Rembert S. Truluck's 12 Steps to Recovery From Bible Abuse.

For all those who are bothered by allegations that the Bible is (allegedly) against homoerotic love, here's a site to bookmark now: Steps to Recovery From Bible Abuse. I first came across this just yesterday, by way of a reference in the excellent book, "The Queer Bible Commentary", and am delighted to have found it.  As gay men, lesbians and trans peoples, we all know how freely the bible has been used and abused to argue against full equality, or even to justify direct discrimination, bullying, violence, criminalization and even execution. For those of us who are Christians, this abuse may have led us to deep feelings of guilt as we have struggled to reconcile and balance the supposed demands of faith, and living lives of personal integrity.

There are numerous resources now available that show how this supposed opposition is a chimera, and a gross misrepresentation of what the Bible really says about homosexuality, but most of these do not go much further than rebutting the handful of texts of terror. Dr Truluck's site does much more - offering suggestions for healing from the years of guilt engendered by this Bible abuse.

Dr Rembert S Truluck

The developer of the site, Dr Rembert S.  Truluck, was a  Southern Baptist Pastor from 1953 to 1973, Professor of Religion at Baptist College of Charleston, SC, 1973-1981, and later a pastor at Metropolitan Community Churches in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Nashville, TN., 1988-1996.

He was a Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968, and the author of "Invitation to freedom", (a guide to Personal Evangelism in the Gay Community), and "Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse".

The Gay Beatitudes

I missed these  when the Catholic priest Wild Hair first posted these at "A Piece of My Mind", then came across them earlier this week. There is nothing that makes them any less relevant two months later, so draw your attention to them now:

Blessed are they who stand naked and shame free
before God and one another.
Blessed are they who celebrate the rich diversity of all people
as spiritual & sexual beings.

And they continue. Read the full set at A Piece of My Mind

Lazarus, The Man Jesus Loved.

This morning's Gospel tells the story of Jesus' raising of Lazarus from the dead, a familiar tale - too familiar, perhaps, as it contains much that should inspire us as queer Christians, but which we can easily overlook in its over - familiarity.

The Household of Martha and Mary.

Now a man named Lazarus was sick. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha.  (This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay sick, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair). (John  11: 1- 2)

These verses remind us of the nature of the household of Martha, Mary and Lazarus - three unmarried people living together in one house. What we easily overlook in the twenty-first century, is how very odd, even transgressive, this would have been to the Jews of Jesus' day. There was overwhelming pressure on all, women and men alike, to marry and produce children. For women, there was scarcely any choice in the matter: their lives were governed by their menfolk before marriage (either fathers or brothers), and their husbands after. It is true that after a man's death, his brother was expected to take over the care and control of his widow(s), but this scarcely seems to fit what we know of this household. Lazarus is not married himself, and there is nothing anywhere in the text to suggest that he is in command of the household - quite the reverse. In this household, it is the women who run things.

Martha Mary and Lazarus

Although they are described as siblings, several scholars have noted that this could well have been a euphemism, hiding a lesbian relationship between the women, and masking the true status of the single man living with them. Whatever the precise details of the relationships, this is undoubtedly a queer (i.e. unconventional) household, which we should bear in mind as we consider the particular relationship between Jesus and Lazarus, the focus of the story.

"The Man Jesus Loves"

So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, the one you love is sick. (John  11: 3).

Jesus: Not "Gay", but Genderqueer.

It appears from an article by Michael Ruse at the Guardian, that there is new evidence that Jesus was openly and unambiguously a gay man. Appearances are deceptive: this is a speculative piece, describing the texts he would like to see, when these newly discovered codicils have been translated. 

So what?

The interesting thing about this story is that while it is a piece of fiction, it actually makes very little difference to the core statements in the report: all (except for the unspecified parable, and the hypothetical quarrel with Joseph about manliness) are already known to us from the existing Gospels.

