I'm pretty easygoing about most stuff but I do kinda get annoyed when I hear people making great leaps of thought that leave them to wrong conclusions. In this case, the great leap of thought has to do with the Christian gay community's assertion that Jesus blessed the union between the centurion and his servant.
The gay christian movement are Bible believers who want to prove, by using the Bible, that God blesses homosexual relationships. I can understand this. If one is a true Bible believer, it must be definitely devastating to love God and yet to feel that God doesn't approve of one's beloved. So if I were gay and a Bible-believer I'd be trying to do what the Gay evangelical movement is doing: trying to prove that Jews and Christians throughout the ages have misunderstood the Bible. But I don't have an agenda to prove. My only agenda is sane exegesis. So whenever I hear gay Bible theology, I feel I'm being asked to believe a bunch of desperate crock.
Among the crock is: A) the sin of Sodom was really hospitality, B) Jesus and the beloved disciple were lovers and C) Jonathan and David were lovers.
It takes a lot of wishful thinking to prove that every reference to homosexuality in the Bible is really only about Baal worship.
And the fact that Jesus' opponents -- the pharisees and Judas-- didn't once hint that JEsus and the beloved disciple were getting it on does seem odd, since the Pharisees would surely have used that bit of information to hang Jesus with. And let's consider the fact that the beloved disciple is the only one who calls the beloved disciple the beloved disciple, (and heck I'm Jesus' beloved disciple too).
(One gay priest who used to serve at my local episcopal church and who is pretty big in the movement now was so on the warpath that I began to think that all of his sermons revolved around his penis. And yes, he had several books and gave several sermons about Jesus and the apostle John being lovers. Like several of my gay friends he was adopted and had bonding issues with his parents. I don't think he can imagine loving a heterosexual Jesus.)About Jonathon and David. Tons of middle eastern poetry and figures of speech have this kind of praise of warrior-brothers "love." Gay Christians should check the war poetry of the time and realize that Israel is part of a regional culture. Their historical writing style and their poetry has similarities to other poems and warrior epics of that region.
Plus if gay Christians are going to say that David was in love with Jonathan, why don't they go all the way and say that it looks that David's lust for Bathsheba shows he obviously was healed of his homosexuality later on in life?
Or at least admit that gay folks can be attracted to folks of the other sex? David so wanted Bathsheba that he betrayed his good friend just for a night with her.
But moving past those examples:
I had never heard this particular Centurion thing before. (Mercifully, after the aforementioned priest went on to higher things, I was relieved from keeping up on gay theology.) But the assertion of Jesus blessing a same-sex relationship revolves around the word "pais" which, they argue, is a word everyone in the Greek world and Roman Empire would've known was the word for a same-sex partner. Know what? I'll agree with them...as far as that goes. I always wondered why one gospel writer (Luke 7:2) declares the "a servant" was dear to him --"pais" to him. (Matthew 8:5) called him a "servant" but doesn't mention the pais part. Although I'm still not really convinced the centurion was homosexual, I'm not deeply invested in him not being gay. So for argument's sake, I'll accept it. With a few caveats.
The modern term "gay" is a construct not really known in the old world. When modern folks use the word, they mean a person who solely has same sex relationships with adults. By such a definition, Alexander the Great would not be "gay." Nor for that matter would Oscar Wilde. Back in the day, the person who only solely had relationships with a same sex adult was not common. Alexander the Great was greatly in love with his wife AND his adult male friend/lover. Oscar Wilde fell in love with youths and deeply loved his wife.
Pedophilia in the form of pederasty was fairly accepted back in the Roman Empire. Not homosexuality per se because it was considered unmanly if two adult men sexually loved each other. (Consider that the curse that befell the house of Oedipus began because King Laius simply would not give up his boy lover when the kid got older and Laius was in love with him, an unseemly thing to do he kidnaped and raped him. Everyone descended from Laius had love issues after that. Falling in love with a bull, a mom, not falling in love, falling in love with a son-in-law.) So yeah, certain kinds of homosexual relationships were okay....if a man had a young boy lover, that is. And if he had a homosexual relationship with a man, (Hercules for instance) he dang well had better have a wife. But for the most in the Greek and Roman empires homosexual relationships between two adult males were frowned upon. Only pedophilia was acceptable.
