tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-70293344715597410392024-02-19T03:37:02.556-08:00My Queer ScriptureTerencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-82292004883699222152012-03-15T00:00:00.001-07:002012-03-15T12:01:39.851-07:00The Gay Centurion<div style="text-align: justify;">In Catholic tradition, Longinus is the name given to the Roman centurion at the crucifixion who pierced Christ's side with his spear. Some writers, like Paul Halsall of the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20011217044950/http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh/" target="_blank">LGBT Catholic Handbook</a>, also identify him with the centurion who asked Jesus to heal his "beloved boy", who was ill. It is this second person that I am interested in here. In this persona, he is one of my personal favourites, as his story shows clearly how the Lord himself is completely not hostile to a clearly gay relationship, and also because we hear a clear reminder of this every time we attend Mass - if only we have ears to hear.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/roman-centurion.jpg"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-5308" height="489" src="http://queeringthechurch.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/roman-centurion.jpg" title="Roman Centurion" width="468" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">It may be that you do not recall any Gospel stories about a gay centurion and his male lover, but that is because cautious or prudish translators have softened the words of the text, and because the word "gay" is not really appropriate for the historical context. You are more likely to know as the story as the familiar one of the Roman centurion and his "servant" - But this is a poor translation. Matthew uses the word "<span style="font-style: italic;">doulos</span>", which means slave, not a mere servant. Luke uses quite a different word, "<span style="font-style: italic;">pais</span>", which can mean servant boy - but more usually has the sense of a man's younger male lover - or "boyfriend".</div><a name='more'></a>Whichever of the two words or their senses was intended by the authors, the conclusions we should draw are the same. If "pais" was intended here to indicate a lover, the conclusion is obvious. If the intended meaning was either "slave " or "servant" - the conclusion does not significantly change. To see this, let us consider the cultural context. For three centuries before Christ, the Jews had been under foreign military occupation, first by the Greeks (which is why demotic Greek had become lingua franca across the region, and was the language of the New Testament), then by Romans. These military overlords were about as well liked as any other military invaders anywhere - which is not at all. The Jews hated them - but will have been quite familiar with Greek and Roman cultural (and sexual) practices.<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">First, consider the sense as "<span style="font-style: italic;">slave</span>". It is important to know that as a soldier on foreign service,, the centurion will not have been married: Roman soldiers on active service were not permitted to marry. It is also important to know that for Romans, the crucial distinctions in sexuality were not about male or female, or about homosexuality or heterosexuality, but between higher or lower status. Roman men would have expected to make sexual use of their slaves, especially if as here they were unmarried. Far from home, this is likely to have been a sexual relationship, which could easily have developed also as an emotional one. And if the sense was not "<span style="font-style: italic;">slave</span>", but the softer "<span style="font-style: italic;">servant</span>", much the same conclusion follows. Roman citizens expected to take their sexual satisfaction from anyone of lower status under their control - including the "freedmen", or former slaves who had been released. In the words of the well known Roman aphorism,</div><br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">"<span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="color: blue;">For a Roman citizen, to give sexual service is a disgrace; to a freedman, a duty; and to a slave, an obligation</span></span>".</div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">So, if we are talking here about a male lover, a sexual relationship is obvious. If it is a servant boy or a slave, it is entirely probable. But even if this is purely an arrangement about domestic service, the conclusion does not change: All those present and hearing the Centurion's request would have been familiar with Roman sexual practice. For the Jewish bystanders, as for Jesus himself, there will have been an assumption that a homoerotic sexual relationship was at least possible, even probable. But this did not in any way affect Jesus's willingness to go tot he centurion's house - even though this in itself would have horrified traditional Jews.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The lessons we draw from this story are two-fold: one, that Christ was not one bit disturbed by this approach from a man for help in having his (probable) male lover healed, but instead was immediately ready to go to the couple's home. (This of course, is entirely consistent with the rest of the Gospels. It is totally characteristic of Christ that he should be happy to talk, eat or drink with anybody, including those that were shunned or resented by mainstream Jewish society.) All those who argue that we are not welcome in God's house have completely misunderstood Scripture - as He would be completely comfortable in ours.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The second lesson is the standard one usually drawn from the story, of the importance of trust in God. The Centurion after putting his request makes it clear that it is not necessary for Jesus to actually go to his home, for all he needs is God's word, and his servant will be healed. Faith in Jesus in God is enough to achieve healing. This is especially important to us as gay men, lesbians or other sexual minorities. Whatever the hostility we may experience at the hands of a hostile church, we know that God will not reject us. Further, in turning to Him in our pain of rejection, we know we can find healing.</div>Where is the echo in the Mass?<br />
<br />
Right at the key moment, immediately before the Communion:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="color: blue;">"Lord, I am not worthy to receive you. Say but the word, and my soul shall be healed."</span></span></blockquote>This is an obvious echo of the words of the centurion, when Jesus was about to set off for his home:<br />
<blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;"><span style="color: blue;">"Lord, I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof. just say the word, and my boy will be healed." </span></span></blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Also see:</span><br />
<br />
Jack Clark Robinson: <a href="http://glreview.com/article.php?articleid=32" target="_blank">Jesus, the Centurion, and his Lover</a><br />
<br />
Bible Abuse : <a href="http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/TheCenturion.php" target="_blank">The Centurion</a><br />
<br />
Would Jesus Discriminate?: <a href="http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.whywouldwe.net/site/wp-content/uploads/wjd_affirmed_500.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.whywouldwe.org/&usg=__rQXV9Vh6tRAas8BF4sXbg2T0zf8=&h=146&w=500&sz=20&hl=en&start=58&sig2=ckMTJcuSUyJSeBUHGy_vLw&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=aRDfUPoGvhrzXM:&tbnh=38&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJesus%2Bwith%2BRoman%2Bcenturion%26start%3D54%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26ndsp%3D18%26tbs%3Disch:1&ei=E2KXS6zAM9jNjAeM6tz4CQ" target="_blank">Jesus Affirmed a Gay Couple</a><br />
<br />
LGBT Catholic Handbook: <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/halsall/lgbh-gaysts.html#long">Calendar of LGBT Sainsts</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="zemanta-related" style="margin-top: 20px; overflow-x: hidden; overflow-y: hidden;"><h4 class="zemanta-related-title">Related articles</h4><ul class="zemanta-article-ul" style="clear: left;"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/12/27/dec-27th-john-the-queer-evangelist/">Dec 27th: John, the (Queer) Evangelist</a></li>
</ul><ul class="zemanta-article-ul" style="clear: left;"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2012/03/gay-centurion-jesus-heals-soldiers.html">Gay centurion: Jesus heals a soldier’s boyfriend in the Bible</a><i> (Jesus in Love)</i></li>
</ul></div><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-20147896349805962942012-02-06T07:17:00.002-08:002012-02-26T08:20:08.210-08:00Faith vs Religion: Ecclesiolatry, Scribes and Pharisees.<p style="text-align: justify;">There is an important distinction between "faith", which refers to belief and a relationship with the divine, and "religion", which refers primarily to the human structures which support it, with their rules, rituals, and clerical castes. They are obviously linked, interdependent, and ideally, support each other. There are grave dangers though, when we lose sight of the importance of balance, for example by exaggerating the importance of religious structures, over authentic faith itself.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">In recent weeks, I have found two important passages on this theme, by two very different authors, that I have wanted to write about - but have struggled to make the time to add my own response. Instead, I simply share with you the passages, and leave you to ponder the import yourselves.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The first is by the Catholic theologian James Alison, taken from a recent post at his website "<a href="http://jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng66.html">The Portal and the Half-Way House: Spacious imagination and aristocratic belonging </a>", in which he refers to the way in which some Catholics use "the Church" as a weapon with which to coerce others into their own way of thinking. In a striking turn of phrase, he describes this as <span style="color: #000080;">"Ecclesiolatry"</span> - a form of idolatry, with "the Church" used as an idol to replace God:<a name='more'></a></p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>You will probably have heard many different ways of talking about what “the Church” is, many of them quite frightening (in just the same way that many ways of talking about the Bible are frightening). You get the impression that you are hearing a discourse about power, or a discourse emerging from ownership of “position”, or a justification and defense of traditional and historical prerogatives. It is not necessarily the clerical caste in the Church who talk in these ways, though we are particularly susceptible to it. Often enough lay people, politicians and others, will also wield “The Church” as a weapon in cultural wars in much the same way as others wield “The Bible”. Indeed typically, while the default Protestant error is “Bibliolatry” – making an idol of the Bible, – <strong>the default Catholic error is “Ecclesiolatry” – making an idol of the Church</strong>. The idol worship to which each of our groups is prone is slightly culturally different, even if the underlying pattern is the same.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>When we worship an idol, our love, which is in principle a good thing, is trapped into grasping onto something made in our own image. This “something”, which we of course do not perceive as an idol, then becomes the repository for all the security and certainty which we idolaters need in order to survive in the world. We are unaware that the tighter we grasp it, the more insecure and uncertain we in fact become, and the more we empty the object which we idolize of any potential for truth and meaning. And of course because love is in principle a good thing, for us to get untangled from its distorted form is very painful. Nevertheless, against any tendency we might have to blame the idol for being an idol, it is really the pattern of desire in us, the grasping, that is the problem, not the object. For just as the Bible is not an act of communication that we can lay hold of, but the written monuments to an act of communication that takes hold of us, so the Church is not an object that we can grasp, but a sign of our being grasped and held; not something that any of us owns, but the first hints, difficult to perceive, of Another’s ownership of us.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: right;">-from <a href="http://jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng66.html"> </a><a href="http://jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng66.html">James Alison Website.</a></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">The second is by Toby Johnson, a writer and former Catholic seminarian, in his book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590210220/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1590210220">Gay Spirituality</a><img style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1590210220" alt="" width="1" height="1" border="0" />", writing about "Scribes and the Pharisees". Note the impact of replacing the familiar, but antiquated words we commonly meet in bibles and Catholic lectionaries, with modern terms we can more easily understand:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em>The only people Jesus specifically condemned in any way were the "Scribes and the Pharisees." And it is telling that Bible translations generally keep these words as antiquated terms instead of translating them into modern idiom. For "Scribes and Pharisees" translates directly to "Church officials and conservative religious leaders."</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em>As the word suggests, the Scribes were the temple bureaucrats and the lawyers who could read and write and who, therefore, kept the records and managed the business of the Temple. The Pharisees were members of a lay reform movement in Judaism that called for a return to the old ways--to the "fundamentals"--insisting on literal interpretation of the Torah. They believed in angels and supernatural interventions and were always preaching that the end of the world was imminent. </em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em>All Jewish men dressed for prayer by strapping phylacteries (little wooden boxes containing the written text of the prayer Shema Israel) to their forehead and left</em> </span><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em>arm in literal obedience to the text which said to keep these words as a sign for the hand and a pendant on the forehead, and by covering their heads with a prayer shawl with fringes, knotted to signify the 613 rules of the Mishnah (the oral tradition extrapolated out of the Ten Commandments).</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Pharisee.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-21722" title="Pharisee" src="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Pharisee-205x300.jpg" alt="" width="205" height="300" /></a></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em>The Pharisees were ostentatiously religious: they wore elaborate phylacteries with broad straps and oversized shawls with extra long fringe to demonstrate how obedient they were to the letter of the law. The Pharisees were clearly the predecessors of our modern day conservative evangelists and TV preachers who bemoan the present state of the world, predict that according to Bible prophecies the end of the world is nigh, and proclaim how saved they are. </em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #0000ff;"><em><strong>"Woe unto you,"</strong> Jesus said, <strong>"Church officials and conservative religious leaders, hypocrites. Because you close the gates of heaven to those who are going in, you won't go in yourselves."</strong></em></span></p><p style="text-align: right;">(Matthew 23:13)</p></blockquote><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=d67a263a-ac80-4d5b-b61b-820c92049100" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-47643883736619293152012-01-24T09:12:00.002-08:002012-02-26T09:14:35.587-08:00The Bible and Textual Abuse: The Case of "malakoi" and "arsenokoites".<div style="text-align: justify;">Sane and rational discussion of the Bible and same-sex relationships are bedevilled by difficulties with language, arising from problems with translations on the one hand, and vastly different cultural conditions which make it difficult sometimes to make sense of the applicability of the words, even where the literal meaning is clear. This is especially important in the case of two obscure Greek words which, in poor translation, appear to say clearly that the Biblical teaching is opposed to homosexual activity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Several notable scholars (Boswell, Countryman, and those that followed) have shown that these translations are faulty, casting doubt on a large chunk of the case for biblically based homophobia. Michael Carden, an Australian biblical scholar, has a post up which first notes that Christianity is unique in depending on translations for its scriptures, and then goes on to a lengthy, detailed discussion of the problems presented by translations of these two troublesome words.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">From the opening of a much longer discussion at <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2012/01/homophobia-and-politics-of-biblical.html">Michael Carden's Jottings</a>:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Christianity is rather unusual in the family of Abrahamic/Middle Eastern religions in the role of scripture and language. For Judaism and Islam, and I suspect traditionally for Zoroastrianism too, the language of scripture, i.e. the language in which it was written, is also the language in which it must always be read. So countless Jews and Muslims have grown up learning something of Hebrew and Arabic and not just any Hebrew and Arabic but the Hebrew of the Torah and Tanakh and the Arabic of the Qur'an, even if it means just memorising slabs of text (as a pre-Vatican 2 Catholic child I have a resonance with this because I remember being taught the responses of the old Latin Mass, which I regard nowadays as a valuable bit of rudimentary childhood second language teaching). For Jews and Muslims too any translation of scripture is counted as an interpretation, it does not share in the authority of the 'original' text. Christians, on the other hand, have always read their scriptures in translation. Christian bibles are comprised of two parts: an Old Testament comprising texts originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; and a New Testament comprising texts originally written in Greek. Early Christians used as their Old Testament the Greek translation/version of the Hebrew and Aramaic texts known as the Septuagint, together with those texts Protestants term apocryphal that were written in Greek. Just about all of the ancient Christian translations of the Old Testament were from this Greek text. Only the Syriac and Jerome's Latin Vulgate included translations from (some of) the Hebrew version shared with Rabbinic Judaism. So from the very beginning Christians have been involved in the project of translation. For many cultures too, ancient and contemporary, their first body of written literature has been a translation of one canonical version or another of the Christian Bible.</em></span> </div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>So for Christians, unlike Jews and Muslims, linguistic questions of meaning, equivalence and translation, can become highly fraught theological and political questions.</em></span></div><div style="text-align: right;">- <a href="http://michaelcardensjottings.blogspot.com/2012/01/homophobia-and-politics-of-biblical.html">Jottings: Homophobia and the Politics of Biblical Translation</a>.</div></blockquote><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=c47b9100-515a-44fe-9a84-e2ea2ea9d542" style="border: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-11457296163181252572011-05-06T05:33:00.000-07:002011-05-06T05:33:00.277-07:00Trans in Scripture<blockquote><span style="color: navy;"><em>The Ethiopian Eunuch is our most famous trancestor. However, there are many more scattered through the Bible, both visible and invisible. We shall meet many more later. </em></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">-Lewis Reay</div></blockquote><h3 style="text-align: justify;">The Many Eunuchs Hidden in Scripture</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">There are numerous trans themes and characters in Scripture. If these are not immediately familiar to us, this is because often, they are simply hidden in plain sight - invisible unless we take the trouble to open our eyes and look. However, I do not wish to reflect too deeply on an experience which is not my own. Instead, I simply share with you some more extracts from a piece byLewis Reay, "Towards a Transgendered Theology: Que(e)rying the Eunuchs, printed in "Trans/formations" (edited by Marcella Althaus-Reid and Lisa Isherwood).</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>First, I wish to consider Jesus' extraordinary saying in Matthew 19 (v 12 -13) about different types of eunuchs. To my transgender ears and eyes the meaning of this text is plain ...... I would suggest that the Matthew 19 verses are the clearest statement that Jesus makes about the inclusivity of the new realm. This is a realm where no-one is excluded, even the most marginal outsider.</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">To see the hidden trans people in Scripture, we need to be sensitive to the words as understood when they were written - not as we use them today. A key word here is "chamberlain", which to modern ears, refers to a senior political or government official. This ignores the significance of the first part of the word - "chamber-". Reay elaborates:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>The Greek word eunocoi comes from the root eune, a bed, and the verb achein, to hold: thus a eunuch is a "bed-keeper", or more literally a "bed-companion" or "chamberlain" who was responsible for taking care of a monarch's numerous wives. It also appears as a court "official". The secondary meaning of the word is an emasculated man, or one naturally emasculated from marriage or having children, or one who voluntarily abstains from marriage.</em></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word </em></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="color: navy;"><em style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">çârîyç</em></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="color: navy;"><em><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> or </span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">saris </span>means "to castrate"l it also means a eunuch or official. The word appears 13 times translated as "chamberlain", 17 times as "eunuch" and 12 times as "officer"</em></span>.</span></span></div></blockquote><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">And so, many of the trans people in the Bible are hidden behind descriptors like "chamberlain", or (as other writers have explained) "cupbearer" - which includes Nehemiah.</span></span><br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Let me introduce you to some of my spiritual trancestors - Carcas the severe, Mehuman, the faithful. Hegai, the eunuch, Zethar, the star, Harbona, the ass-driver, Abagtha, the God-given, and Biztha, the booty, all eunuchs of King Xerxes (see the book of Esther).</em></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Ebed - Melech, the servant of the king, an Ethiopian eunuch in the service of King Zedekiah, through whose interference Jeremiah was released from prison; Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch of King Nebuchanezzer, Teresh, the strict, who plotted to kill King Xerxes, Sarsechim, the prince among eunuchs, and Shaashgaz, the servant of the beautiful.</em></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Meet some rabsaris, chief eunuchs and high-ranking Babylonian officials: Hatach, the truthful, Bigthan, the juicy, and Bigtha, the juiciest.</em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>And, not least, the famous Daniel, and his three friends Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, and the defiant Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego (see the Book of Daniel). Finally, our Ethiopian cousin, from Acts, who opens up the possibility of full inclusion into Jesus' realm to all, not simply the Jewish world.</em></span><span style="color: navy;"><em> </em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Most of these transectors named by Reay are minor characters, bit parts in the Biblical story. That's not the case with his main argument.</div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">The Genderqueer Jesus</h3><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Mollenkott ("Omnigender") proposes that Jesus was chromosomally female (because of the virgin birth) ........ but phenotypically male. Mollenkott ties this in to the Genesis narrative of a God who is both male and female an neither, and therefore a Jesus who is equally both and neither, encompasing the breadth of "natural" human gender and sex diverstity....it is intersex people or female-to male trans-people who come closest to a physical resemblance to Jesus, being chromosomally female and socially male.</em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Moxness ("Putting Jesus in His Place") suggests that Jesus occupied queer space by virtue of his social location and th he location of his followers. Jesus' followers put themselves outside the norms of society by leaving their homes and and their social gender roles to follow Jesus. By leaving their place in the household, ..they rendered themselves liable to the accusation of being eunuchs - their very gender identity was put into question for upsetting the gender norms of their time.</em></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em></em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Jesus' queer identity is not simply to be read in terms of sexuality, but he is truly gender queer. Jesus is our own trancestor: the challenge of eunuchs was that they could not be securely placed, they were in a position of 'betwixt and between', in a permanent liminal position (Moxnes)."</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Moxnes' discussion of the famous passage from Matthew 19 observes that in Jesus' day, the word "eunuch" may have been used as a term of abuse (rather like "queer" or "faggot" today). This puts a special light on Jesus' response.</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Bohache argues ("The Queer Bible Commentary") that if, as Moxnes suggests, the term"eunuch" was used as a slur against Jesus and his disciples, then we have hit upon an essential concept for a queer understanding of Jesus: today there are many for whom the term "queer" is a volatile word, since it originated as a slur among our opponents, but activists and others ahve reclaimed the word and used it proudly. </em></span></div></blockquote><h3>Isaiah's Welcome For All.</h3><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>The Promise of "a house of prayer for all people" in Isaiah is not simply a promise that eunuchs would be allowed. Rather, it is an unrestrained revolution to the existing order of who can approach God. </em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: navy;"><em>Koch (in "The Queer Bible Commentary") suggests that the last chapters of Isaiah commencing at chapter 56 present many instances of gender dissent and social queerness. </em></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>The Matthean eunuch verses are a mirror to the Isaiah 56 passage which extends the kingdom of God to eunuchs with a special place greater than that of sons or daughters. ...These verses encapsulate the radical inclusiveness of Jesus' message - there is no one who is marginalised in God's eyes, all are included.</em></span></div></blockquote>And so, I conclude with the celebrated and important words of Isaiah 56:<br />