The Sexuality of Jesus

The absence of any direct reference in the Gospels to Jesus' love life,  sexual or emotional, has led to the unfortunate modern assumption that he did not have one, that he was in effect asexual. This is a bad mistake. We know that he was fully human, and do will also have had the full range of human bodily and emotional drives. We also know very little about his eating habits, hygiene practices or bowel movements - but this does not imply that he did not have any.  We may not know how Jesus responded to his sexual feelings, but we can be certain that he had them - just as we do.

The repeated references to a "beloved disciple" (whoever he is) are clear evidence of a special, even intimate,relationship. This evidence comes from the words used, but also from the privileged position given to him, physically and symbolically, at key points in the Gospel narrative (for example, at the last supper and at the crucifixion). It is widely assumed that the term applies to John the Evangelist, but this may not be so. Another candidate is Lazarus. Some scholars draw attention to a supposed Second Gospel of Mark, which supposedly tells that after raising a young man (Lazarus?) from the dead, Jesus spent the night in bed with him. There is also a peculiar story in Mark's Gospel of a night-time encounter in the garden with a young man covered only in a linen cloth, who then ran away naked.  We do not know who this mysterious young mas was, or what they were doing in the garden, but it too could have been Lazarus - and what do you think they were doing, in the dark and with one at least almost naked?

Personally, I reject the idea that Jesus was gay in any modern sense - the word is totally anachronistic, and there is in any case comparable evidence of a relationship with Mary Magdalene, which would make him at least "bi-" (in modern terminology. Intriguing as the evidence is that he may have had same-sex attractions or involvements, this evidence is at best supportive, but not conclusive proof.

Jesus and Mary Magdalene (Rubens)

 What can we say for certain?

Queering Genesis: "Male and Female (And Others) He Created Them"

The first, most obvious, feature of Genesis 1 & 2 has to be that it is a celebration of God's creation - all of it. Before we get to the "male and female" bit, let's consider the rest.

On the first day, "God separated the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness night." Does this imply that there is nothing in between? Of course not. There is twilight, there is gloaming. Night can be well lit by a full moon, day can be dull and cloudy. But still, there is night and day, darkness and light - which do not deny the existence of intermediate states.

On the second day, God "made a dome that separated the waters under the dome from the waters above the dome...and called the dome Sky". We know from science that there is not a "dome" above, as a fixed object, but we accept the existence of something we call "sky", even though we cannot say where precisely it begins or ends.

On the third day, God separated the land from the waters. "God called the dry land Earth, and the waters he called Seas." Again, we know from simple observation that this simplifies the picture. On the land there are also rivers and lakes, as well as marshes, swamps and deltas that are not clearly either wet or dry, or may vary in state with the seasons. At the coast, there are intertidal zones, which are land at low tide, and sea at high. On the oceans, there are arctic zones where frozen sea creates ice shelves, a form of "dry" land. Yet none of this negates the concept of a difference between dry land and sea - and the use of the concept does not deny the existence of intermediate states. Also on the third day, God created the plants:

Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with their seed in it." And so it was.

But where, in this description, are the plants that do not bear seeds or fruit? Are they not also part of creation?

On the fourth day, God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night", and so he created the sun and the moon and the stars. From science though, we know that this does not complete the picture: what we commonly call "stars" include the real stars of astronomy (which in fact are all suns, like the one which is familiar to us, but vastly more distant), but also includes nearby planets showing only a reflected light, and galaxies so distant from us that to the naked eye they resemble single stars. At times, the sky also includes what seem to be shooting stars, meteorites entering the atmosphere, and comets. Here too, the reality of creation shows an abundance of forms beyond those included in the simple description "the sun, the moon and the stars".

On the fourth day, God created the animals. Here, there appears to be recognition of the diversity of life:

And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky." So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

Yet even here, the list is not in fact complete. By specifying the "creatures that move", what provision is there for the mussels and limpets of the sea that do not move, but cling to the rocks for stability? What of those living creatures we sometimes prefer not to think about, the bacteria and viruses? Are they not also part of God's creation?