I'll also trust their historical finding that the emperor had put a ban on certain centurions having heterosexual marriages. But I don't believe in their conclusion.
They say that Jesus blessed the homosexual relationship. Uh? Where did they see that? First of all, in Luke's version of the story the servant is dying and Jesus DIDN'T meet the Centurion personally. In Matthew's version, the servant is paralyzed, in pain but not dying and brings the Centurion DOES meet with Jesus. The question is: "Whose version is right?" If Matthew doesn't mention the "pais" part, presumably he thought that kinda thing just wouldn't fly with his readers. If Luke mentions the "pais" bit, he probably thought his readers would understand the situation and not really care. And why do the gay theologians collapse both versions? Either it's just a regular servant and the Centurion meets Jesus, or it's a pais and the Centurion meets Jesus. Matthew had his agenda: to prove that Jesus was king and the one who would bring in Israel's kingdom. Luke had his agenda: To show that Jesus was the savior of all humans. Matthew was a disciple of Jesus. He walked with Jesus. Presumably he saw what was going on first hand. Luke, on the other hand, heard the story second-hand after research. But if we're going to use a Bible verse to prove any kind of human agenda, we better know what we're doing.
There are two people in the Bible whom Jesus healed whom Jesus didn't meet personally. One was the the daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman. The other was the Centurion. The daughter of the Syro-Phoenician woman was not in town. The Centurion was. So why didn't Jesus go to meet this man of great faith? Luke tells us that when Jesus was "Not far from the house" the Centurion sent friends to tell him not to come. Hey, the man had great faith and Jesus wasn't far from the man's house. Yet, Jesus didn't go to the man's house to see him. At least not in Luke's version. Certainly should make a gay theologian wonder...
In Luke's version we can begin to understand why the Centurion is so aware of his "unworthiness." We can see why he sent wave after wave of people to plead to Jesus for his dying friend. I mean, first he sent the elders of the synagogue, then he sent his friends. I wonder why the Gay movement doesn't examine the meaning of the word "unworthy" with as much determined hoopla as they examine the word "pais." They seem to assume the Centurion was just tossing off the word. But one can understand that if this servant was indeed the Centurion's pais, the Centurion would have been feeling way unworthy...and would definitely say Jesus should NOT come into his house. The rulers of the synagogue kept telling Jesus that the man was "worthy" because he had built them a synagogue...but only the Centurion and Jesus knew what went on behind the walls of the Centurion's house.
But both stories have these things in common. The Centurion loved Israel and had built a synagogue. He was very loved by the people. He had a lot of faith in the God of Israel. Jesus praised the Centurion for his faith. And I do wonder about Christians who think that gay folks can't love God deeply.
So I agree that Jesus healed the Centurion's servant/pais-same-sex-partner. The gay christian movement says that Jesus didn't rebuke the centurion. Come on! Jesus wasn't the kind of person to rebuke people second-hand. Besides, why rebuke a person who seems to be well aware of his sin? Ever had one of those moments where one has said to a judgmental Christian, "I lose my temper a lot."? And the Christian says, "You really should work on that temper of yours. It's a sin." Duh.
Besides, Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel. He doesn't drop the Law on people who live outside of the Law. Hey, I have tons of gay friends. Most of them feel they were NOT born gay. Some feel they were. Some are religious and in loving relationships. Some are religious and celibate. Some are slowly being healed. Some cruise around in way dangerous places. Some will proclaim to the world that they were born gay but privately to me and their close friends say the opposite. And I have no problem with that. Hey, I know the Christian world and the non-Christian world. Christians can be very harsh on gay folks. Gay folks can be harsh on Christians. The world can be harsh on them both.