<blockquote><div style="padding-left: 60px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;"><em>“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, </em> <br />
<em>who choose what pleases me </em> <br />
<em>and hold fast to my covenant— </em> <br />
<em><sup id="en-NIV-18759">5</sup> to them I will give within my temple and its walls </em> <br />
<em>a memorial and a name </em> <br />
<em>better than sons and daughters; </em> <br />
<em>I will give them an everlasting name </em> <br />
<em>that will endure forever. </em> <br />
<em><sup id="en-NIV-18760">6</sup> And foreigners who bind themselves to the LORD </em> <br />
<em>to minister to him, </em> <br />
<em>to love the name of the LORD, </em> <br />
<em>and to be his servants, </em> <br />
<em>all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it </em> <br />
<em>and who hold fast to my covenant— </em> <br />
<em><sup id="en-NIV-18761">7</sup> these I will bring to my holy mountain </em> <br />
<em>and give them joy in my house of prayer. </em> <br />
<em>Their burnt offerings and sacrifices </em> <br />
<em>will be accepted on my altar; </em> <br />
<em>for my house will be called </em> <br />
<em>a house of prayer for all nations.”</em></span></div></blockquote><span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;"><strong>Books</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;"><strong><br />
</strong></span><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Althaus- Reid, Marcella & Isherwood, Lisa: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0334043433/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0334043433">Trans/formations (Scm Controversies in Contextual Theology Series)</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0334043433" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cornwall, Susannah: </strong><a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3Ca%20href=">Sex and Uncertainty in the Body of Christ: Intersex Conditions and Christian Theology (Gender, Theology and Spirituality)</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1845536681" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Feinberg, Leslie</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0807079413/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0807079413">Transgender Warriors : Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0807079413" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Guest, Deryn </strong><em>et al (eds</em>): <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0334040213/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0334040213">The Queer Bible Commentary</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0334040213" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><strong>Mollenkott, Virginia Ramey: </strong></strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829817719/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829817719">Omnigender: A Trans-religious Approach</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829817719" width="1" /><strong> <br />
</strong></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Moxnes, Halvor</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664223109/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0664223109">Putting Jesus in His Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0664223109" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Tanis, Justin: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829815287/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829815287">Trans-Gendered: Theology, Ministry, and Communities of Faith (Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry)</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829815287" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Wilson, Nancy</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1886360103/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1886360103">Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" class=" nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa nqbitwktwevzftzxixaa" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1886360103" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><blockquote><em> <br />
</em></blockquote><strong>Related Posts at QTC:</strong><br />
<ul><li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/04/03/16212/">Transgendered in Faith Week: Books</a> </li>
<li><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/04/04/some-trans-saints-martyrs/">Trans in Faith: Some Cross-Dressing Saints & Martyrs</a></span> </li>
</ul><h6 class="zemanta-related-title" style="font-size: 1em;">Related articles Elsewhere:</h6><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://christhum.wordpress.com/2011/04/04/transgender-and-the-church/">Transgender and the church</a> (christhum.wordpress.com) </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://r.zemanta.com/?u=http%3A//www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/30/trans-clergy-acceptance-church&a=39591954&rid=a725edca-ad6a-4a1c-8fbc-b0dd0e9c24eb&e=1fcfe374aaca8bc064ef15f253ddfe21">Trans clergy are finally gaining greater acceptance | Becky Garrison</a> (guardian.co.uk) </li>
</ul><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=a725edca-ad6a-4a1c-8fbc-b0dd0e9c24eb" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-71145364604784845152011-05-03T05:30:00.000-07:002011-05-03T05:30:02.757-07:00The Parable of the Good Faggot<div style="text-align: justify;"><a href="http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/">Fr Geoff Farrow</a> has a post on <a href="http://fathergeofffarrow.blogspot.com/2011/04/delivery-salvation.html">Delivery "Salvation"</a>, in which he describes an encounter with two young men who came to his door attempting to deliver some salvation, in the form of a pep talk on heaven and hell. We are all familiar with the scenario. How many of us though, have the presence of mind to reply as he did, by quoting from the Gospel of Luke:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">Jesus was asked about the afterlife in the Luke 10: 23-37. “Rabbi, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?” The question, by a lawyer, was prompted because there were 614 laws that an observant Jewish person was expected to keep. To break one law, was to break them all. In the rabbinic tradition of questioning/discussion this question was posited, “What does God expect of me?” “What is essential, or central?”</span></em> </div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">This question is applicable to contemporary people as well, regardless of one’s religion (or lack thereof), “What must I do to achieve my full potential, to be truly whole and at peace?”</span></em></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">In the rabbinic tradition, Jesus answers the lawyer’s question with two other questions. “What is written in the law [Torah/Bible]?” In addition, “How do you read it?” Incidentally, that second question is of critical importance, because our motive in reading any spiritual text, will determine its spiritual value/harm in our life.</span></em> </div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">The lawyer responded by citing a passage from Deuteronomy 6: 4-5 “Hear, Oh Israel!” that is prayed by observant Jewish people to this day, as Christians pray the “Our Father.” And Leviticus 19: 18, “love your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus approves the lawyer’s quotes and says, “You have answered correctly. Do this and you shall live.”</span></em></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">Luke notes that the lawyer, “because he wished to justify himself” asked, “and who is my neighbor?” Jesus then tells the story of the Good Samaritan.</span></em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;"></span></em></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">Interestingly, Samaritans were regard as being beyond any hope of eternal life since they had comingled Judaism with pagan beliefs and practices. Their theological beliefs and religious practices were seen as flawed, heretical and impious. Jesus deliberately selects a suspect minority group who were believed beyond hope of eternal life to illustrate what God expects from us. I suppose that if Jesus told this parable in the USA today, it would </span></em></div><em><span style="color: blue;">be the story of the Good Faggot.</span></em></blockquote><div style="text-align: center;"> <img alt="" class="aligncenter" height="200" src="http://releasedorothy.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/homosexual-matan-a-homosexual-en-comayagueela_imagen_full.jpg?w=300" width="300" /></div><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">He does not elaborate further on this idea of recasting the familiar Good Samaritan as a Good Faggot, but there is no need. It has been done before, for example by Richard Cleaver, in the introduction to his book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664255760/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0664255760">Know My Name</a>". I summarise his telling here:</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">Cleaver imagines a modern traveller from Jerusalem to Jericho, who is attacked by muggers and left for dead in the gutter. A bishop comes past in his Cadillac, which had been given to him by a car dealer, one of the most generous financial supporters of the diocese. Seeing the half-dead body at the roadside, he first thought it was just a pile of litter. Realizing it was a human body, he considered stopping, but decided against: he saw that the body was naked, and feared that taking a naked man into his car might cause a scandal. So, he drove on, consoling himself that these kinds of social services were better left to the professionals.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">He then describes another traveller passing by, a prominent Catholic layman. He too thought of helping the man by the wayside, but then considered the implications. If the man was already dead, it was too late for help, and he would find himself caught up in endless bureaucratic red tape. If he was not dead and recovered, there was a danger that the injured man might find a reason to sue him for any mishap en route to the hospital. There was also the problem of the man’s nakedness - what had happened to his clothes? There was an assumption that the man obviously was not a man of god to be in that state, or must have done something to bring about his own misfortune. So he, too, went on his way.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Then a third traveller came past, a gay man returning home from his head office in Jerusalem, where he had just been fired, because someone had discovered he was gay, after his lover had beaten to death in a gay-bashing. When he saw the injured man, he immediately stopped, and was reminded of his lover’s beating and death. Realising the man was still just about alive, he applied what first aid he could, loaded him into the car and drove him to the nearest hospital.</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>“Later, the newspapers got hold of the story and came to interview him. The bishop read the story and called a press conference, at which he announced that the diocese was giving its Good Samaritan Award to the man who had helped the mugging victim he himself had driven past.</em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>At the award banquet, held at the episcopal palace, the bishop stood with this arm around the good Samaritan and gave a little homily about showing mercy to the neighbour in distress. This act, he concluded, showed a true Christian spirit. He turned to the man and shook his hand, adding, “God will bless you abundantly for this.”</em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>“Oh, I didn’t do it for religious reasons. It just seemed to me like the human thing to do. I haven’t been to church since my priest refused me absolution when I confessed I was in love with the redheaded guy who was captain of the football team.” The gay man smiled at the cameras.</em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>The bishop was trying to figure out how to deal with the question he knew was coming next.” </em></span></div></blockquote><br />
<strong>Cleaver, Richard: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0664255760/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0664255760">Know My Name: A Gay Liberation Theology</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=8d9e04d7-b721-48d4-8666-201a7bbe6bc6" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-15297078095148877542011-04-29T05:30:00.000-07:002011-04-29T05:30:02.798-07:00Rembert S. Truluck's 12 Steps to Recovery From Bible Abuse.<div style="text-align: justify;">For all those who are bothered by allegations that the Bible is (allegedly) against homoerotic love, here's a site to bookmark now: <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/twelve_steps_to_recovery.html">Steps to Recovery From Bible Abuse</a>. 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Dr Rembert S Truluck</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">The developer of the site, <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/about_the_author.html">Dr Rembert S. Truluck</a>, 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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">He was a Doctor of Theology from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY, 1968, and the author of "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006P5PN6/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0006P5PN6">Invitation to freedom</a>", (a guide to Personal Evangelism in the Gay Community), and "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188849316X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188849316X">Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse</a>"<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188849316X" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" />.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Steps-to-Recovery-from-Bible-Abuse1.jpg"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-16621" height="300" src="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Steps-to-Recovery-from-Bible-Abuse1-257x300.jpg" title="Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse" width="257" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">A note on the home page states that Dr Truluck passed away at age 74 on November 13, 2008, and that the last update was on 07/22/2007. Although the site is no longer being updated, it is being maintained, and still accessible at the invaluable OT Kenyer Portal, which also houses links to the Lesbian and Gay Catholic Handbook (also no longer updated) and numerous others. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">There are mixed views on the long term value of 12 step programmes in treating addiction, and in the extension of the original concept from Alcoholics Anonymous to other forms of addiction. The further extension to applications that have nothing whatever to do with addiction, or even to mental or physical health, is particularly problematic. However, in the light of the (mis)representation of the Catholic "Courage" pastoral program as a 12 step recovery program for homosexuals, I find this idea a delightful counter. At this stage, I do not want to get into any detailed evaluation of the merits of Truluck's proposed steps, although I would say that overall, they make sense to me.</div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">The 12 steps to Recovery</h3>1. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_1.html">Admit You Have Been Hurt By Religion</a><br />
2. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_2.html">Turn to God As Your Guide to Recovery</a><br />
3. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_3.html">Examine Your Faith</a><br />
4. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_4.html">Face and Deal With Your Anger</a><br />
5. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_5.html">Avoid Negative People And Churches</a><br />
6. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_6.html">Face The Scripture Used Against You</a><br />
7. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_7.html">Find Positive Supportive Scripture</a><br />
8. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_8.html">Read And Study The Gospels</a><br />
9. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_9.html">Come Out And Accept Yourself</a><br />
<a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_9.html"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_9.html"></a>10. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_10.html">Develop Your Personal Support System</a><br />
<a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_10.html"></a><br />
<a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_10.html"></a>11. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_11.html">Learn To Share Your Faith With Others</a><br />
12. <a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/step_12.html">Become A Freedom Missionary</a><br />
<br />
<h3>The Bible Recovery Website</h3>Dr Rembert's website contains much more than just the 12 step program listed above. Additional pages are<br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/why_this_site.html">Why this site</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/the_bible_and_homosexuality.html">The_Bible_and_homosexuality</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/sexual_orientation_and_the__ex.html">Sexual Orientation and the Ex-Gay Fraud</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/legalism_as_idolatry.html">Legalism_as_idolatry</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/jesus_and_the_bible.html">Jesus_and_the_Bible</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/a_response_to_southern_baptist.html">A Response to Southern Baptists</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/start_your_own_recovery_group.html">Start_your_own_recovery_group</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/resources_and_references.html">Resources_and_references</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://www.otkenyer.hu/truluck/jesus_bible_studies.html">Jesus_Bible_studies</a> </li>
</ul>Go ahead, explore!<br />
<br />
<strong>Suggested Books:</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Truluck, Rember S : </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006P5PN6/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0006P5PN6">Invitation to Freedom</a></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Truluck, Rember S. :</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188849316X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188849316X">Steps to Recovery from Bible Abuse</a></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Bohache, Thomas, Guest, Deryn </strong><em>(et al, eds)</em><strong>: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0334040213/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0334040213">The Queer Bible Commentary</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0334040213" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Countryman, William D</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800638484/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0800638484">Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament </a></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Goss, Robert:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Helminiak, Daniel</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188636009X">What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188636009X" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Moore, Stephen D: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0804743312/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0804743312">God's Beauty Parlor: And Other Queer Spaces in and Around the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0804743312" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Rogers, Jack</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/066423397X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=066423397X">Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=066423397X" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Stone, Ken</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0567081729/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0567081729">Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective (Queering Theology)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0567081729" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><strong>Stone, Kenneth:</strong> </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829814477/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829814477">Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible</a><strong> <br />
</strong></div><br />
<strong>Recent Related Posts at QTC:</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/03/25/queering-the-bible/" title="Edit “Queering the Bible”">Queering the Bible</a></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/04/01/queering-genesis-male-and-female-and-others-he-created-them/" title="Edit “Queering Genesis: “Male and Female (And Others) He Created Them””">Queering Genesis: “Male and Female (And Others) He Created Them”</a></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/04/08/trans-in-scripture/" title="Edit “Trans in Scripture”">Trans in Scripture</a></div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold;">Related articles elsewhere</span><br />
<ul class="zemanta-article-ul"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/love-wins-a-theological-conversation-on-rob-bell%25e2%2580%2599s-new-book-at-southern-baptist-theological-seminary/">Love Wins: A 'Theological' Conversation on Rob Bell's New Book at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary</a> (rodiagnusdei.wordpress.com) </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2011/02/unprotected-texts-bible-has-mixed.html">Unprotected Texts: Bible has mixed messages on sex</a> (jesusinlove.blogspot.com) </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2011/04/gay-passion-of-christ-series-runs.html">Gay Passion of Christ series runs online</a> (jesusinlove.blogspot.com) </li>
</ul><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=fb85bbef-1c31-42f0-ac67-af23073a46b6" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-30251035071523808272011-04-26T03:19:00.000-07:002011-04-26T03:19:02.556-07:00The Gay BeatitudesI missed these when the Catholic priest Wild Hair first posted these at "<a href="http://wildhair95.blogspot.com/2011/01/beatitudes-from-gay-and-lesbian.html">A Piece of My Mind</a>", 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:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: navy;"><em><strong>Blessed are they who stand naked and shame free <br />
before God and one another.</strong></em></span><br />
<em><strong><span style="color: navy;">Blessed are they who celebrate the rich diversity of all people</span> <br />
<span style="color: navy;">as spiritual & sexual beings.</span></strong></em><br />
<em><strong></strong></em><span style="color: navy;"><strong><em> <br />
