only a 'sojourner') by entertaining unknown guests within the city walls at night without obtaining the permission of the elders of the city. When the men of Sodom gathered around to demand that the strangers be brought out to them, 'that they might know them,' they meant no more than to 'know' who they were, and the city was consequently destroyed not for sexual immorality but for the sin of inhospitality to strangers. "Numerous considerations lend this argument credibility. As Bailey pointed out, the Hebrew word 'to know' ([Hebrew characters omitted!]) is very rarely used in a sexual sense in the Bible (despite popular opinion to the contrary): in only 10 of 943 occurences in the Old Testament does it have the sense of carnal knowledge. The passage on Sodom is the only place in the Old Testament where it is generally [that is, popularly] held to refer to homosexual relations. "Jesus himself apparently believed that Sodom was destroyed for the sin of inhospitality: 'Whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, it shall be no more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.' "There are, moreover, numerous other references in the Old Testament to Sodom and its fate, and scholars have failed to accord this facet of the controversy the importance it deserves. Sodom is used as a symbol of evil in dozens of places, but not in a single instance is the sin of the Sodomites specified as homosexuality." -- The words of Saint Paul, too, have similarly been misunderstood and mistranslated by translators all too willing to let the popular prejudices of their time affect their work. Boswell goes into these questions in detail, and there is even an appendix, "Lexicography and Saint Paul," which discusses this problem. -- Boswell argues that religious belief -- Christian or other -- is not the CAUSE of intolerance of gay people. He writes: "If religious strictures are used to justify oppression by people who regularly disregard precepts of equal gravity from the same moral code, or if prohibitions which restrain a disliked minority are upheld in their most literal sense as absolutely inviolable while comparable precepts affecting the majority are relaxed or reinterpreted, one must suspect something other than religious belief as the motivating cause of the oppression. "In the particular case at issue, the belief that the hostility of the Christian Scriptures to homosexuality caused Western society to turn against it should not require any elaborate refutation. The very same books which are thought to condemn homosexual acts condemn hypocrisy in the most strident terms, and on greater authority: and yet Western society did not create any social taboos against hypocrisy, did not claim that hypocrites were 'unnatural,' did not segregate them into an oppressed minority, did not enact laws punishing their sins with castration or death. No Christian state, in fact, has passed laws against hypocrisy per se, despite its continual and explicit condemnation by Jesus and the church. In the very same list which has been claimed to exclude from the kingdom of heaven those guilty of homosexual practices, the greedy are also excluded. And yet no medieval states burned the greedy at the stake. Obviously some factors beyond biblical precedent were at work in late medieval states which licensed prostitutes but burned gay people." -- Oppression of gay people is closely linked to oppression of other minorities. Boswell writes, "Most societies, for example, which freely tolerate religious diversity also accept sexual variation, and the fate of Jews and gay people has been almost identical throughout European history, from early Christian hostility to extermination in concentration camps." In many ways, life for gay people can be worse than for Jews in times when both are being oppressed. "... Jewish family life flourished as the main social outlet for a group cut off from the majority at many points in its history, imparting to individual Jews a sense not only of community in the present but of belonging to the long and hallowed traditions of those who went before. "Gay people for the most part are not born into gay families. They suffer oppression individually and alone, without benefit of advice or frequently even emotional support from relatives and friends.... "...[G]ay people have been all but totally dependent on popular attitudes toward them for freedom, a sense of identity, and in many cases survival. The history of public reactions to homosexuality is thus in some measure a history of social tolerance generally." ----------- It is quite chilling that Boswell declares that intolerance of gay people has never been worse than it is this century. Anti-gay propagandists seem to be succeeding in making gay people a major symbol of immorality in this country today. These propagandists generally cite religion as their authority. John Boswell's book, if widely read, could go a long way toward showing that religious bigots are connecting not with the gentle roots of Christianity but with the worst horrors of the late Middle Ages and the Inquisition. -- David Dalton ihnp4!gladys!david -or- ethos!gladys!david ____________ P.O. Box 256, Bethania, NC 27010