Whatever the situation, I try to walk the borderlands. I try to be fair. I don't know what it's like to be born gay but I know what it's like to have an unusual sexual orientation. I, myself, have NEVER fallen in love with anyone black. Nor do I think I ever will. So I defend my gay friends always because I'm not going to judge a woman who dates another woman when I know my friend was sexually abused by her minister father or her alcoholic brother since age four or eight. Nor am I going to judge my friends who were molested by priests or Jehovah's Witness deacons or
by their fathers when they were young. So I'm not picking on gay folks. But I will challenge bad theology whenever I come up against it. And I will speak up against any kind of wrong interpretations or wrong conclusions I hear someone spouting. Hey, I'm still open to being convinced but so far none of the arguments have made any sense.
8 comments:
carole
please show me how the words in the verses in scripture say that homosexuality is a sin?
i thought that genesis was about gang rape.
homosexuality being about human bonding of two people of the same sex out of mutual love, respect, devotion, and trust for a shared committed life together......the same as with heterosexuals
Very interesting thoughts. Definitely thought provoking. I've never thought of the story of the centurion that way. Thanks for sharing! It was good to read and very challenging in a good way.
there is also the consideration that enueuchs among other things were also the homosexuals of the time.
Hello Carole-
Thank you for an interesting post about the beliefs of gay Christians. We are not a monolithic group. For example, I do not believe that Jesus and the beloved disciple were lovers or sexually intimate.
I do think that traditional nongay Christians tend to read scripture through the lens of their heterosexuality and therefore miss much that God has for their gay brothers and lesbian sisters.
God bless you as you walk the path of God's purpose for your life.
As I read your words I couldn't help but wonder what you think of Romans 1:26-27. Here's the first page (of 4) which gives my take on this important passage.
Your brother in Christ,
Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Romans-1.html
it is my understanding those in 26 and 27 abandoned relationships that they were naturally given of the spirit whose fruit was kindness, gentleness, goodness, love ,joy, peace,self control, patience, faithfulness. because they were given over shame based lust(niv)(spirit)whose fruit was other than the fruit of the spirit of christ.
the fruit of shame based lust is self loathing and self hatred thaat was their "just rewards"
1cor and 1tim the greek term is "malebed". paul was saying the same to the all gentliles who might indulge in sexual behavior that had the same fruit as in romans. in gentile society males were the ones with sexual license.
maybe the reason for no term for homosexuality, because there was no taboos among gentiles regarding sexual practices. hence no need to differentiate one from another.
Hey Carole!
Good thoughts. I just wanted to add a couple of my own. You say that it would take wishful thinking to apply all passages thought to be about homosexuality to Baal worship. Well, let's examine them.
1 Corinthians 6:9 uses the word "arsenokoites". What does it mean? The very first times we see it used outside of the New Testament, it refers to child abduction (the Sibylline Oracles) and is used in 125 AD by the Christian writer Aristides, who is speaking of the abduction of the shepherd boy Ganymede by the god Zeus to be his cupbearer and sexual servant. Both times, then, it has to do with kidnapping boys for sexual purposes.
Then there is Romans 1, but if you read the whole chapter carefully, you will see it has to do with idolatry. In the historical context, as Rick pointed out to you, it is clear that as an *illustration* of the terrible results of idolatry Paul is referring to the example of the worshipers of Cybele, the goddess who had many worshipers in Corinth (where the epistle was sent from) and in Rome (where it was being sent to). Her worshipers turned away from the natural knowledge of God taught even by their own philosophers, and instead worshiped idols in the form of humans (Cybele in her chariot), four footed beasts (lions) and reptiles (snakes). Her "Galli" priests not only cut their arms til they bled, but they *castrated* themselves, dressed as women, and played the part of women in same-sex temple prostitution. What a terrible "penalty" for their error! And "even the women" devotees of Cybele were fitted with artificial phalli to play the part of men in temple prostitution. Paul then goes on to list the various sins that flow from rejecting God -- murder, disobedience to parents, etc.
It should be evident that the Romans 1 passage has *nothing* to do with gay and lesbian Christians who have been reared in the church, have known and loved and prayed to Jesus since childhood, who have certainly not worshiped idols, but who just happen to be wired toward falling in love with persons of the same sex.
The Genesis 19 Sodom passage, like the story in Judges 19, has to do not with homosexual unions but with gang-rape of foreigners to "keep them in their place" so to speak. When the prophet Ezekiel refers to the sin of Sodom he notes haughtiness and lack of concern for the poor (Ezek. 16:49).