</em></strong></span></blockquote><span style="color: black;">And they continue. Read the full set at <a href="http://wildhair95.blogspot.com/2011/01/beatitudes-from-gay-and-lesbian.html">A Piece of My Mind</a></span><br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=80d0913b-2e3c-454c-9191-367ae8f0f034" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-13247046031233778152011-04-26T03:17:00.000-07:002011-04-26T03:17:34.399-07:00Lazarus, The Man Jesus Loved.<div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><h3>The Household of Martha and Mary.</h3><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>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). <em>(John 11: 1- 2)</em></em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em><em></em></em></span>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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/MarthaMaryLazarus.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" class="size-full wp-image-16568" height="296" src="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/MarthaMaryLazarus.jpg" title="MarthaMaryLazarus" width="253" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Martha Mary and Lazarus</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><h3>"The Man Jesus Loves"</h3><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>So the sisters sent word to Jesus, “Lord, <strong>the one you love </strong>is sick. (John 11: 3).</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a>The story is located in John's Gospel, which is notable for its several references to the "beloved disciple". Robert Goss notes that there is disagreement among scholars as to the precise identity of this person: <br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Scholars have long disputed whether the Beloved Disciple is John son of Zebedee, Thomas the Twin, Mary Magdalene, Lazarus, or a symbol of the community. For some queer writers, the evidence points to Lazarus (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060975555/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0060975555">Williams</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1886360103/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1886360103">Wilson</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JZWM3A/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B004JZWM3A">Goss</a>). <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082981535X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=082981535X">Jennings</a> does not rule out the possibility of Lazarus, but maintains that the evidence is inconclusive.<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/026467328X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=026467328X"> Elizabeth Stuart</a> understands that the Beloved Disciple to be representing perfect intimacy with Jesus.</em></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">- Goss, in </span><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JZWM3A/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B004JZWM3A">The Queer Bible Commentary</a></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Whoever the unspecified "beloved disciple " is though, this verse is explicit that if it is not Lazarus, then he can also be so described. The next question of particular interest for gay Christians could be, "What is the nature of this love? Is it intimate, or simply platonic?"</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I cannot think of the raising of Lazarus without recalling a remarkably similar story in the non-canonical fragment known as Mark II, said to have been quoted in an epistle of Clement of Alexandria. This also tells of the raising of a young man (unidentified) from the dead. If this young man is indeed Lazarus, and if there is any basis in fact for the story, then the relationship is anything but platonic. This description of what happened next is about as explicit as it gets, without becoming x-rated:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>"And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, <strong>and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night</strong>, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan." </em><span style="color: black;">(emphasis added)</span></span></div><div style="text-align: right;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">-<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/secretmark.html">Early Christian Writing</a></span></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;"><a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Gospel-Morton-Smith/dp/0850304393%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dzemanta-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3D0850304393" rel="amazon" title="The Secret Gospel">The Secret Gospel</a> is non-canonical. We cannot evaluate its authenticity, but before dismissing it out of hand, we should also consider its similarity in referring to a naked young man wearing only a linen cloth, to the curious story in the canonical Gospel of Mark.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">So, it is possible to read the passage as referring to an erotic relationship between Jesus and Lazarus, but even if we do not, there is an important message for us in the description of Lazarus as the one whom Jesus loved. For if it refers only to a platonic intimacy, then that can be said to apply also to all of humanity. It is fundamental to the Christian faith that God loves all his creatures (including us queer creatures), and we known from the writers on spirituality, and also (if we are fortunate) from personal experience, that it is possible for us, 200 years later, also to develop through prayer a personal, deep relationship with him. We too, can experience what it is to be "the man Jesus loves". </span></span></div><span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;">Defying the Persecutors</span><br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>So when he heard that Lazarus was sick, he stayed where he was two more days, and then he said to his disciples, “Let us go back to Judea.”</em></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>“But Rabbi,” they said, “<strong>a short while ago the Jews there tried to stone you, and yet you are going back?</strong>”</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">It is easy to forget that in this passage, Jesus was not simply returning to the friends he had left behind. This episode occurs just a short while before the Passion. As the disciples knew, in returning to Judea, he was returning to those who wanted him out of the way, placing himself (and his associates) at substantial risk. As queer Christians, we are often persecuted by those in control of the churches, but this is not a reason for us to stay away.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is not just we who have experienced death inside the church. By silencing or driving away some of its members, the Church itself has experienced a form of death. It is incumbent upon us too, to go where we are needed. This includes entering right into the belly of the beast, the institutional church, and restoring it to full, inclusive life.</div><h3>The Resurrection and the Life</h3><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; <sup id="en-NIV-26550">26</sup> and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. (v 25, 26)</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Jesus' promise of resurrection and life, so central to Christian faith, obviously refers to the resurrection after death - but also to more. It is also a promise of a fullness of life here on earth. Individually and collectively, gay men, lesbians and transmen and transwomen often feel that they have suffered a psychic death in the Church, ignored, silenced, and written out of the approved Church histories. However, by focussing our attention on Christ and the Gospels rather than on the man-made and disordered Vatican doctrines, we too can find a fullness of life that the Church attempts to deny us, a genuine human flourishing that is the real point of the concept of "natural law".</div><h3><span style="color: black;">"Come Out"</span></h3><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>When he had said this, Jesus called in a loud voice, “Lazarus, come out!” </em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Many commentators have noted the resonance of these words for modern gay men and lesbians. The modern sense, of coming out publicly in open acknowledgement of our sexual orientation, is obviously not what Jesus' words mean, in any literal sense. However, there is nevertheless a powerful image here that is indeed applicable. In coming out of the tomb, Lazarus is emerging from darkness and death to light and life - and as metaphor, this is precisely how so many of us experience coming out. (For those of us who have come out to friends and family, but not in Church, the process is incomplete. Coming out in Church can represent a further stage in this process of moving from death to life, from darkness to life).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Most interpretations of this as a message about coming out do so with a focus on Lazarus and its obvious connections to gay men. Robert Goss quotes Mona West, who offers an interpretation from a lesbian perspective, by focussing on Martha, and her coming out as a disciple of Jesus:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>She (Martha) is invited to move beyond a mere confession of faith and to accept the radical fullness of Jesus' grace. Her conversation with him thus not only forms the theological heart of the story; it is also at the theological heart of the coming out process for Christian lesbians and gay men</em>.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Conclusion</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I am left with three overriding commands that I take away from the story of Lazarus, and Jesus' renowned raising of him from death. Recognizing that like Lazarus, we are all beloved disciples of Jesus, we must follow Martha in accepting and reciprocating that love and grace. Doing so will give us the strength and courage to come out publicly even in the Church, and to face down those who oppose us in the name of misguided religion. This will contribute to our own healing and resurrection in a fuller life - but will also contribute new life to the Church itself.</div><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>Books:</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Goss, Robert (ed): </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JZWM3A/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B004JZWM3A">Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B004JZWM3A" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Guest, Deryn et al (eds):</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0334040213/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0334040213">The Queer Bible Commentary</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0334040213" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Jennings, Theodore: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082981535X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=082981535X">the man jesus loved</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=082981535X" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Stuart, Elisabeth:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/026467328X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=026467328X">Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=026467328X" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Williams, Robert: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060975555/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0060975555">Just As I Am: A Practical Guide to Being Out, Proud, and Christian</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0060975555" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Wilson, Nancy: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1886360103/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1886360103">Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus, and the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1886360103" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong> <br />
</strong></div><strong>Related Posts at QTC:</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/10/12/coming-out-a-gospel-command/">"Coming Out": A Gospel Command</a></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/04/05/a-broken-church-and-the-return-from-emmaus/">A Broken Church, and the Return From Emmaus</a></div><br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=2d2c1386-cf85-41b2-be51-e7b56f63cfbb" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-8817934830000953482011-04-26T03:00:00.000-07:002011-04-26T03:00:01.845-07:00Jesus: Not "Gay", but Genderqueer.<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It appears from an article by <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices">Michael Ruse at the Guardian</a>, that there is new evidence that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices">Jesus was openly and unambiguously a gay man</a>. Appearances are deceptive: this is a speculative piece, describing the texts he would like to see, when these newly discovered codicils have been translated. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So what?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;">The Sexuality of Jesus</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The repeated references to a "<a href="http://www.blogger.com/St%20John%20the%20Evangelist,%20the%20%E2%80%9CBeloved%20Disciple%E2%80%9D">beloved disciple</a>" (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 <a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/03/24/was-jesus-gay-mark-and-the-naked-young-man/">young man covered only in a linen cloth</a>, 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?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1mVPD2v2GKM5PGgO-3Zlmhad3f-FHOzRErDQLXmbmw55nV2cqRiWLH1q0dtjjXupZl5wUqNy1lAONLaXqSWX_VqoejNRAGIJeDKt6q25m7ofUUCJ5W9WyZdkzvpmF7-sWi5Pp9euMW-2a/s1600/cgfa_rubens25--+EROTIC+picture+of+Jesus+and+Mary+Magdalene--Christ+and+Mary+Magdalene+1618+by+Peter+Paul+Rubens.jpg" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" class=" " height="294" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1mVPD2v2GKM5PGgO-3Zlmhad3f-FHOzRErDQLXmbmw55nV2cqRiWLH1q0dtjjXupZl5wUqNy1lAONLaXqSWX_VqoejNRAGIJeDKt6q25m7ofUUCJ5W9WyZdkzvpmF7-sWi5Pp9euMW-2a/s1600/cgfa_rubens25--+EROTIC+picture+of+Jesus+and+Mary+Magdalene--Christ+and+Mary+Magdalene+1618+by+Peter+Paul+Rubens.jpg" width="260" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Jesus and Mary Magdalene (Rubens)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table> What can we say for certain?<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Jesus Rejected Modern "Family" Values</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">Well, we know very clearly what he was not. At a time when there were enormous social pressures on all Jews to marry and raise a family, he did not. He also encouraged his followers to leave their own families, lived with a same-sex band of single men, and selected his closest friends from single people. Other than the men of "the twelve", his closest friends were the two women Mary and Martha, two unmarried women living together (again in clear defiance of social expectations), and their unmarried brother, Lazarus. Much as the religious conservatives try to paint the Gospels as supporting their (modern) conception of supposedly "traditional" family values, the values found in the texts themselves and not the fundie imagination, are decidedly queer: <a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2009/01/26/the-gospels-queer-values/">This was not a devoted, heterosexual, family man</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We also know for certain that he rejected nobody. Inclusion for all was a hallmark of his ministry, to the extent of simply ignoring standard social taboos of all kinds. He freely engaged in religious discussions with women, he did not hesitate to go to the home of a Roman centurion to heal his servant and (probably) lover, he met with and healed lepers, and did not shrink from the menstruating woman. The example of the woman caught in adultery (and others) shows clearly that he was not particularly interested in peoples' sexual acts - but only in the quality of their relationships (with others, and with God). This is also demonstrated by what he had to say on sex and sexuality : nothing at all.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;"><br />
</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size: 15px; font-weight: bold;">Biological Sex and Gender Expression.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I was delighted by the timing of Michael Ruse's Guardian report, which came just at the start of Trans in Faith week. The more I reflect on it, the more convinced I become that however one views Christ's sexual orientation or practice, the most reliable descriptor that I can find is that he was/is very clearly, emphatically, genderqueer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Consider first, the circumstances of his birth, and the implications if we are to accept the orthodox Catholic doctrine of Mary's virginity. Then, without no human father, we must read his parentage as one human mother, with the Holy Spirit - often thought of as a feminine aspect of the Trinity. <a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/12/30/christs-queer-family/">Two moms, then</a>.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">An observation by Susannah Cornwall in Trans/formations gives an even more radical view of the virgin birth. With no biological male parentage, he can have had no Y chromosomes, but only the female XX pattern. This will have made him externally male, but internally female - in other words, intersex.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Other writers in Trans/formations draw attention to his gender bending behaviour: not only mixing socially with people from all backgrounds, reflecting sexual and gender diversity as well a ignoring class and ethnic divisions, but also reflected in his flouting of gender roles, freely engaging in many actions that were reserved to women in a highly gendered society.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally, as God and one person of the Trinity, he is clearly gender free, but also shares in theological descriptions which demonstrate extraordinary gender fluidity.</div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Welcome to God's Queer Family</h3><div style="text-align: justify;">Michael Ruse concluded his post for the Guardian with the important words:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>Finally, the most important news is that nothing in the newly discovered codices challenges in any way the essential message of Christianity. Jesus was the messiah; he died on the cross for our sins; and through his death and resurrection made possible our eternal salvation. Our overriding obligation is to love God and we do this by loving our neighbours as ourselves. Christianity will never be the same again. Christianity will go on completely unchanged.</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">That is, his sexuality and gender expression really do not matter. An response from a reader asked, if that is so, why bother to write about it at all?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">But that is precisely the point. Biological sex, sexual orientation and gender expression clearly were of no concern to him, in his words and ministry. They really not be of any greater concern to us. As Bart put it his response here,</div><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>"Welcome to God's queer family. All are invited".</em></span></div><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>Books:</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong><br />
</strong><br />
<strong>Althaus- Reid, Marcella & Isherwood, Lisa: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0334043433/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0334043433">Trans/formations (Scm Controversies in Contextual Theology Series)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0334043433" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Jennings, Theodore W:</strong> T<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/082981535X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=082981535X">he Man Jesus Loved</a></div><div><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=082981535X" width="1" /></div><div><em>Fiction:</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Cherry, Kittredge: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1933993189/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1933993189">Jesus in Love</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1933993189" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Henson, Gavin</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/184694001X/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=184694001X">The Gay Disciple: Jesus' Friend Tells It His Own Way</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=184694001X" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><strong><strong>Related Posts at QTC</strong></strong><br />
<ul><li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/12/23/put-christ-back-into-christianity-the-body-of-christ/" title="Edit “Put Christ Back Into Christianity: The Body of Christ”">Put Christ Back Into Christianity: The Body of Christ</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/wp-admin/edit.php" title="Edit “St John of the Cross: 14th December”">St John of the Cross</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/10/12/finding-god-in-the-erotic-fr-donal-godfrey/" title="Edit ““Finding God in the Erotic”: Fr Donal Godfrey”">“Finding God in the Erotic”: Fr Donal Godfrey</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/06/27/st-pauls-celebration-of-gods-gift-of-sexuality/" title="Edit “St Paul’s Celebration of God’s Gift of Sexuality.”">St Paul’s Celebration of God’s Gift of Sexuality.</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/03/25/queering-the-bible/" title="Edit “Queering the Bible”">Queering the Bible</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/12/30/christs-queer-family/">Christ’s Queer Family</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2009/01/26/the-gospels-queer-values/">The Gospels' Queer Values</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/12/27/st-john-the-evangelist-the-beloved-disciple-december-27th/" title="Edit “St John the Evangelist, the “Beloved Disciple”: December 27th”">St John the Evangelist, the “Beloved Disciple”</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/12/23/put-christ-back-into-christianity-the-body-of-christ/">Put Christ Back Into Christianity: The Body of Christ</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/02/14/same-sex-lovers-in-church-history/">Same Sex Lovers in Church History</a> </li>
</ul><br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Related articles, elsewhere</span><br />
<ul class="zemanta-article-ul"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/apr/04/jesus-gay-man-codices">Jesus as an Openly Gay Man</a><em> (Guardian)</em> </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://www.queerty.com/do-these-2000-year-old-christian-codices-reveal-jesus-was-an-out-gay-dude-20110404/">Do These 2,000-Year Old Christian Codices Reveal Jesus Was An Out Gay Dude?</a><em>(queerty)</em> </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><em></em><a href="http://heterodoxjesus.blogspot.com/2010/04/mary-magdalene-jesus-temptress.html">Mary Magdalene: Jesus' Temptress?</a> <em>(Heterodox Jesus)</em> </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><em></em><a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm">Was Jesus Gay? </a><em>(Religious Tolerance)</em> </li>
</ul><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2010/02/jesus-poems-homoerotic-taste-of-heaven.html" target="_blank">Jesus poems: Homoerotic taste of heaven</a> <em>(Jesus in Love Blog)</em> </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><em></em><a href="http://eroticbodyofchrist.org/">The Erotic Body of Christ</a> <em>(Erotic Body of Christ, website)</em> </li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><em></em><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2010/11/erotic-christ-rethinking-sin-and-grace.html">Erotic Christ / Rethinking Sin and Grace for LGBT People</a> <em>(Jesus in Love)</em> </li>
</ul><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=99fdaf02-f0a5-4136-9f93-ac0b1579dbd4" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-27599812663718352692011-04-01T06:12:00.000-07:002011-04-14T06:14:20.033-07:00Queering Genesis: "Male and Female (And Others) He Created Them"<div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://qtsarchives.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sun_and_moon_creation.jpg"><img alt="" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-787" height="189" src="http://qtsarchives.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sun_and_moon_creation.jpg?w=300" title="Sun_and_Moon_creation" width="300" /></a></div><div style="text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>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.</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">But where, in this description, are the plants that do <em>not </em>bear seeds or fruit? Are they not also part of creation?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">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".</div><div style="text-align: justify;">On the fourth day, God created the animals. Here, there appears to be recognition of the diversity of life:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>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.</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">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?</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course they are. The point is, that the creation narrative of Genesis 1 is a literary work not a scientific catalogue. To list every single life form would be frankly impossible - even today, there countless species not yet discovered. The writer of Genesis does not attempt to name every part of creation, and exclude that which is not named. Instead, he uses a literary device to form an impression of the diversity of creation - and what a fine work it is, too.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As minister of the word at Mass, this has always been my favourite reading, as the first lesson in the salvation history that begins the Easter Vigil. Read aloud, there is real grandeur in the simple repetitions and cadences of the piece, and the pauses that bring to an end each day. It begins with a description of the void, but by adding day by day, it ends with an impression of having recounted the full grandeur of all creation, with humankind at the apex - even though, as outlined above, it has not identified every part of creation, but just some key components. Visual artists understand the technique - no painter would attempt in a landscape to show every leaf, every blade of grass, every twig in a landscape. In art, less is more. The writer of Genesis 1 has used artistry to create an impression of the full diversity of creation, by careful selection.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So it is with the description of the sixth day.</div><blockquote><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>So God created humankind in his image,</em></span> <span style="color: navy;"><em>in the image of God he created them;</em></span> <span style="color: navy;"><em>male and female he created them (1: 27)</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">From a heterosexist perspective, reading this verse in isolation, it is natural that the reference to "male and female" should be used to support the heteronormative view that there exist only two biological sexes, and by extension two associated gender roles, and a single, heterosexual erotic orientation. Such a narrow reading however, is contrary to the advice on Scriptural interpretation by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, to the knowledge we obtain from science - and even to the earliest traditions of Biblical exegesis on the passage.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The Commission warns strongly against superficial interpretation of single verses. Instead, it is important to consider the broader context of the passage as a whole, the literary form and careful attention to language. All of these lead to a diametrically opposed interpretation. To take "male and female" as restricting all understanding of sex, gender and orientation to just the single model described is no more valid than denying the existence of rivers, estuaries and marshes because only the Earth and Seas are named to represent dry land and water, or to deny the planets, comets and galaxies because only the sun, moon and stars are explicitly named. Read in its entirety, as an expressive and powerful passage of literature rather than a scientific catalogue, this is a celebration of the diversity of creation. This includes the diversity of biological sex, gender and orientation that we as the queer community embody - and all are made "in the image of God".</div><div style="text-align: justify;">For a scientific view on the matter, we need to look not at the words of Genesis, but to the findings of empirical research. These show clearly that humankind includes two primary biological sexes, but also a small but measurable proportion of people with one of a range of intersex conditions. It is simply not true that there are only male and female sexes, and that all humans are one or the other. It is also not true that there are only two genders, or that these are identified with biological sex. In many historical periods and geographical regions, some societies have recognized other possibilities. There are males who take on female gender, women who take on male roles - described for Africa as "boy wives and female husbands", for example, or by the Native Americans as "two spirits". Nor is sexual orientation necessarily determined by any combination of sex and gender, or even a simple matter of either/or. In societies where social recognition is given to people living as genders differing from their biological sex, their sexual relationships are in some cases with same sex / opposite gendered partners, and in some cases with opposite sex / same gendered partners. Even restricting each of these dimensions of sex, gender and orientation to just two possibilities, leads to a eight possible combinations - but we know that on each dimension, there are many more than just two possibilities.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This is especially true of orientation. Although in modern Western culture, we tend to think in terms of a hetero/ homo dichotomy, with some recognition of a bisexual minority, consideration of history, social anthropology and psychology suggest that in fact we are all innately placed somewhere on a bisexual continuum, from which by social conditioning and personal circumstances we end up forging a personal life which is more closely identified with one or the other.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Science, then, supports the reading of Genesis as a celebration of diversity, including sexual and gender diversity.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Even the earliest Jewish and Christian writers did not view Genesis as restricting humankind to just a male and female dichotomy, as Michael Carden notes in his commentary on the Genesis 1& 2:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">"Sally Gross points out that in Rabbinic Judaism there was recognition that not everyone was born male or female. Rabbinic texts use two terms, tumtum and 'aylonith, to designate people of intermediate gender.....Similarly, in Christianity, the hermaphrodite was a recognized human category".</span></em></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This is deeply ingrained in the Genesis creation text itself, in the alternate version contained in Chapter 2, in the verse usually (mis)translated as</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><em>"then the Lord formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a human being" (2:7).</em></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">In fact, as both Carden and Salzmann & Lawler make clear, the Hebrew word which here becomes "man" is<em> 'adam</em> - not, as we might expect, the name of the man Adam, but a gender-neutral term for a groundling, a proto-human androgyne formed from the ground. Only later, recognizing the need for a human to have companionship, did the Lord separate the single genderless proto-human into two distinct genders.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So, is the notion of "queering" Genesis a distortion of Scripture? I leave you to judge. My sense though, is that the distortion has come from the heteronormative interpretations, which have ignored the context as a whole, and with their natural bias, have quite inappropriately read a powerful literary presentation of the creation story as a scientific account of natural sexuality - which it quite clearly is not.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Books:</strong></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Coogan, Michael:</strong><em> </em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446545252?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0446545252">God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0446545252" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Countryman, William L</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800638484/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0800638484">Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0800638484" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Goss, Robert (ed</strong>): <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JZWM3A/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B004JZWM3A">Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B004JZWM3A" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Guest, Deryn et al</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0334040213/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0334040213">The Queer Bible Commentary</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0334040213" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Knust, Jennifer Wright</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061725587?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0061725587">Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0061725587" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Helminiak, Daniel: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188636009X">What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188636009X" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>McNeill, John: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590210425/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1590210425">Sex as God Intended</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1590210425" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Moore, Sebastian</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826459498/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0826459498">Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0826459498" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px; text-align: justify;"><strong>Salzmann, Todd & Lawler, Michael</strong>:<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1589012089/ref=as_li_tf_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1589012089">The Sexual Person: Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology (Moral Traditions)</a></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Stone, Ken</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0567081729?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0567081729">Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective</a></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><h3 style="text-align: justify;">Some Related Posts at QTC:</h3><ul><li><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/04/magisterium-and-scripture.html" target="_blank">Magisterium and Scripture</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/03/25/queering-the-bible/">Queering the Bible</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2009/01/gospels-queer-values.html" target="_blank">The Gospels' Queer Values</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/03/28/the-son-sets-you-free/">The Son Sets You Free</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/10/12/coming-out-a-gospel-command/" title="Edit ““Coming Out”: A Gospel Command.”">“Coming Out”: A Gospel Command.</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/07/19/water-into-wine-christs-gay-wedding-at-cana/" title="Edit “Water into Wine: Rereading the Wedding Feast at Cana.”">Water into Wine: Rereading the Wedding Feast at Cana.</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/12/31/heed-the-message-of-christ-queering-galatians/" title="Edit “Heed the Message of Christ: Queering Galatians”">Heed the Message of Christ: Queering Galatians</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/01/04/josephs-fabulous-queer-technicolour-dreamcoat/" title="Edit “Joseph and His Fabulous Queer Technicolour Dreamcoat.”">Joseph and His Fabulous Queer Technicolour Dreamcoa</a><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/01/04/josephs-fabulous-queer-technicolour-dreamcoat/" title="Edit “Joseph and His Fabulous Queer Technicolour Dreamcoat.”">t.</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/03/07/narrating-our-exodus/">Narrating Our Exodus</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2011/03/14/wrestling-with-god/">Wrestling With God</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/07/queering-song-of-songs.html" target="_blank">Queering the Song of Songs</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/11/06/coming-out-as-a-religious-obligation-micah-and-justice/" title="Edit “Coming Out as a Religious Obligation: Micah and Justice.”">Coming Out as a Religious Obligation: Micah and Justice.</a> </li>
<li><a href="http://queeringthechurch.com/2010/08/09/the-queer-lesson-of-nehemiah-rebuild-gods-church/">The Queer Lesson of Nehemiah: Rebuild God's Church</a> </li>
</ul><strong>Related articles elsewhere</strong> <br />
<ul><li><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/06/what-the-bible-really-says-about-sex.html">What the Bible Really Says About Sex</a> (<em>Newsweek</em>) </li>
<li><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/god-and-sex-what-the-bible-really-says-by-michael-coogan/article1835995/?cmpid=rss1">God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says, by Michael Coogan</a> <em>(Globe and Mail)</em> </li>
<li><a href="http://r.zemanta.com/?u=http%3A//religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/my-take-the-bible%2525E2%252580%252599s-surprisingly-mixed-messages-on-sexuality/&a=35108574&rid=664f2fe8-f1bc-4378-8db1-fd6a315e7285&e=6690dbb1b47fa0b52a5bb13df324e429">The Bible's surprsingly mixed messages on sexuality</a> (religion.blogs CNN) </li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2011/02/unprotected-texts-bible-has-mixed.html">Unprotected Texts: Bible has mixed messages on sex</a> <em>(Jesus in Love)</em> </li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2011/02/promising-new-popular-discussions-of.html">Promising New Popular Discussions of Bible and Its Cultural Use: Jay Michaelson and Laura Miller</a><em> (Bilgrimage)</em> </li>
<li><a href="http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2011/02/jennifer-wright-knust-takes-down.html">Jennifer Wright Knust Takes Down Argument That Bible Condemns Homosexuality</a> <em>(Bilgrimage)</em> </li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/marriage-as-lynchpin.html">Marriage: Past And Present</a> <em>(Andrew Sullivan)</em> </li>
<li><em></em><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/ancient-erotica-.html">Ancient Erotica</a> <em>(Andrew Sullivan)</em> </li>
</ul><ul><li><a href="http://anniegirl1138.com/2011/02/07/when-is-a-foot-really-a-penis-and-other-things-the-bible-taught-me/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-05/sex-and-the-bible-what-the-good-book-really-says/">Sex and the Bible: What the Good Book Really Says</a> <em>(Daily Beast.com)</em> </li>
<li><a href="http://anniegirl1138.com/2011/02/07/when-is-a-foot-really-a-penis-and-other-things-the-bible-taught-me/" target="_blank">When is a Foot Really a Penis And Other Things the Bible Taught Me</a> </li>
</ul><div><a href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"></a></div> <br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=3b935190-96da-449b-bc63-344673ef388d" style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-top-style: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-55714741234390518692011-02-24T07:38:00.000-08:002011-02-24T07:38:00.111-08:00"Practicing Safer Texts": The Bible and Sexuality, Homosexuality<p style="text-align: justify;">As gay men, we all know about the importance of practicing safe sex. When it comes to the Bible and sexuality, especially homosexuality, Ken Stone says we must practice safe texts, too. I regret that I have not yet had a chance to read this book and cannot comment personally on its quality, but the advice in the title is sound. We must read and respond to isolated Bible verses with extreme care. Failure to do so can be dangerous to our mental, emotional and spiritual health. "Everybody" knows that the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality as an abomination, goes the popular wisdom, which in turns fuels the opposition to LGBT equality and gay marriage, and at worst encourages prejudice, discrimination, bullying - and even murder. The popular wisdom is wrong.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">At Newsweek, Lisa Miller introduces her discussion of two new books by Jennifer Wright Knust and Michael Coogan with an important reminder: the Bible devotes an entire book to a clear celebration of human sexuality, without any consideration of procreation or even permanent commitment and fidelity:</p><br />
<div><div><blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The poem describes two young lovers aching with desire. The obsession is mutual, carnal, complete. The man lingers over his lover’s eyes and hair, on her teeth, lips, temples, neck, and breasts, until he arrives at “the mount of myrrh.” He rhapsodizes. “All of you is beautiful, my love,” he says. “There is no flaw in you.”</em></span></p></blockquote></div></div><blockquote><div><div><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The girl returns his lust with lust. “My lover thrust his hand through the hole,” she says, “and my insides groaned because of him.”</em></span></p><br />
</div></div></blockquote><p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.nancycalcutt.com/show-image/236058/Nancy-Calcutt/Lovers-Embrace.jpg" alt="" width="237" height="350" /></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><a name='more'></a></p><p style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #000000;"><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', 'Bitstream Charter', Times, serif;">[ad#In post banner]</span></span> </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">This frank Biblical erotica has too often been overshadowed in religious discussion of biblical sexuality by the modern puritanical perceptions of biblical sexual ethics. These modern perceptions are a severe distortion. Miller writes:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>What does the Bible really say about sex? Two new books written by university scholars for a popular audience try to answer this question. Infuriated by the dominance in the public sphere of conservative Christians who insist that the Bible incontrovertibly supports sex within the constraints of “traditional marriage,” these authors attempt to prove otherwise. Jennifer Wright Knust and Michael Coogan mine the Bible for its earthiest and most inexplicable tales about sex—Jephthah, who sacrifices his virgin daughter to God; Naomi and Ruth, who vow to love one another until death—to show that the Bible’s teachings on sex are not as coherent as the religious right would have people believe. In Knust’s reading, the Song of Solomon is a paean to unmarried sex, outside the conventions of family and community. “I’m tired,” writes Knust in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0061725587/?tag=nwswk-20" target="_blank">Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire</a>, “of watching those who are supposed to care about the Bible reduce its stories and teachings to slogans.” Her book comes out this month. Coogan’s book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0446545252/?tag=nwswk-20" target="_blank">God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says</a> was released last fall.</em></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">Some conservative commentators are outraged. "You cannot selectively twist the Bible to suit your purpose" is a common response - which completely overlooks the fact that this is precisely what the defenders of "traditional marriage, as found in the Bible" are doing all the time. The popular conception of "traditional marriage" is a relatively modern invention, very far removed from sexual ethics of the bible - as found in the actual text, and not in some befuddled pseudo-religious imaginations.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">To really get to grips with biblical views on sexuality, "practicing safer texts", requires proper study and reflection. Scholars who have done this have been reconsidering the traditional presentation for decades. Jennifer Knust (a professor of religion and an ordained Baptist pastor) and Michael Coogan (who trained as a Jesuit priest) have taken what is now common parlance among some academics, and made it more accessible to a wider audience.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">For those who have followed the re-evaluation of the bible's supposed pronouncements on homosexuality in particular, it is easy to recount the counters to the half-dozen or so clobber texts, or "texts of terror", on Robert Goss's phrase. What I like about the accounts of these books, is that they move beyond the arguments around specific verses, and on to a more holistic view of Scripture as a whole, and approaches to its overriding message - strictly in accordance with the Pontifical Bible Commission guidance on biblical interpretation, with its emphasis on context - of the passage and the entire bible, as well as the historical conditions, the modern context, and with a careful eye to linguistic accuracy and literary conventions :</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>The Bible contains a “pervasive patriarchal bias,” Coogan writes. Better to elide the specifics and read the Bible for its teachings on love, compassion, and forgiveness. Taken as a whole, “the Bible can be understood as the record of the beginning of a continuous movement toward the goal of full freedom and equality for all persons.”</em></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">It is a discussion of the literary conventions that produces the greatest surprise for me: Coogan's claim that Biblical language may use the term "foot" as a euphemism for genitals. This recognition leads to some completely novel and surprising perspectives on familiar passages:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>When biblical authors wanted to talk about genitals, they sometimes talked about “hands,” as in the Song of Solomon, and sometimes about “feet.” Coogan cites one passage in which a baby is born “between a mother’s feet”; and another, in which the prophet Isaiah promises that a punitive God will shave the hair from the Israelites’ heads, chins, and “feet.” When, in the Old Testament, Ruth anoints herself and lies down after dark next to Boaz—the man she hopes to make her husband—she “uncovers his feet.” A startled Boaz awakes. “Who are you?” he asks. Ruth identifies herself and spends the night “at his feet.”</em></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">However, it can also lead to some dangerous traps for the unwary:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>When he is teaching to college students, he writes, someone inevitably asks about the scene in Luke, in which a woman kisses and washes Jesus’ feet—and then dries them with her hair. Is that author speaking about “feet”? Or feet? “As both modern and ancient elaborations suggest,” Coogan writes, “sexual innuendo may be present.” Scholars agree that in this case, a foot was probably just a foot.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: right;">Newsweek, <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/06/what-the-bible-really-says-about-sex.html" target="_blank">What the Bible Really Says About Sex</a></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">We all know that "The Bible" is widely used as a cover to oppose legal protections for LGBT equality, or for full inclusion in church. Too often, as Candace Chellew Hodge points out, these arguments are made by people who have not actually read the bible, or if they have, they have, they have made not attempt to understand it with due consideration of its meaning, in the full scriptural, literary and historical context.</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Over at Focus on the Family’s Citizen Link, blogger Jenny Tyree <a href="http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/02/it-would-really-be-news-if-barbara-bush-supported-marriage/" target="_blank">isn’t surprised</a> at Ms. Bush and Ms. McCain’s support for marriage equality. “It’s rather easy for 20-somethings—or millennials—to jump on the very tidy-looking ‘rights’ bandwagon that proponents of same-sex marriage have made marriage to be,’ she writes, rightly observing that the <a href="http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1755/poll-gay-marriage-gains-acceptance-gays-in-the-military" target="_blank">majority of people aged 18-29</a> support marriage equality.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>What these darn kids are missing, Tyree says, is a real appreciation of biblical marriage. Instead, they’ve grown up “breathing air thick with a cultural disregard for marriage. Experiencing the personal benefit of having a married mom and dad doesn’t change what they witnessed—willful divorces and the suffering of the children of divorce. The result is a generational embrace of sex as a right and marriage as one of many lifestyles, rather than as the best family structure for children and a stabilizing force for society.”</em></span></p><p style="text-align: right;">-Candace Chellew-Hodge, <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4168/another_bush_comes_out_for_gay_marriage" target="_blank">Religion Dispatches</a></p></blockquote>Chellew-Hodge goes on to point out (quite correctly )that what these people are proposing is emphatically not the supposed destruction of marriage and family, but its strengthening - by extending its protection and coverage to all families.<br />
<br />