Which leaves us with Leviticus 18 and 20, specifically addressed to the Jews against the lifestyles of the Egyptians and Canaanites. Note the careful wording of the commandment. It does not say "Man shall not lie with a man" as we might expect. Rather it goes on, "Man shall not lie with man as with a woman". Remember that women were under the control of men at that time. Since the Israelites had just been set free from slavery, it was unthinkable for a man to be subjugated to another man: so the sexual domination of men is prohibited. But since the word "toevah" (abomination) is used -- which 85% of the time in the Torah is used of idolatry -- it may also refer to same-sex prostitution in Baal worship. But either way, modern, Gentile, same-sex couples are not referred to.
The passages commonly quoted against gay and lesbian partnerships simply don't carry the freight they need to. They have historically been misunderstood and misapplied. It is time to re-evaluate our stance, and to reflect upon the full meaning of Galatians 3:28, where Paul actually quotes Genesis 1:27 ("male and female") in order to overturn it! -- and to sweep it aside as having no salvific import. I suggest it is time to realize that "Man looks on the outward appearance -- but the LORD looks upon the heart".
Hi Seraph:
Read A Strong Delusion for a discussion on homosexuality. It's a good book and I'm too out of it right now to actually explain everything wrong with your argument.
As for the wiring argument, I know only a few gay folks who really believe they were created gay by nature or science. Many of the males were adopted, violated as boys, grew up in a family of sisters or without a dad or were awash with feminine emotions around the time of their birth which has a high correlation with homosexuality in many countries.
But again as to wiring. Being wired differently is not an excuse in the Bible. If you look at the laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, you'll see that that argument doesn't really matter to the Deity. Nor do most of us accept the "wiring" argument in the case of other situations. If a person before or after birth is affected by some physical situation or medical situation or emotional situation that affects them, we don't say, "Oh let's accept it!" Generally, society tries to repair it.
I'll tell you that in college I was called a fruit fly -- another term for fag hag-- and throughout the years my closest friends have been gay or lesbian. So I'm pretty cool with gay folks. But they have also been pretty cool and honest with me. Like my buddy Matilda over at www.nobodypasses.blogspot.com I think that it would help the gay cause best if those folks who know why they are gay were only honest and were to say "I know what happened to me. I wasn't created gay by God but life has done this thing to my sexuality." Heck, that's what I do when I talk about my own sexuality. It's more honest. As for those who don't know why they are gay, they should be honest about what the Bible actually says and search to see if what the gay theology is saying is actually right.
Remember, when it comes to ancient manuscripts, the letters in the Bible are pretty much the most common. There are about 10,000 pieces of the Bible all over. On the other hand there is only one or two copies of Oedipus Rex and twelve copies of Caesar's autobiography. Remember that cultures such as the hittites, folks like Pontius Pilate, David, and Solomon were mentioned in the Bible and historians thought those folks didn't exist because there was no external extra-Biblical correlation. UNTIL they found mentions in other archeological digs. So when someone says that a particular word wasn't used in a particular way....they should allow that it is quite possible that A) the person who told them that hasn't read all the new archeological finds B) has read them and is simply being selective about mentioning them, C) has read them and simply does not understand enoug. I always am very careful about theologies based in an agenda. And remember, you're dealing with a woman who has seen friends die of AIDS and has gone on gay marches. I also had gay theologians -- important in their day and important now so I won't mention their names-- as my ministers while I was in the episcopalian churhc.
So I'm not trying to make anyone's life difficult. But I know my Bible and I know a lot about gay theology. Anyways, it's honesty that heals the soul...not agenda. Exodus International is a great resource for a clearer understanding on that Baal/Canaanite/hospitality and all that other stuff the gay theologians throw at us.
Hello!
I am contacting you because I am working with the authors of a book about blogs, and I'd like to request permission to use a photograph of yours in this book. Please contact me at matt@wefeelfine.org, and I'd be happy to give you more information about the project. Please paste a link to your blog in the subject field. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
Matt
matt@wefeelfine.org
Post a Comment