She also goes on to report on a Knust's book, saying that it beautifully counters the tired argument that same-sex marriage undermines "biblical marriage". Marriage in the Bible takes many forms. Which variety, exactly, are the defenders of "traditional" marriage thinking of?<br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>When one actually reads the Bible (something a majority of "traditional marriage" supporters have obviously not done), one finds a myriad of models for marriage—most of them involving one man and many women—and all of those women are property of the man they are married to. Women were subservient to men in every way and had no voice or rights of their own. By the time we arrive at the Christian scriptures, we find Jesus openly discouraging marriage for his followers, requiring them to leave their families and follow him exclusively.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>“From Jesus’ perspective, then,” Knust writes, “the family is made up of fellow believers, not kin with formal ties outsiders might recognize.”</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Saying that one supports “biblical marriage” then is to say that one supports polygamy, or owning women, or leaving one's family altogether and dedicating one’s life exclusively to following Christ. What millennials like Ms. Bush and Ms. McCain understand is that the tradition of marriage has evolved into a more inclusive institution encompassing mixed race marriages, and non-procreative marriages. Marriage today is not a matter of familial arrangements to enlarge land holdings or status. Marriage today is about the love and commitment between two people—as well as the government perks bestowed on the couple. Adding gays and lesbians to the mix does nothing to weaken marriage—it’s simply another evolution away from “biblical marriage” that was more about property rights than love.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Biblical marriage, according to Knust, looked like this: “women belong to men; male honor is tied, in part, to how well men supervise the women in their care; and men demonstrate their wealth and success by the number of legitimate wives and children they are able to acquire.”</em></span></p><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Actually, given religious right <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3944/is_200010/ai_n8907413/" target="_blank">preaching</a> about how men are the head of the household and women are subject to the rule of the man, perhaps the religious right does believe in “Biblical marriage” after all.</em></span></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;">At CNN, Jennifer Knust herself elaborates on the bible and homosexuality in particular, rebutting a key argument against gay marriage - that God created two distinct sexes. In fact, she points out, in the earliest versions of the creation story, it was accepted that the original human was androgynous:</p><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #000080;"><em>We often hears that Christians have no choice but <a href="http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/24/pastor-joel-osteen-homosexuality-is-a-sin/" target="_blank">to regard homosexuality as a sin</a>- that Scripture simply demands it.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #000080;"><em>As a <a href="http://www.harpercollins.com/author/microsite/About.aspx?authorid=35045" target="_blank">Bible scholar and pastor</a> myself, I say that Scripture does no such thing.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #000080;"><em>"I love gay people, but the Bible forces me to condemn them" is a poor excuse that attempts to avoid accountability by wrapping a very particular and narrow interpretation of a few biblical passages in a cloak of divinely inspired respectability.</em></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #000080;"><em> </em></span><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Truth is, Scripture can be interpreted in any number of ways. And biblical writers held a much more complicated view of human sexuality than contemporary debates have acknowledged.</em></span><br />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>In Genesis, for example, it would seem that God’s original intention for humanity was androgyny, not sexual differentiation and heterosexuality.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em> </em></span><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Genesis includes two versions of the story of God’s creation of the human person. First, God creates humanity male and female and then God forms the human person again, this time in the Garden of Eden. The second human person is given the name Adam and the female is formed from his rib.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Ancient Christians and Jews explained this two-step creation by imagining that the first human person possessed the genitalia of both sexes. Then, when the androgynous, dually-sexed person was placed in the garden, s/he was divided in two.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>According to this account, the man “clings to the woman” in an attempt to regain half his flesh, which God took from him once he was placed in Eden. As third century Rabbi Samuel bar Nahman explained, when God created the first man, God created him with two faces. “Then he split the androgyne and made two bodies, one on each side, and turned them about.”</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>When the apostle Paul envisioned the bodies that would be given to humanity at the end of time, he imagined that they would be androgynous, “not male and female.” The third-century non-canonical Gospel of Philip, meanwhile, lamented that sexual difference had been created at all: “If the female had not separated from the male, she and the male would not die. That being’s separation became the source of death.”</em></span></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>From these perspectives, God’s original plan was sexual unity in one body, not two. The Genesis creation stories can support the notion that sexual intercourse is designed to reunite male and female into one body, but they can also suggest that God’s blessing was first placed on an undifferentiated body that didn’t have sex at all.</em></span></p><p style="text-align: right;"><span style="color: #000080;"><em>Jennifer Knust, CNN Religion Bl</em></span><span style="color: #000080;"><em>ogs</em></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: #000000;">I do not propose that my readers should simply adopt the views expressed above simply on the strength of some third-hand reports of books that I have not yet had the opportunity to read myself. Biblical exegesis is a tricky matter for those of us without proper training. As the critics of these books are quick to point out, we do need to be guided in our interpretations of the texts by reliable scholarship. What the critics overlook though, is that scholarship itself is no longer supporting the traditional interpretations. </span></p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ever since the early pioneers like Canon Derrick Sherwin Bailey, scholars who have re examined the evidence with an open mind have found that the traditional assumptions about the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality are unfounded. Bayley was followed by the historian John Boswell, with a chapter on scripture in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226067114?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226067114">Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality</a>, and the detailed analysis by the Episcopal theologian William Countryman. This early trickle of works demonstrating the flaws in the traditional misinterpretations has become a flood, so that those denominations which have set up formal study programs have agreed that there is at the very least substantial room for disagreement. This is why we are now seeing a strong movement towards accepting even the ordination of openly gay or lesbian clergy, and even same sex weddings, in the US Mainline Protestant and European Lutheran churches. This re-evaluation by scholars and religious professionals, however, has not yet reached the popular mainstream, not in any significant numbers.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">These latest additions to the range of available titles are welcome, and deserve to be widely read and reflected on.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Books:</strong></p><p style="text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Bailey. Derrick Sherwin: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0208014926?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0208014926">Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition</a><img style="border: none!important; margin: 0!important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0208014926" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p><p style="text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Boswell, John: </strong><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226067114?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226067114">Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century</a><img style="border: none!important; margin: 0!important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0226067114" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p><p style="text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Coogan, Michael:</strong><em> </em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0446545252?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0446545252">God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says</a><img style="border: none!important; margin: 0!important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0446545252" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p><p style="text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Countryman, William L</strong>: Dirt, Greed and Sex</p><p style="text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Helminiak, Daniel:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188636009X">What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188636009X" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p><p style="text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Knust, Jennifer Wright</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061725587?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0061725587">Unprotected Texts: The Bible's Surprising Contradictions About Sex and Desire</a><img style="border: none!important; margin: 0!important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0061725587" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p><p style="text-align: justify; padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Rogers, Jack</strong> :<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/066423397X?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=066423397X">Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, Revised and Expanded Edition: Explode the Myths, Heal the Church</a><img style="border: none!important; margin: 0!important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=066423397X" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Stone, Ken</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0567081729?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0567081729">Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective</a></p><p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Thelos, Phil:</strong> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1553954009?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1553954009">Divine Sex: Liberating Sex from Religious Tradition</a><img style="border: none!important; margin: 0!important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=1553954009" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /></p><br />
<h6 class="zemanta-related-title" style="font-size: 1em;">My Related articles</h6><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"> <li><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/04/magisterium-and-scripture.html" target="_blank">Magisterium and Scripture</a></li>
<li>W<a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/gay-catholics-christians/what-part-of-the-gospels-bishop-soto-is-hard-for-gays-to-accept/">hat Part of the Gospels, Bishop Soto, is "Hard for Gays to Accept?"</a></li>
<li><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2009/01/gospels-queer-values.html" target="_blank">The Gospels's Queer Values</a></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/07/queering-song-of-songs.html" target="_blank">Queering the Song of Songs</a></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-was-real-sin-of-sodom.html" target="_blank">What Was the Real Sin Of Sodom?</a></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-reading-of-leviticus.html" target="_blank">A New Reading of Leviticus</a></li>
</ul><strong>Related articles elsewhere</strong><br />
<ul class="zemanta-article-ul"> <li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://www.newsweek.com/2011/02/06/what-the-bible-really-says-about-sex.html">What the Bible Really Says About Sex</a> (<em>Newsweek</em>)</li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/books/god-and-sex-what-the-bible-really-says-by-michael-coogan/article1835995/?cmpid=rss1">God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says, by Michael Coogan</a> <em>(Globe and Mail)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://r.zemanta.com/?u=http%3A//religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/09/my-take-the-bible%2525E2%252580%252599s-surprisingly-mixed-messages-on-sexuality/&a=35108574&rid=664f2fe8-f1bc-4378-8db1-fd6a315e7285&e=6690dbb1b47fa0b52a5bb13df324e429">The Bible's surprsingly mixed messages on sexuality</a> (religion.blogs CNN)</li>
</ul><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"> <li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2011/02/unprotected-texts-bible-has-mixed.html">Unprotected Texts: Bible has mixed messages on sex</a> <em>(Jesus in Love)</em></li>
</ul><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"> <li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2011/02/promising-new-popular-discussions-of.html">Promising New Popular Discussions of Bible and Its Cultural Use: Jay Michaelson and Laura Miller</a><em> (Bilgrimage)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://bilgrimage.blogspot.com/2011/02/jennifer-wright-knust-takes-down.html">Jennifer Wright Knust Takes Down Argument That Bible Condemns Homosexuality</a> <em> (Bilgrimage)</em></li>
</ul><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"> <li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/01/marriage-as-lynchpin.html">Marriage: Past And Present</a> <em>(Andrew Sullivan)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><em> </em><a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2011/02/ancient-erotica-.html">Ancient Erotica</a> <em>(Andrew Sullivan)</em></li>
</ul><ul> <li><a href="http://anniegirl1138.com/2011/02/07/when-is-a-foot-really-a-penis-and-other-things-the-bible-taught-me/" target="_blank"></a><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-02-05/sex-and-the-bible-what-the-good-book-really-says/">Sex and the Bible: What the Good Book Really Says</a> <em>(Daily Beast.com)</em></li>
<li><a href="http://anniegirl1138.com/2011/02/07/when-is-a-foot-really-a-penis-and-other-things-the-bible-taught-me/" target="_blank">When is a Foot Really a Penis And Other Things the Bible Taught Me</a></li>
</ul><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" title="Enhanced by Zemanta" href="http://www.zemanta.com/"><img class="zemanta-pixie-img" style="border: none; float: right;" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=664f2fe8-f1bc-4378-8db1-fd6a315e7285" alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-44402019686981963732011-01-07T05:28:00.000-08:002011-01-07T05:28:01.038-08:00Three Queers of the East: Thoughts for the Feast of the Epiphany<div id="_mcePaste" style="text-align: justify;">Earlier in the week, I wrote that some Bible stories are so familiar, we do not stop to consider their significance. I could also add, that some others are so familiar, we do not stop to ask if they are accurate. A case in point is that of today's feast of the Epiphany, which we routinely celebrate as the visit of the three kings of the East to the infant Jesus - but the Gospel text does not specify that there were three, nor that they were kings.</div><blockquote><div><em><span style="color: navy;">After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”</span></em></div><div><em><span style="color: navy;"><br />
</span></em></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">It is the term "magi" that has been traditionally adapted to "wise men", or corrupted in popular imagination to "kings". Astrologer-magicians, in the Zoroastrian religion, would be a more accurate translation. (Note the obvious linguistic connection between "magus" and "magic"). Kittredge quotes Nancy Wilson and Virginia Mollenkott, to suggest that the Magi were probably either eunuchs, or trans.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="" class=" " height="359" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Albanipsalter_DreiKoenige.jpg/431px-Albanipsalter_DreiKoenige.jpg" width="259" /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div><br />
<a name='more'></a></div><blockquote><div><em><span style="color: navy;">They were Zoroastrian priests, astrologers, magicians, ancient shamans from the courts of ancient Persia. They were the equivalent of Merlin of Britain. They were sorcerers, high-ranking officials, but not kings—definitely not kings. But quite possibly, they were <strong>queens.</strong> We’ve always pictured them with elaborate, exotic, unusual clothing—quite festive, highly decorated and accessorized! …Also, the wise eunuchs, shamans, holy men were the only ones who had the forethought to go shopping before they visited the baby Jesus!</span></em></div><div><em><span style="color: navy;"><br />
</span></em></div><div><em><span style="color: navy;">They also have shamanistic dreams. They deceive evil King Herod and actually play the precise role that many other prominent eunuchs play in the Bible: they rescue the prophet, this time the Messiah of God, and foil the evil royal plot against God’s anointed.</span></em></div><div style="text-align: right;"><em>-Wilson</em></div></blockquote></div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><div><em><span style="color: navy;">My guess is that they were people who today would be termed transwomen</span></em></div><div style="text-align: right;"><em>-Mollenkott</em></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
The reflection at Jesus in Love also considers two other unconventional thoughts on the Epiphany, from two striking artworks. One is an image showing a multiracial group of three wise women, reflecting the importance of the outsider in the nativity story, and another showing Saints Francis and Aloysius bringing as gifts people with AIDS, possibly gay men. You can read Kitt's full reflection at <a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2011/01/epiphany-3-kings-or-3-queens.html" target="_blank">Jesus in Love</a>. Here, I want to stay with the eunuch/trans theme.<br />
<br />
Are Wilson and Mollenkott correct in their hypothesese? I find both plausible. (In many Middle Eastern religions, the practitioners of religious magic, the shamans, were typically cross-dressers, eunuchs, or those whom today would be called gay or lesbian). However, I don't think it really matters. For me, it is sufficient that the might be, as this forces us to recognize how easily we fall into the trap of accepting without question the standard hetero assumptions behind the usual interpretations of scripture. If there is no definite proof that the Magi were in any sense queer, is there any compelling evidence that they were not - that is, do we know for certain that they were what we would call heterosexual, biological males?<br />
<br />
There is a great deal to think about in this. First off, in the modern world we easily forget how commonplace eunuchs and cross-dressing were throughout the Mediterranean world, in Biblical times and beyond. (Two further signs of this are that in the Orthodox Church, yesterday was the feast day of St Apollinaria /Dorotheos, one of the group of Eastern cross-dressing monastic women, and on Christmas Eve was the feast of SS Protus and Hyacinthus, eunuch slaves who were crucified alongside their mistress St Eugenia / Eugenios - another of the cross-dressing female monks). Other notable eunuchs in scripture include Daniel the prophet and Ashpenaz, the chief eunuch who controlled him; Daniel's three companions, renowned for their ordeal in the burning fiery furnace; the prophet Nehemiah, who returned to Jerusalem to rebuild God's temple; possibly Potiphar, who bought Joseph from the Ishmaelites who took him from his brothers; and in the New Testament, Philip the Ethiopian, who received the assurance that "all are welcome".<br />
<br />
Even in reading of "eunuchs", we make assumptions. There is some good evidence that of the 45 references to eunuchs in the Old Testament, not all refer to those who had been physically castrated, as we would interpret the word. In this view, the word includes those that simply are sexually attracted exclusively to other men - people the modern world would describe as gay. (See Faris Malik, <a href="http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/thesis.htm">Eunuchs are Gay Men</a>, for an extended discussion).<br />
<br />
When we read scripture without questioning those assumptions, we simply assume that the stories we read can be interpreted as if they were set in modern conditions. They cannot. To the people who object that we are making scandalous assumptions when we give them queer readings, the simple response is that the standard hetero interpretations may have even less sure foundation in historical evidence.<br />
<br />
As I reflected on Kitt's post and pictures, I remembered that beyond the liturgical sense, there is another meaning to the word "epiphany": this refers in common parlance to a new insight, a new way of seeing things. When we read Scripture and church history with a deliberate effort to set aside the unwarranted assumptions that underlie the usual heteronormative, we can find in them fresh insights - in short, new "epiphanies" of understanding.<br />
<br />
Later, I had yet another thought on the Magi: what every school child knows about these is that they came "bearing gifts". If we think of them as queer, in any sense, let us also consider the lesson that contains. We as gay men, lesbian and trans Christians in faith have distinctive spiritual gifts to share with the church. Instead of hiding in shame and fear, we need to be out, proud, and celebrating those gifts.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><br />
<h6 class="zemanta-related-title" style="font-size: 1em;">Recommended Books:</h6><div style="padding-left: 30px;">Goss, Robert (ed): <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;">Mollenkott, Virginia Ramey: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829817719?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829817719">Omnigender: A Trans-religious Approach</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829817719" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;">Wilson, Nancy: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004HV93MY?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B004HV93MY">Our Tribe: Queer Folks, God, Jesus and the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=B004HV93MY" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><h6 class="zemanta-related-title" style="font-size: 1em;">Related articles</h6><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2011/01/epiphany-3-kings-or-3-queens.html" target="_blank">Epiphany: 3 Kings, or 3 Queens?</a> <em>(Jesus in Love Blog)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2011/01/joseph-and-his-fabulous-queer.html">Joseph and His Fabulous Queer Technicolour Dreamcoat</a><em> (Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/11/daniel-in-lions-den.html" target="_blank">Daniel the Prophet</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/12/three-young-men-companions-of-daniel.html" target="_blank">Three Young Men and the Burning Fiery Furnace</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/08/queer-lesson-of-nehemiah-rebuild-gods.html" target="_blank">The Queer Lesson of Nehemiah: Rebuild God's Church</a><em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/gay-catholics-christians/queer-saints-and-martyrs/nov-1st-all-gay-saints/">Nov 1st: All (Gay) Saints</a> <em>(Queering the Church)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/christs-queer-family/">Christ's Queer Family</a> <em>(Queering the Church)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2009/11/apollinariadorotheos-501.html">Apollinaria/Dorotheos 5/01</a> <em>(Queering the Church)</em></li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/lgbt-history/queer-gods-demigods-and-their-priests-the-middle-east/">Queer Gods, Demigods and Their Priests: The Middle East</a> <em>(Queering the Church)</em></li>
</ul><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=faf802ba-b5a4-46cf-877e-5a52b683bf5d" style="border: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-13314758983200859562011-01-06T05:31:00.001-08:002011-01-06T05:31:24.787-08:00Joseph and His Fabulous Queer Technicolour Dreamcoat.<div style="text-align: justify;">Sometimes, stories and images are so familiar to us, that we completely fail to see their significance. The story of Joseph and his coat is familiar to us all from childhood Bible stories - and even more familiar as Lloyd-Webber's Joseph and His Amazing Technicolour <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Amazing-Technicolor-Dreamcoat-Revival/dp/B000001DUI%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dqbc05-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB000001DUI" rel="amazon" title="Joseph And The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (1991 London Revival Cast)">Dreamcoat</a>. Ignore the main story for now, and just focus on that coat of many colours.<br />
<br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the modern world, colour is everywhere, so much so that we hardy notice it unless it is used particularly well, or until it is unexpectedly absent. It was not always so. In the Biblical world, clothing was mostly drab: dyes of all kinds were costly , brightly coloured cloth of any kind was an expensive luxury. It is not surprising that Joseph's brothers would have been jealous of the special favour shown by their father, and wished to sell him into slavery.<br />
<br />
</div><table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/gay-catholics-christians/josephs-queer-technicolour-dreamcoat/attachment/joseph-sold-into-slavery-edward-knippers/" rel="attachment wp-att-14210" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" height="300" src="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Joseph-sold-into-slavery-Edward-Knippers-239x300.jpg" title="Joseph sold into slavery, Edward Knippers" width="239" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-small;">Joseph sold into slavery, Edward Knippers</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><div style="text-align: center;">;</div><div style="text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: justify;">But there could be more to the story than first appears: this was not just a coloured coat, but a very specific type - a coat of many colours, in stripes. Just such a coat was typically worn by a specific group of people - a distinctly queer group.</div></div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">Consider this extract from "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874779669?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0874779669">Coming Out Spiritually</a>", in which he draws on Conner, " <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062502573?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062502573">Blossom of Bone</a>":</div><br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">These were the qedeshim, who served as priests to the Canaanite goddess Athirat. They were responsible for the upkeep of her temples, and also engaged in ritual temple prostitution, engaging in sex with the devotees of the goddess to achieve enhanced states of consciousness. (It is possible that several of the biblical texts of terror that are used to condemn sex between men were in fact referring specifically to these temple prostitutes - and so were directed at idolatry, rather than at homoerotic activity itself).</span></em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">Connor notes an interesting connection between the multicolour garments of the qedishim and Joseph's "coat of many colours", which, at least based on Andrew Lloyd Webber's portrayal, was "fabulous". Although Connor's mission is not to "out" Joseph, he presents other clues which make one wonder, such as the fact that Potiphar, the man who bought Joseph from his brothers and brought him to Egypt as his servant, was actually a eunuch priest of a pagan goddess. Furthermore, the interpretation of dreams was one of the qualities for which the qedishim were known; and indeed, biblical writings reflect that prophetic dreams were commonplace with Joseph.</span></em></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This needs some fact-checking: most obviously, Potiphar did not buy Joseph directly from his brothers, but from a band of Ishmaelites who were the original purchasers. It is certainly true though that male temple prostitution was commonplace in the Mediterranean world, including in the land of Canaan, and that in cultures all around the world, men who were attracted to men or to female gender roles were often regarded as possessing special spiritual gifts - including the prophetic interpretation of dreams.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Books:</strong></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>De la Huerta</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874779669?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0874779669">Coming Out Spiritually: The Next Step</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0874779669" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><strong>Related Posts</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2009/12/david-prophet-jonathan-his-lover." target="_blank">David the Prophet and Jonathan, His Lover</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/11/daniel-in-lions-den.html" target="_blank">Daniel in the Lion's Den</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/12/three-young-men-companions-of-daniel.html" target="_blank">Three Young Men in the Burning Fiery Furnace</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2009/12/ruth-naomi-20th-december.html" target="_blank">Ruth and Naomi</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/08/queer-lesson-of-nehemiah-rebuild-gods.html" target="_blank">The Queer Lesson of Nehemiah: "Rebuild God's Church"</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-43172771145869977922011-01-04T07:25:00.000-08:002011-02-23T07:27:55.742-08:00Joseph and His Fabulous Queer Technicolour Dreamcoat.<div style="text-align: justify;">Sometimes, stories and images are so familiar to us, that we completely fail to see their significance. The story of Joseph and his coat is familiar to us all from childhood Bible stories - and even more familiar as Lloyd-Webber's Joseph and His Amazing Technicolour <a class="zem_slink" href="http://www.amazon.com/Joseph-Amazing-Technicolor-Dreamcoat-Revival/dp/B000001DUI%3FSubscriptionId%3D0G81C5DAZ03ZR9WH9X82%26tag%3Dqbc05-20%26linkCode%3Dxm2%26camp%3D2025%26creative%3D165953%26creativeASIN%3DB000001DUI" rel="amazon" title="Joseph And The Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat (1991 London Revival Cast)">Dreamcoat</a>. Ignore the main story for now, and just focus on that coat of many colours.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the modern world, colour is everywhere, so much so that we hardy notice it unless it is used particularly well, or until it is unexpectedly absent. It was not always so. In the Biblical world, clothing was mostly drab: dyes of all kinds were costly , brightly coloured cloth of any kind was an expensive luxury. It is not surprising that Joseph's brothers would have been jealous of the special favour shown by their father, and wished to sell him into slavery.</div><br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/gay-catholics-christians/josephs-queer-technicolour-dreamcoat/attachment/joseph-sold-into-slavery-edward-knippers/" rel="attachment wp-att-14210" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img alt="" height="300" src="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Joseph-sold-into-slavery-Edward-Knippers-239x300.jpg" title="Joseph sold into slavery, Edward Knippers" width="239" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Joseph sold into slavery, Edward Knippers</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div style="text-align: left;">But there could be more to the story than first appears: this was not just a coloured coat, but a very specific type - a coat of many colours, in stripes. Just such a coat was typically worn by a specific group of people - a distinctly queer group.</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Consider this extract from "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874779669?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0874779669">Coming Out Spiritually</a>", in which he draws on Conner, " <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062502573?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0062502573">Blossom of Bone</a>":</div><br />
<blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">These were the qedeshim, who served as priests to the Canaanite goddess Athirat. They were responsible for the upkeep of her temples, and also engaged in ritual temple prostitution, engaging in sex with the devotees of the goddess to achieve enhanced states of consciousness. (It is possible that several of the biblical texts of terror that are used to condemn sex between men were in fact referring specifically to these temple prostitutes - and so were directed at idolatry, rather than at homoerotic activity itself).</span></em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">Connor notes an interesting connection between the multicolour garments of the qedishim and Joseph's "coat of many colours", which, at least based on Andrew Lloyd Webber's portrayal, was "fabulous". Although Connor's mission is not to "out" Joseph, he presents other clues which make one wonder, such as the fact that Potiphar, the man who bought Joseph from his brothers and brought him to Egypt as his servant, was actually a eunuch priest of a pagan goddess. Furthermore, the interpretation of dreams was one of the qualities for which the qedishim were known; and indeed, biblical writings reflect that prophetic dreams were commonplace with Joseph.</span></em></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">This needs some fact-checking: most obviously, Potiphar did not buy Joseph directly from his brothers, but from a band of Ishmaelites who were the original purchasers. It is certainly true though that male temple prostitution was commonplace in the Mediterranean world, including in the land of Canaan, and that in cultures all around the world, men who were attracted to men or to female gender roles were often regarded as possessing special spiritual gifts - including the prophetic interpretation of dreams.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Books:</strong></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>De la Huerta</strong>: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0874779669?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0874779669">Coming Out Spiritually: The Next Step</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0874779669" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><strong>Related Posts</strong><br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2009/12/david-prophet-jonathan-his-lover." target="_blank">David the Prophet and Jonathan, His Lover</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/11/daniel-in-lions-den.html" target="_blank">Daniel in the Lion's Den</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/12/three-young-men-companions-of-daniel.html" target="_blank">Three Young Men in the Burning Fiery Furnace</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2009/12/ruth-naomi-20th-december.html" target="_blank">Ruth and Naomi</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><div style="padding-left: 30px;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.blogspot.com/2010/08/queer-lesson-of-nehemiah-rebuild-gods.html" target="_blank">The Queer Lesson of Nehemiah: "Rebuild God's Church"</a> <em>(Queer Saints and Martyrs)</em></div><br />
<div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=527254d0-f713-43b0-9326-cf3343d471ab" style="border: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-24712441292103478212010-11-13T02:44:00.000-08:002010-11-13T02:44:42.488-08:00Coming Out as a Religious Obligation: Micah and Justice.<p style="text-align:justify;">When I was reading some biographical notes recently about the Argentinian theologian <a class="zem_slink" title="Marcella Althaus-Reid" rel="wikipedia" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcella_Althaus-Reid">Marcella Althaus-Reid</a>, I was interested to note that she began her career working for the church among the poor of Buenos Aires, applying the techniques of liberation theology to the "option for the poor". Later, she applied those same techniques in slum communities in Scotland, before starting to apply the same techniques to the situation of the equally marginalized communities within the church itself, its sexual minorities.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">I have never been engaged full time in this work, not worked directly with the poor, but in South Africa I did get involved as a volunteer in some of the activities of the Catholic Church Justice & Peace Commission, and attended several meetings and training workshops on the subject. A standard Scripture verse to open those meetings was the well-known words of the prophet Micah:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align:center;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">Do justice, love well, and walk modestly with God </span></em></p><p style="text-align:right;"><em>-Micah 6:8</em></p></blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;">I clearly remember one major workshop at which these words were elaborated as a paradigm for the very concept of justice, as as set of three related relationships: relationships with God, relationships with others, and relationship with oneself.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">The Jewish lesbian Rebeccah Alpert expands on this idea in her contribution to Robert Goss's "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible</a><img style="border:none!important;margin:0!important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" />", and emphasises an implication to this injunction that I believe is a key to resolving the difficult choices facing us as lesbian, gay or trans people of faith - the importance of coming out.</p><p style="text-align:center;"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.glbtjews.org/IMG/jpg/kippaboy.jpg" alt="" width="250" height="300" /></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><a name='more'></a></p><p style="text-align:center;">To make this point, Alpert begins with the last of Micah's exhortations, and elaborates on their meaning in Hebrew tradition - a meaning that has relevance also for people of other faith traditions. This phrase, "walk modestly with God" (<em>hatznea lechet im eloha</em>) Alpert interprets as about the way a person sees her place in the world:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">Walking with God is a metaphor for the way each person approaches her own life. It is a way to conceptualize one's innermost feelings and thoughts. .... To see oneself walking with God requires a vision of God as the most important value in life, that which is with the individual always and everywhere. ... We can only walk with God if we know and accept who we are. Walking with God begins with self-acceptance and requires that we tell ourselves the truth about ourselves. This stance describes coming out, declaring oneself as lesbian, as a necessary prerequisite to walking with God.</span></em></p></blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;">Walking with God requires self-acceptance, and this in turn requires coming out. Initially this is in private, to oneself, but this is not enough. Coming out privately, she says, should be followed by coming out to friends and family, and ultimately also to the wider world. This may bring personal hardship, she admits, but will also bring wider benefits to the LGBT faith community as a whole - it is politically important. But this not the only reason for doing so. Coming out i public, she argues, is implicit in the same part of Micah's injunction.</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">"Hatznea lechet" also requires us to be honest people: honest with ourselves about our sexuality and honest with others in our lives. Coming out publicly keeps us from having to lie - to doctors whom we sometimes do not visit because we do not wish to tak about our sex lives, to coworkers to whom we omit pronouns when referring to our partners, to acquaintances who want to introduce us to men. The lies we tell may be small ones, but they inhibit our ability to live openly and lead us into patterns of lying incompatible with walking with God. And they draw nonlesbians into our lie as well, requiring them often to deny what they see.</span></em></p></blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;">This obligation to being publicly honest about oneself is a personal obligation, which does not require the outing of others. However, it is important also to meet up with others in collectively out communities, such as the gay and lesbian Jewish Congregation Beth Simchat Torah (CBST), and its counterparts in other faiths. These congregations and their relationships with wider faith communities raise difficult questions, but they are important as public witnesses to a collective honesty.</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Coming out then, privately, publicly and collectively, is a religious obligation implied by the requirement to "walk with God". It is also a pre-condition for the fulfilment of the rest o Micah's three-part injunction:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">It is only those who come to self-acceptance, including a sense that they are loved by God and by the Jewish community, who can begin to work towards creating a world of love and justice. </span></em></p></blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;">The second part of the injunction is to "love well" (<em>ahavat hesed</em>), or forming right relationships with friends, family and community. She observes that this is often difficult for Jewish lesbians, who are faced with strong expectations and pressures from family and community to make a conventional marriage and raise a traditional family - but sound relationships must be formed nevertheless, and can only be done in honesty. How else can one deal, for instance, with issues like invitations to weddings or other family celebrations?</p><p style="text-align:justify;">None of us lives in isolation. We all need community, to share in our joys - and for support during our trials. This is especially important at times of bereavement, when our faith communities are particularly important. We cannot provide proper support to others in their time of need, nor receive it in ours, if we have not established these relationships in honesty.</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">...... ahavat hesed requires hard work. In order to love well, we must take our responsibilities to others seriously and give careful consideration to the contribution we want to make that will enable the Jewish and lesbian communities to thrive. And in order ultimately to love well within the Jewish community, we must receive ahavat hesed from the community in return</span>.</em></p></blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;">And so, after discussing the commitments to walking humbly with God, and to loving well, Alpert turns to the first part of the verse from Micah, the commitment to justice, <em>asot mishpat</em>. These three though, while treated separately, are not independent of each other but interconnected.</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">We cannot make a choice between accepting ourselves, caring for our circle of loved one, and doing justice in the world. These efforts must be woven into our framework.</span></em></p></blockquote><blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">We cannot begin to envision such a world (i.e., a world of justice)unless we have created the possibilities within ourselves and our community to work towards this plan. We begin with the idea that to walk with with decency with God is measured by our self-acceptance and willingness to be visible. This is the beginning of justice. For only if we speak out about who we are, can we create the opportunity for justice for ourselves.</span></em></p><p style="text-align:justify;"><em><span style="color:#000080;">But this alone is insufficient: love is also a prerequisite to justice. In relation to justice ahavat hesed means respect not only for those that we love particularly but for all humanity. </span></em></p></blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;">The search for justice is double-edged: we must seek justice for ourselves - but must also work together with others, to seek justice for those suffering other kinds of oppression.</p><p style="text-align:center;">**********************************</p><p style="text-align:justify;">Alpert's reflection is quite explicitly from the perspective of a Jewish female, but I found no difficulty or sense of it being inappropriate in applying it equally to my situation as a gay man. I first began to prepare the above summary of it several weeks ago, and have been intermittently reflecting on it ever since, without quite getting to setting it out in full. I have been spurred into doing it now, because several other topics that I have been struggling with recently, including the question of a response to the problem of gaybullycides, and the question faced by gay Catholics in particular: to stay fully inside the Church, to form gay worshipping ghettos, to leave completely - or (as recommended by Dignity) to return and vigorously challenge the status quo, seem clearer to me when I think of Alpert's reflection on coming out as an obligation imposed by Micah:</p><br />
<blockquote><p style="text-align:center;"><span style="color:#000080;"><em>Do justice, love well, and walk modestly with God.</em></span></p></blockquote><p style="text-align:justify;"> </p><p style="text-align:justify;"> </p><p style="text-align:justify;"> </p><br />
<h6 class="zemanta-related-title" style="font-size:1em;">Related articles</h6><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"> <li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queertheology.blogspot.com/2010/11/come-out-to-save-lives-megachurch.html">Come Out to Save Lives - Megachurch Pastor Jim Swilley</a> (queertheology.blogspot.com)</li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/gay-catholics-christians/coming-out-a-gospel-command/">"Coming Out": A Gospel Command.</a> (queering-the-church.com)</li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2010/10/raising-of-lazarus-and-gay-experience.html">The Raising of Lazarus and the Gay Experience of Coming Out</a> (thewildreed.blogspot.com)</li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://queertheology.blogspot.com/2010/11/speaking-truth-on-catholic-lgbt.html">"Speaking the Truth" on Catholic LGBT Inclusion</a> (queertheology.blogspot.com)</li>
</ul>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-7993683301865790612010-08-09T15:01:00.000-07:002010-11-02T00:33:36.796-07:00The Queer Lesson of Nehemiah: "Rebuild God's Church!"<div align="justify">Through the fog of millenia, foreign language, and unfamiliar cultural contexts, it is easy for Christians in the twenty first century to miss the specific relevance of some passages in Scripture, especially the books of the “minor prophets” in the Hebrew Scriptures, expecially the queer references. When, with the help of suitable guidance, we do explore these, we may find some powerful material for reflection. I have found precisely that in a piece by Michael S. Piazza, “Nehemiah as a Model for Queer Servant Leadership” (In "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word" </a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" />, ed Robert Goss)</div><div align="justify">The first likely question from those unfamiliar with the background (let alone even the basic story of Nehemiah), is what makes this a “queer” story? The answer depends on appreciating the cultural background, and in turn casts some light on several other passages from the Hebrew Scriptures.</div><div align="justify"><img src="http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTSVyPgOSsVaeREVNsLmRvU8e-BvmT8HmI3ks50YFdqG32Ptbg&t=1&usg=__fElnVTKQfPIUB0sgx2SC0qgsCX8=" style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /> </div><div align="justify">Nehemiah was one of many Hebrews taken to Babylon as a slave, where he was engaged as a “cupbearer” to the Persian king Artaxerxes (the Persians had replaced the original Babylonians as rulers) . The purpose of a cup-bearer was not simply to carry the wine glass – it included the responsibility for tasting and testing all the king’s food and drink, against the possibility of poisoning. As such, it was a position of great responsibility, and personal intimacy – and it was standard practice for slaves in positions of such personal intimacy in the Royal household to be castrated. It is likely, then, that Nehemiah was a eunuch. (According to one historian, cupbearers to the king were always the most attractive men). Living in such close proximity to the king, and sharing in his meals, also meant that he shared in a life of great luxury – almost as much as the king himself.</div><div align="justify">That’s the background. The point of the story in the Bible, is that some years after the first wave of Hebrew exiles had been allowed to return to Jerusalem, where the temple and the city walls had been destroyed. Without the walls for defence, the city was vulnerable to repeated attacks by its enemies. Nehemiah became convinced that the Lord was calling him, too, back to Jerusalem, to do something about it. Now, remember that Nehemiah was a cupbearer, used to luxury, and not a soldier, a politician, or a religious leader. Nevertheless, he responded to God’s call, and secured permission from the king to return.</div><div align="justify">When he returned, he was initially ridiculed for his presumption in undertaking such a preposterous task – he, who had not the skills or experience to undertake such a great project. But he set to regardless, and ultimately succeeded.</div><div align="justify">Michael Piazza, in his reflection on the story, uses it as a metaphor for the task that we as lesbigaytrans people in the church can face. There is asense in which the wider Christian church, having lost its way in rejecting its own people, and placing (possibly mistaken) biblical literalism above the more fundamental lesson of love, can be seen as a church which is broken and in need of rebuilding, just as Jerusalem needed to rebuild its temple.</div><div align="justify">Like the eunuch Nehemiah, we are sexual outsiders, and can easily be dismissed by the church for our lack of approved skills and insider accreditation as pastors – but we too are called by God to help in rebuilding God’s church. With application, prayer and God’s help, we too can prevail – just as Nehemiah did.</div><div align="justify">Adding to the power of Piazza’s telling, is his own record with the Cathedral of Hope in Dallas, where he is the senior pastor. This was founded in Dallas in 1970 – hardly the most obvious place for a gay friendly church. But in the years since, it has become the world’s largest gay and leasbian megachurch. Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem against the odds, and the Cathedral of Hope defied its location and prospered as as church serving an LGBT congregation.</div><div align="justify">We can and will do so for the wider church.</div><div class="zemanta-related"><h6 class="zemanta-related-title" style="font-size: 1em; margin: 1em 0 0 0;">Related articles</h6><ul class="zemanta-article-ul"><li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://my-queer-spirituality.blogspot.com/2010/08/queering-song-of-songs.html">Queering the Song of Songs</a> (my-queer-spirituality.blogspot.com)</li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2009/12/ruth-naomi.html">Ruth & Naomi</a> (myqueerscripture.blogspot.com)</li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/04/homosexuality-and-bible-bishop-gene.html">Homosexuality and the Bible: Bishop Gene Robinson</a> (myqueerscripture.blogspot.com)</li>
<li class="zemanta-article-ul-li"><a href="http://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2010/09/22/lgbt-inclusion-in-church-a-study-in-contrasts/">LGBT Inclusion in Church: A Study in Contrasts</a> (opentabernacle.wordpress.com)</li>
</ul></div><div class="zemanta-pixie" style="height: 15px; margin-top: 10px;"><a class="zemanta-pixie-a" href="http://www.zemanta.com/" title="Enhanced by Zemanta"><img alt="Enhanced by Zemanta" class="zemanta-pixie-img" src="http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_c.png?x-id=6e0f10a0-300d-4e5a-baf3-e57624a73d74" style="border: none; float: right;" /></a></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-47250745637951026382010-07-30T02:15:00.001-07:002010-07-30T02:17:57.383-07:00Martha and Mary, Queer Saints<div style="text-align: justify;">The household of Martha, Mary and Lazarus is well known to us from the Gospels, where they are described as "sisters" and their brother Lazarus. They are also known to us as Jesus' friends, and their home as a place he visited for some rest and hospitality. The problem is, that the story is perhaps too familiar: we are so used to hearing of them and their home since childhood, that we automatically accept the words and visualize the family in modern terms, just as we did as children. To really understand the significance of this family, we need to consider the social context.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div align="center"><img alt="" height="278" src="http://www.wga.hu/detail/b/beuckela/martha.jpg" width="400" /> </div><div align="center">"<a href="http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/b/beuckela/martha.html">Christ in the House of Martha and Mary</a>, BEUCKELAER, Joachim (1565)" </div><div style="text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><a name='more'></a><div align="justify">In the modern West, we are accustomed to a wide range of family and household types. Although the socially approved ideal remains the nuclear family, with one husband, one wife, children and pets, we recognize many others as well: single person households; communal living, especially for young adults; same sex couples; and siblings (or other family members) sharing a home. In the Biblical world, economic and social conditions dictated that just one model was nearly universal. A patriarchal male established a household, and controlled within it wives, concubines, sons, daughters and slaves. Sons remained within their father's household and its economic basis until they had the resources to set up on their own. Daughters remained with their families until they were married off by their fathers, to submit to their new husbands. Their entire existence was dependent on the men who controlled them - fathers, brothers, or husbands. A single woman living independently of men was remarkable. Two women living together would have been exceptional. They are described as "sisters", but that may not be in the literal sense - the term was commonly used to describe what we would describe as a lesbian relationship. This may or may not have included sexual intimacy, but it was most certainly a household in open defiance of the standard gender expectations for women, and so I have no hesitation in describing them as "queer". </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We should also pause a moment, and consider briefly their brother Lazarus. He is best known to us in the story of his rising from the dead, but in the context of the household, he appears to be a minor figure. Although Hebrew families were dominated by the males, with sons taking control of the women after a father's death, in a household of siblings, we would normally expect that with one brother and two sisters, the man should be the master of the household: but that is emphatically not the picture of Lazarus that comes across from the Gospel. He too can be described as "queer" on that basis alone, although there is a lot more that could be said about Lazarus as a possible lover of Jesus.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This week though, the Church celebrated the feast of Martha and Mary (July 29th), and so it is on the sisters that I want to concentrate.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">When I reflect on the story of Martha and Mary as I have grown up with it since childhood, the image that sits with me indelibly is of the hospitality that they offered. Hospitality should be a core Christian value. In the traditional Hebrew desert community, hospitality to travellers was a primary virtue: without it, they could easily die, and at one time or another, anyone could find himself a traveller in the desert, dependent himself on the hospitality of strangers. The family itself, with its total interdependence, can be seen as a model of mutual, reciprocal hospitality. Through the institution of marriage, creating linkages between households and family networks binding the entire society, hospitality between households was the social glue binding the entire society.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As we know to the present day, the most powerful element and symbol of hospitality is the shared meal. It is not for nothing that the Mass is constructed around the commemoration of a meal. Hospitality and community go to the heart of the Christian ideal: this certainly is how I understand the concept of God's Kingdom on earth. Where we have full, mutual hospitality and community, love inevitably grows, and there can be no possibility of injustice.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The challenge must be to make certain that the hospitality really does extend to all. We as gay men an women know to our cost that very often it does not apply to us, and we must continue to work to secure that hospitality for ourselves: but we must likewise ensure that we too, offer hospitality, both within our community and beyond it. Let us never forget that the clearest symbol of hospitality in the Gospels is seen in a queer household. Let us strive in our modern queer community to model and embody the spirit of hospitality to the wider world.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(See also :</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Jesus in Love Blog</strong>, <a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2010/07/mary-and-martha-sisters-or-lesbian.html" target="_blank">Martha and Mary: Sisters, or Lesbian Couple?</a>, in Kittredge Cherry's excellent, continuing series on <a href="http://jesusinlove.blogspot.com/2010/07/mary-and-martha-sisters-or-lesbian.html" target="_blank">LGBT saints</a>)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">.</div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-63160260013602167902010-07-29T06:27:00.000-07:002010-07-29T06:27:32.339-07:00Queering the Song of Songs<div align="justify">Gay men and women could be excused for feeling more than a little ambivalent about the Song of Songs as recommended reading. On the one hand, it is very emphatically and clearly a frankly erotic love song between two unmarried lovers. It is a celebration of physical love, and an important counter to the common religious view that sexual expression must be confined to procreation. The Song is the strongest possible proof that Scripture does not support that view (there are others, too.)</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM8TMP2gFyglTtX_kJ_Ql9opO199dGdHpIe0UGSJHAERk0lSoC81SLMusPQ8oi-o_S2D7zagtyZZfRE4oO7VEdyaSsutEN6Jff3TvC6TkrXzKxie_5iwotTH1OrrC7-tUGFIRTOlp5WFs/s1600/DavidAndJonathan1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM8TMP2gFyglTtX_kJ_Ql9opO199dGdHpIe0UGSJHAERk0lSoC81SLMusPQ8oi-o_S2D7zagtyZZfRE4oO7VEdyaSsutEN6Jff3TvC6TkrXzKxie_5iwotTH1OrrC7-tUGFIRTOlp5WFs/s320/DavidAndJonathan1.jpg" /></a></div><br />
On the other, it is equally clearly an expression of heterosexual love -at least as known and commonly published today.( <em>There is an out of print book which argues that the earliest texts described two men, and that one set of pronouns was altered by later editors. For an account of this, see the Wild Reed on "<a href="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/04/song-of-songs-bibles-gay-love-poem.html">The Bible's Gay Love Poem</a>". However, I have not seen authoritative support for this view elsewhere, and for today I shall stick with the better known version</em>. ) </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">So how is a lesbian or gay male reader to respond to this text? <br />
<a name='more'></a>One simple remedy is simply to use it as a starting point, and ignore the details of gender, as I have done myself in the past – but this is not entirely satisfactory.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Christopher King, writing in “<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" />”, has another approach, which strikes me as instructive and useful. (“<i>A Love as Fierce as Death: Reclaiming the Song of Songs for Queer Lovers</i>”). The starting point for his reading, which sets it apart from others and makes it come alive for me, is that he recognises in the Song much more than just the expression of love, but its fuller story.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">He reminds us that the text stresses that the woman, whom he calls the Shulamite, is both Black and an outsider. As such, this is not just about love, but about forbidden love – love survives and conquers resistance.</div><blockquote><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">“I am black and beautiful, <br />
O daughters of Jerusalem”</span> (1:5)</em></blockquote><blockquote><div align="justify">The Shulamite recognizes that because of her relationship to the Beloved, she has become the subject of a discourse that intensifies her experience of marginality. Having become merely an outsider, she has become a taboo person.</div></blockquote><div align="justify">King also describes how the “official” church interpretation of the Song has changed dramatically over the centuries: in the Classical period, for instance, her blackness was taken to represent sin. That view has changed. </div><div align="justify">Not only is the Shulamite an “outsider”, she has suffered for it. She is hounded by the law, as represented by “the sentinels”, an beaten up for it.</div><blockquote><em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">“Making their rounds in the city, <br />
the sentinels found me; <br />
they beat me, they wounded me, <br />
they took away my mantle <br />
those sentinels of the walls</span></em><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: blue;">” </span><em>(5:7)</em></blockquote><blockquote><div align="justify">The very men who ought to protect the Shulamite have savagely attacked her. Not only have they thrashed , bruised and perhaps raped her, they have also stolen her outer garment, exposing her body to the physical elements, and more seriously, unveiling her shame to the elemental forces of public scorn.</div></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><div align="justify">It really doesn’t take a great deal of imagination here to make the obvious parallel with the violence and persecution that sexual outsiders have suffered, just like the Shulamite foreigner, and often similarly at the hands of those who should be protecting the weak – the church and the police. <br />
<br />
</div>But – she’s a survivor, and love conquers. <br />
<br />
A further important point, worth carefully stressing, is not just the joy of their love, but also it’s absolute equality and reciprocity. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><div align="justify"><em><span style="color: blue;">My beloved is mine and I am his <br />
he pastures his flock among he lilies</span> (2:16)</em></div><div align="justify"><em><span style="color: blue;">I am my beloved’s and he is mine <br />
he pastures his flock among he lilies.</span> (6.3) </em></div></blockquote><div align="justify">This mutuality and equality within a relationship is commonplace in queer relationships, but less so (probably rare, to this degree), in conventional marriage. <br />
<br />
</div><div align="justify">And so, although the relationship that is celebrated in the Song of Songs is not a same-sex one, it is indeed a queer one. The biological sexes are different, but at this level of equality, gender and gender roles fade into insignificance. “Queer” is more than a descriptor of same-sex attraction, but also includes all manner of sexual outsiders. An outsider the Shulamite most certainly is, and like us, has suffered for it.<br />
<br />
</div><div align="justify">But still, she can celebrate her love for her beloved, as he celebrates his for her. Most important of all for me, is that this has been quite literally celebrated in the most public way possible – written down in a book of Scripture, read by those who followed over the following thousands of years.<br />
<br />
</div><div align="justify">No secret closet for their love, then.</div><br />
<br />
<b>Source: </b><br />
<br />
King, Christopher: "A Love as Fierce as Death", in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" />, edited Robert Goss. <br />
<br />
<br />
.Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-17592570683405328792010-07-25T06:59:00.000-07:002010-08-08T07:00:21.515-07:00Gospel for Gays, on Prayer (Luke 11, 1-13)<p align="justify">Writing about the Gospel for July 25th (<strong>Luke 11, 1-13),</strong> Jeremiah at Gospel for Gays asks “Does god answer prayer?”</p> <p align="justify">After first quoting the text and running through some expert commentary, Jeremiah gets to a personal perspective – one which I fully endorse, on the strength of personal experience. Here are some extracts:</p> <blockquote> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">This is a wonderful passage, and it’s not merely the story of the importunate friend in the night that is unique to Luke.  It’s Luke who links what we call the “Lord’s Prayer” to other sayings, thus providing a deep answer to the disciples’ demand:  “Lord, teach us to pray.”</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">For me, the most striking thing about the passage is the brevity of the Lord’s Prayer.  Jesus spent hours – days – in prayer.  Indeed, I think his whole life was prayer – irrespective of what he was doing.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"> </p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Yet when his disciples ask him how to pray, he doesn’t start where we would begin today – talking about how you should sit or stand or kneel (or lie down, a possibility accepted by Ignatius of Loyola – with the warning that you may fall asleep!).</font></em></p> <p align="justify"></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff"></font></em></p> <em><font color="#0000ff">Rather, he gives this deceptively simple set of 38 words (in English).</font></em> <p></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">And then brilliant, literary Luke gathers up other sayings of Jesus about prayer and lays them out here.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">And interestingly, there are two themes in those sayings:  generosity on the part of a loving Dad; and perseverance on our part, in asking for what we need.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Does God answer prayer?</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">That’s a legitimate question; some would say it’s the only question.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">In my experience, the answer is “yes” – with abundance.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">There’s an obvious “but” however, and Luke ends this passage with an important surprise when he has Jesus say, “If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">The Holy Spirit?</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Where did that come from?</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Right to the end, the examples are concrete – daily needs, particularly bread in a society of scarcity.  Is this a trick, after all?  We ask for bread, or a paying job, or acceptance of our gay identity by a defensive hierarchy, or a partner, or a cure for cancer – and we get the Holy Spirit in response?</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">It’s a surprise, but it’s not a trick.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">Jesus is telling us that our relationship with God is so intimate that even as we praise him, even as we rest in his silent and intimate presence, we must ask for the things we need, for the things our children, our friends, our neighbors, our beloved needs; for what the world needs – peace, for example.</font></em></p> <p align="justify"><em><font color="#0000ff">And he answers, with the generosity of a loving parent.</font></em></p> <p align="right"><font color="#000000">(Read the full post at <a href="http://gospelforgays.com/?p=958">Gospel for Gays</a>.)</font></p></blockquote> Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-84911373966005625902010-07-19T01:51:00.001-07:002010-08-04T10:17:29.528-07:00Water into Wine: Jesus's Gay Wedding at Cana.<div align="justify" style="text-align: justify;">Yesterday I dipped into two books, and found ideas that amplified each other with powerful effect, especially in the current context of advances for marriage equality and the bishops' opposition. "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" />" (ed Robert Goss) is a compilation of writings on Scripture designed to take us as queer Christians beyond battles with the "texts of terror", to an approach more in keeping with what it should be, a source of inspiration and value in our lives. "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0631216073?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0631216073">Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body </a>" (ed Gerard Loughlin) is a broader and more ambitious compilation, of writing on a range of dimensions of faith from a queer perspective.</div><div align="center"><img alt="" height="259" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/StNikita126.JPG" width="387" /></div><div align="center"><em>Who was getting married?</em></div><div align="justify">In the introduction to his book, Loughlin reflects on the story of the Wedding Feast at Cana, (<a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John+2" target="_blank">John 2: 1 - 11</a>) which we usually think of in terms of the transformation of water into wine. Immediately I thought of this as a wonderful alternative image for Goss's "Take Back the Word". It is one thing for us to move beyond a fear of Scripture to a point where it is the "water" of life: but how can we go beyond even that, to the "wine" of celebration? This, I thought, is what Elizabeth Stuart does in a short piece "Camping Around the Canon", which (as it happens) she ends with some thoughts on weddings. Stuart's point is that we need to be able to approach Scripture with laughter, which is too often absent from religious practice. After a concise exposition of the historical and theological justification for the approach, she offers just one illustration of what she means, discussing <a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=Ephesians+5" target="_blank">Ephesians, 5:21-33</a> ("Wives, submit to your husbands"), which is so often used at weddings, and which for women can so easily become a text of terror. Hearing it read at weddings, she says, left her "churning with anger". But an analysis by Gerard Loughlin changed her reaction from tragic to comic, as the "heteropatriarchal" readings are</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><div align="justify" style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">undermined and washed away in the deeper waters of the Christian symbolic, for insofar as as women are members of the body, they too are called to be Christ to others; so that they too must also act as "groom" and "husband"; to the "bride" and "wife" of the other, whether it is to a man or woman. For it cannot be said that within the community only men are called to love as Christ does."</span></em></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: right;">-Gerard Loughlin, "<em>Baptismal Fluid</em>", unpublished paper quoted by Stuar</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Stuart comments:</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: blue;"><em>Loughlin's reading of the text had transformed it into a queer text. The very incongruity of this reading with the "original" reading is enough to stimulate laughter. I find it funny that this passage should be read so often and do solemnly at weddings, the great ceremony of heteropatriarchy.</em></span></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: right;">-Stuart, Camping Around the Canon, in Goss "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word</a>"<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" width="1" /></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">I remember a comparable insight and laughter from my own experience. Once on retreat, I found myself reflecting on the familiar image of the Church as the bride of Christ, and realized that as a gay man, I was spared the oddity (for straight men) of imagining myself as "bride", and instead was able to picture myself in my meditation as <a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/about/my-journey-in-faith-six-days-that-changed-my-life/" target="_blank">"groom" of Christ</a> - a meditation that became extremely powerful. Looking back on it later, I found satisfaction and humour in the realisation that my orientation had given me a unique advantage in my prayer.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This left me with a predisposed receptivity to Loughlin's main ideas concerning the wedding at Cana. Instead of considering the miracle of transformation, he asks instead, "Who is it that was married?". He answers the question in stages.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">First, he points out that the story should be read as a parable, with distinct anticipation of the Last Supper, Passion and Resurrection. The wedding takes place on "the third day" (anticipating the resurrection) after He has talked with Nathanel (<a href="http://bible.oremus.org/?passage=John+1">John 1:43 -51</a>), and the transformation of water into wine anticipates the transformation of wine into His blood. In a liturgical setting, the Mass recalls these three days. So, it is a standard idea that symbolically, in the church's recollection of the story, we are all guests at the wedding, where Christ is marrying his Church. At one level closer to the literal, it is Christ marrying his disciples. Loughlin then goes on to discuss a fascinating more literal idea from the early and medieval church - that it was indeed Christ who was married - to John, the beloved disciple. This idea was articulated in the apocryphal Acts of John, in which it is said that John broke off his betrothals to a woman to "bind himself" to Jesus. This was apparently a common strand in some German medieval thinking, right up until the Reformation, and is visually illustrated in some surviving art. In a <em>"Libellus for John the Evangelist"</em>, a painting of the wedding feast is said to feature a bearded Christ seated next to a beardless, androgynous John - whom, says Loughlin, he appears about to kiss. In the "<em>Admont Codex</em>" illustrated manuscript of St Anselm's "Prayers and Meditations", an illustration in two parts shows John's story. In one, John is seen leaving his female betrothed. In the companion piece, he is lying on the ground with this head on Jesus's breast, while Jesus himself is tenderly caressing his chin.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Is this tradition "true"? We cannot know. Like so much much else in Scripture, it is impossible to get through the mists produced by unfamiliar language, a different literary tradition, and remote historical /cultural context to get close to the literal "truth" behind the text. No matter. Even without accepting this idea literally, it is enough for me to know that it was once widely accepted in the mystical tradition, and to incorporate it into my reader response.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It is when Loughlin moves beyond the "meaning" of the text to its multiple ironies that the fun starts. This where, in sympathy with Elizabeth Stuart, I found myself quite literally laughing with Scripture. For if it is true that the consecration of Eucharistic wine into Christ's bloods is prefigured in the Cana transformation of water into wine, then we can see that in every Mass we are commemorating Christ's own wedding with His (male) disciples. Every Mass can be seen as a mystical gay wedding. That Mass is celebrated by a priest who has committed himself to celibacy, and so forswears procreation himself, but is expected to preach against gay marriage or others - because homosexual intercourse, being unable to procreate, is "<em>intrinsically disordered</em>". The priesthood in turn, is run by a a similarly celibate coterie in the Vatican which reproduces itself by recruitment not biological reproduction - and castigates the homosexual community for its own social, not biological reproduction.</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">The threat posed by gays and lesbians to family and society is often proclaimed by men - named "fathers"- who have vowed never to to beget children. The pope lives in a household of such men - a veritable palace of "eunuchs"for Christ - that reproduces itself by persuading others not to procreate. Why us the refusal of fecundity - the celibate lifestyle - not also a threat to family and society?</span></em></div></blockquote><div align="right">-Loughlin, introduction to "Queer Theology" </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Goss, Robert</strong> (ed): <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0829813977?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0829813977">Take Back the Word: A Queer Reading of the Bible</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0829813977" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Loughlin, Gerard</strong> (ed): <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0631216073?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0631216073">Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body (BBPG)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0631216073" style="border-bottom-style: none !important; border-left-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; margin: 0px;" width="1" /></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-74945274257011997932010-07-01T05:47:00.001-07:002010-07-01T05:47:45.377-07:00The "Abominations" of the King James Bible<p style="text-align: justify">Scripture has been so commonly quoted in support of arguments against same sex relationships, that we too easily overlook the simple facts that the texts being quoted were written in  a foreign language, in a remote cultural setting, in contexts very different to that in which pseudo-religious bigots abuse these texts today. To extend correct understanding of these texts, every useful explanation deserves wide exposure.</p> <p style="text-align: justify">At Religion Dispatches today, Jay Michaelson  has an <a href="http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/2826/does_the_bible_really_call_homosexuality_an_%E2%80%9Cabomination%E2%80%9D" target="_blank">explanation of one particularly treacherous and widely abused and misunderstood word, "abomination"</a>.   Critics of the clobber texts routinely point out that the same word is used to proscribe certain foods, shaving, as well as "men lying with men", and the inconsistency exposed in its modern use to attack  selectively one but not the others. Outside the scholarly journals however, not enough attention has been placed on the word itself, which emphatically does not have the connotations and strength of meaning in the original Hebrew text that it does in the modern English usage of its translation. (Renato Lings, meanwhile, has offered a useful analysis of the Levitical texts from another perspective, the words for "men lying with men", and also finds that they simply do not mean what modern abusers of the texts think it means).</p> <p style="text-align: justify">  <img style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" alt="" src="http://www.piney.com/MolechFlame.jpg" width="392" height="440" /></p> <p style="text-align: justify"></p> <p style="text-align: justify">The Hebrew word is "<em>toevah</em>" (plural "<em>toevot</em>"), and it is to the King James version that we owe the appallingly inappropriate translation as "abomination". In an extensive analysis of all 103 Biblical uses of the word, some key themes emerge. First, almost all have the connotation of non-Israelite cultic practices.</p> <a name='more'></a>In particular, foreign forms of worship ("<em>avodah zara</em>") he describes as the "primary" <em>toevah</em>, from which most other forms of toevot flow. Some of these are clearly serious, and would also be recognised as such in the modern West - such as  idolatry, child sacrifice, and witchcraft (Deut. 12:31, 13:14, 17:4, 27:15, and 32:16 ) - but unlike the Hebrews, we would not see this as sufficient justification for "the genocide of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanaites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites" . But in addition to idolatry, Ezekiel lists some further "<em>toevot</em>" that we would recognize as wrong, but would be surprised to see described as "abominations" -   usury (Ez. 18:13), haughtiness and pride (Ez. 16:47-50), heterosexual adultery (Ez. 22:11, 33:26), and violence (Ez. 33:26). (I hope that someone can point out to those promoting homophobic violence in the name of religion, that they are as much guilty of "abomination" as those they oppose.) <p></p> <p style="text-align: justify">A further use from Ezekiel brings home an important feature of this notion of "<em>toevah</em>" as a general term for foreign acts (Ez. 16:51) - that it is foreign practice that is the problem, usually cultic, but sometimes not. As Michaelson makes clear, the point of <em>toevah</em> is that it is culurally specific. Just as some foreign practices are <em>toevah</em> to Israelites, so some Israelite practices are equally <em>toevah</em> to others:</p> <blockquote style="text-align: justify"><em><span style="color: #0000ff">Genesis 43:32 states that eating with Israelites is toevah for Egyptians. Gen. 43:34 states that shepherds are toevah to Egyptians—the sons of Israel are themselves shepherds. In Exodus 8:22, Moses describes Israelite sacrifices as being </span></em><em><span style="color: #0000ff">toevat mitzrayim</span></em><em><span style="color: #0000ff">—toevah of Egypt—although obviously Israelite ritual is not an objective “abomination.” If toevah means abomination, then eating with shepherds, eating with Israelites, and Israelite sacrifices themselves must be abominable! Since this clearly is not the case, toevah cannot mean “abomination” in any ontological sense—it must be a relative quality.</span></em></blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify"><em>Toevot</em> also include what Michaelson calls "ethical failings", including pride (Prov. 6:16, 16:5), lying (Prov. 12:22, 26:25), scoffing (Prov. 24:9) and evil speech (Prov. 8:7) - some more in there that are worth drawing to the attention of those crying "abomination" against gay men and lesbians. I also like this:</p> <blockquote style="text-align: justify"><em><span style="color: #0000ff">Interestingly, Proverbs 13:19 says that “to turn from evil is toevah to fools,” again suggesting that toevah is something relative in nature. Similarly, Prov. 29:27 says poetically: “An unjust man is toevah to the righteous, and the straightforward man is toevah to the wicked.”</span></em></blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify">However, the KJV and many other biblical translations do not simply apply the inappropriate word "abominations" to the Hebrew "toevah", but also to other Hebrew words usually associated with idolatry:   <em>sheketz</em>,  which refers usually to idolatry and occasionally to other taboos such as forbidden animals (Lev. 11:10-13). Likewise,  as <em>pigul, </em>which is how Leviticus 7:18 describes leftover sacrificial meat.</p> <p style="text-align: justify">Here's the crunch:</p> <blockquote style="text-align: justify"><span style="color: #0000ff"><em>Progressive religionists must stop using the word “abomination” to refer to toevah. The word plays into the hands of fundamentalists on the one hand, and anti-religious zealots on the other, both of whom want to depict the Bible as virulently and centrally concerned with the “unnatural” acts of gays and lesbians. In fact, toevah is mostly about idolatry, and male homosexual behavior is only as abominable as remarriage or not keeping kosher. Whenever we use the word “abomination” we are perpetuating the misunderstanding of Biblical text and the religious persecution of LGBT people.</em></span></blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify">What word are we to use instead?</p> <blockquote style="text-align: justify"><em><span style="color: #0000ff">Personally, I like “taboo” as a replacement. It conveys the culturally relative nature of toevah, has some connotation of foreignness, and rightly aligns the taboo against homosexuality with taboos against, for example, eating unkosher food. It also has a vaguely archaic feel, which it should. Admittedly, “taboo” began as </span></em><em><span style="color: #0000ff">tabu</span></em><em><span style="color: #0000ff">, and specifically refers to a particular concept in Pacific indigenous religion; it is a bit inexact to import it to Judaism and Christianity. Yet the word has, by now, entered the common parlance, and in that general sense, it matches toevah fairly well. (Alternatively, we could stick with the Hebrew term, the foreignness of which heightens the foreignness of the Biblical concerns about homosexuality.) One thing remains clear, though: what’s really abominable here is the word “abomination” itself.</span></em></blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify">I like this. Taboo exactly captures that sense of something which is forbidden, in a cultural context. See how the impact of the Levitical text changes if we make that small adustment, from "abomination", to a more precise, culturally appropriate  translation:</p> <p style="text-align: center"><em><span style="color: #0000ff">Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination</span></em></p> becomes <p style="text-align: center"><em><span style="color: #0000ff">Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is <strong>taboo for Israelis</strong></span></em><span style="color: #0000ff"><strong>.</strong></span></p> See? Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-5221692935545597772010-04-22T08:02:00.000-07:002010-04-21T08:02:29.122-07:00What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 32px; font-weight: bold;">Theologian and Minister Says That the Real Sin of Sodom Was Inhospitality.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I've covered the same ground before, but the mistaken conflation of "Sodom" and "homosexuality" is so commonplace, with such appalling results in providing a pseudo religious cover bigotry, gay-bashing and even homicide, that it deserves to be repeated as often as possible until the message sinks in. The story of Sodom has nothing to do with loving homosexual relationships. The "sin of Sodom" is not homosexuality, but the refusal of hospitality and kindness to strangers. Those guilty of the sin of Sodom are not "homosexuals", but the homophobes who persecute them.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">There have been many good rebuttals of the standard, misguided misinterpertation. This exposition of it is from theologian and ordainied minister, Rev Patrick Cheng, at Huffington Post. In it, he shows how the words of the Hebrew text have here been misrepresented as referring to "having sex with", rather than the actual act, which was gang rape, a different matter entirely. He also shows how the Bible itself, in otehr passages, quite explicitly describes the "sin of Sodom" in terms which have nothing to do with homoerotic relationships, but are rather concerned with radical inhospitality.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">He reminds us too, that responsible Biblical interpretation must go well beyond simply looking at the bare words (in translation) on the page, but must also consider the historical and social context. In Catholic theology, the Pontifical Bible Commission says also that we need to consider always the Bible as a whole, and not just isolated passages. Looking at the context, Rev Cheng shows just why absolute observance of hospitality to travellers and strangers was so important in the Jewish desert environment, and how the theme continues in the New Testament. (Indeed, one could argue that it is the supreme commandment of the Christian Gospels). Following this reasoning, he concludes that it is those who refuse to extend hospitality and inclusion to "homosexual" are those who are truly guilty of the sin of Sodom.</div><br />
<h2 style="text-align: center;"><span style="color: purple;">What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?</span></h2><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: navy;">To many anti-gay Christians, I'm nothing more than a "sodomite" who is damned for all eternity. It doesn't matter that I've spent the last decade immersed in the Bible, ancient biblical languages, and the Christian theological tradition. It doesn't matter that I've dedicated my life to preaching, teaching, and ministering to all people, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The simple fact that I'm an openly gay man makes all of that irrelevant. To anti-gay Christians, God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapter 19 of the Book of Genesis is a warning to people like me.</span></em></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: navy;">Ironically, I believe that these anti-gay Christians actually have it backwards. The true sin of the Sodomites as described in the Bible has nothing to do with same-sex acts per se. Rather, the ancient Sodomites were punished by God for far greater sins: for attempted gang rape, for mob violence, and for turning their backs on strangers and the needy who were in their midst. In other words, the real sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality. And, ironically, it is often anti-gay Christians who are most guilty of this sin today.</span></em></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: navy;">........</span></em></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;">So, who are the real Sodomites today? Who are the people who turn their backs on the strangers and the least among us? Ironically, I believe that anti-gay Christians are often the ones who are most guilty of committing the true sin of Sodom. These include the Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops who are trying to scapegoat LGBT people for the horrific crimes of child rape that were committed by their brother priests. These also include the Mormon leaders who are secretly funding campaigns to fight marriage equality for LGBT people, despite the fact that their founders practiced polygamy. Finally, these include anti-gay politicians and self-appointed "family values" advocates who insist that LGBT people are categorically unfit to serve as parents or judges (because they are sinners and morally flawed), but are too blind to see their own sins and moral flaws.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black; font-style: normal;"> </span></span></em></div></blockquote><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: blue;"> The bottom line is that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus Christ ever condemn LGBT people. However, Jesus does expressly condemn people who turn their backs on strangers and on those who are the neediest among us. In the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus says that whoever fails to welcome such people has failed to welcome Jesus himself (Matthew 25:43). In my view, the anti-gay religious leaders, politicians, and "family values" advocates who turn their backs on LGBT people should spend far less time obsessing about LGBT people and far more time thinking about the true sin of Sodom: radical inhospitality.</span></em></div><em> </em></blockquote><div style="text-align: right;">(Read <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/what-was-the-real-sin-of_b_543996.html" target="_blank">the full article</a>)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-style: normal;">S</span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;">ee also previous posts at <strong>Queer Scripture</strong>:</span></span></span></em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><br />
</span></span></span></em></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: navy;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/%3Ch1%3ETheologian%20and%20Minister%20Says%20That%20the%20Real%20Sin%20of%20Sodom%20Was%20Inhospitality.%3C/h1%3E%20%3Cp%20style=%22text-align:%20justify;%22%3EI've%20covered%20the%20same%20ground%20before,%20but%20the%20mistaken%20conflation%20of%20%22Sodom%22%20and%20%22homosexuality%22%20is%20so%20commonplace,%20with%20such%20appalling%20results%20in%20providing%20a%20pseudo%20religious%20cover%20bigotry,%20gay-bashing%20and%20even%20homocide,%20that%20it%20deserves%20to%20be%20repeated%20as%20often%20as%20possible%20until%20the%20message%20sinks%20in.%20The%20story%20of%20Sodom%20has%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20loving%20homosexual%20relationships.%20The%20%22sin%20of%20Sodom%22%20is%20not%20homosexuality,%20but%20the%20refusal%20of%20%C2%A0hospitality%20and%20kindness%20to%20strangers.%20%C2%A0%20Those%20guilty%20of%20the%20sin%20of%20Sodom%20are%20not%20%22homosexuals%22,%20but%20the%20homophobes%20who%20persecute%20them.%3C/p%3E%20%3Cp%20style=%22text-align:%20justify;%22%3EThere%20have%20been%20many%20good%20rebuttals%20of%20the%20standard,%20misguided%20%C2%A0misinterpertation.%20This%20exposition%20of%20it%20is%20fromtheologian%20and%20ordainied%20minister,%20Rev%20Patrick%20Cheng,%20at%20Huffington%20Post.%20In%20it,%20he%20shows%20how%20the%20words%20of%20the%20Hebrew%20text%20have%20here%20been%20misrepresented%20as%20referring%20to%20%C2%A0%22having%20sex%20with%22,%20rather%20than%20the%20actual%20act,%20which%20was%20gang%20rape,%20a%20different%20matter%20entirely.%20He%20also%20shows%20how%20the%20Bible%20itself,%20in%20otehr%20passages,%20quite%20explicitly%20describes%20the%20%22sin%20of%20Sodom%22%20in%20terms%20which%20have%20nothing%20to%20do%20with%20homoerotic%20relationships,%20but%20are%20rather%20concerned%20with%20radical%20inhospitality.%3C/p%3E%20%3Cp%20style=%22text-align:%20justify;%22%3EHe%20reminds%20us%20too,%20that%20responsible%20Biblical%20interpretation%20must%20go%20well%20beyond%20simply%20looking%20at%20the%20bare%20words%20(in%20translation)%20on%20the%20page,%20but%20must%20also%20consider%20the%20historical%20and%20social%20context.%20In%20Catholic%20theology,%20the%20Pontifical%20Bible%20Commission%20says%20also%20that%20we%20need%20to%20consider%20always%20the%20Bible%20as%20a%20whole,%20and%20not%20just%20isolated%20passages.%20%C2%A0Looking%20at%20the%20context,%20Rev%20Cheng%20shows%20just%20why%20absolute%20observance%20of%20hospitality%20to%20travellers%20and%20strangers%20was%20so%20important%20in%20the%20Jewish%20desert%20environment,%20and%20how%20the%20theme%20continues%20in%20the%20New%20Testament.%20(Indeed,%20one%20could%20argue%20that%20it%20is%20the%20supreme%20commandment%20of%20the%20Christian%20Gospels).%20Following%20this%20reasoning,%20he%20concludes%20that%20it%20is%20those%20who%20refuse%20to%20extend%20hospitality%20and%20inclusion%20to%20%22homosexual%22%20are%20those%20who%20are%20truly%20guilty%20of%20the%20sin%20of%20Sodom.%3C/p%3E%20%20%3Ch2%20style=%22text-align:%20center;%22%3E%3Cspan%20style=%22color:%20#800080;">What Was the Real Sin of Sodom?</span></h2> <blockquote> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #000080;">To many anti-gay Christians, I'm nothing more than a "sodomite" who is damned for all eternity. It doesn't matter that I've spent the last decade immersed in the Bible, ancient biblical languages, and the Christian theological tradition. It doesn't matter that I've dedicated my life to preaching, teaching, and ministering to all people, including the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. The simple fact that I'm an openly gay man makes all of that irrelevant. To anti-gay Christians, God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in chapter 19 of the Book of Genesis is a warning to people like me. </span></em></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #000080;">Ironically, I believe that these anti-gay Christians actually have it backwards. The true sin of the Sodomites as described in the Bible has nothing to do with same-sex acts per se. Rather, the ancient Sodomites were punished by God for far greater sins: for attempted gang rape, for mob violence, and for turning their backs on strangers and the needy who were in their midst. In other words, the real sin of Sodom was radical inhospitality. And, ironically, it is often anti-gay Christians who are most guilty of this sin today.</span></em></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #000080;">........</span></em></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #0000ff;">So, who are the real Sodomites today? Who are the people who turn their backs on the strangers and the least among us? Ironically, I believe that anti-gay Christians are often the ones who are most guilty of committing the true sin of Sodom. These include the Roman Catholic cardinals and bishops who are trying to scapegoat LGBT people for the horrific crimes of child rape that were committed by their brother priests. These also include the Mormon leaders who are secretly funding campaigns to fight marriage equality for LGBT people, despite the fact that their founders practiced polygamy. Finally, these include anti-gay politicians and self-appointed "family values" advocates who insist that LGBT people are categorically unfit to serve as parents or judges (because they are sinners and morally flawed), but are too blind to see their own sins and moral flaws. The bottom line is that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus Christ ever condemn LGBT people. However, Jesus does expressly condemn people who turn their backs on strangers and on those who are the neediest among us. In the Gospel according to Matthew, Jesus says that whoever fails to welcome such people has failed to welcome Jesus himself (Matthew 25:43). In my view, the anti-gay religious leaders, politicians, and "family values" advocates who turn their backs on LGBT people should spend far less time obsessing about LGBT people and far more time thinking about the true sin of Sodom: radical inhospitality.</span></em></p> <em> </em></blockquote> <p style="text-align: right;">(Read <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-patrick-s-cheng-phd/what-was-the-real-sin-of_b_543996.html" target="_blank">the full article</a>)</p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #000080;"><span style="font-style: normal;">S</span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #000000;">ee also previous posts at <strong>QTC</strong>:</span></span></span></em></p> <p style="text-align: justify;"><em><span style="color: #000080;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="color: #000000;"><a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/?p=91" target="_blank">The Sin that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance</a></span></span></span></em></p> <a href="http://queering-the-church.com/blog/?p=6324" target="_blank">The Abomination of Heterosexual Intercourse: The Sin of Gibeah (Judges 19)</a> Books: Boswell, John: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226067114?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226067114">Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century</a> Countryman, William L: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800638484?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0800638484">Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0800638484" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /> Helminiak, Daniel: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188636009X">What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a><img style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188636009X" border="0" alt="" width="1" height="1" /> Rogers, Jack Bartlett: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188636009X">What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a><img src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188636009X" width="1" height="1" border="0" alt="" style="border:none !important; margin:0px !important;" />" target="_blank">The Sin that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengeance</a></span></span></span></em></div><a href="http://myqueerscripture.blogspot.com/2010/03/abomination-of-heterosexuality-sin-of.html" target="_blank">The Abomination of Heterosexual Intercourse: The Sin of Gibeah (Judges 19)</a><br />
<br />
Books:<br />
<br />
Boswell, John: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226067114?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0226067114">Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century</a><br />
<br />
Countryman, William L: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800638484?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0800638484">Dirt, Greed, and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0800638484" width="1" /><br />
<br />
Helminiak, Daniel: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188636009X">What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188636009X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<br />
Rogers, Jack Bartlett: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X?ie=UTF8&tag=qbc05-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=188636009X">What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=qbc05-20&l=as2&o=1&a=188636009X" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important;" width="1" />Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-52590212653217343692010-04-20T03:57:00.000-07:002010-04-20T03:57:00.684-07:00Magisterium and Scripture<div style="text-align: justify;">The problem with attempting to deal with the Magisterium of the Church is that it is so vast, that the only way to do it is as one would eat an elephant: one piece at a time. I propose to do just that. Today's contribution represents just the first course - more will follow.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As the people who insist we follow the Magisterium often also refer us to the Bible, I thought it would be helpful to begin with a look at what the Magisterium has to say about the interpretation of Scripture. Even this is a vast topic. One good starting point is to look at the useful report of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1993, "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" (which may be read in full at the excellent <a href="http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp.htm">"Catholic Resources"</a> website of <strong>Felix Just, SJ)</strong>.</div><a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">This important document discusses several different approaches to biblical interpretation with their strengths and weaknesses, and offers an overall evaluation of each. Broadly, the commission finds some difficulties and strengths with each, although some seem to find more favour than others. I have no intention of attempting to provide a comprehensive review in a short introduction, but I do want to pull out some specific quotations which seem to me to be especially relevant to any discussion of sexuality and Scripture.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Possibly the most important single sentence to me comes right at the beginning of the Preface:</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">“The study of the Bible is, as it were, the soul of theology…. This study is never finished; </span><strong><span style="color: navy;">each age must in its own way newly seek to understand the sacred books.</span></strong><span style="color: navy;">”</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">(Which is why I insist that we need to take seriously the findings of modern scholars on the old <a href="http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/scripture/countering-the-clobber-texts/">clobber texts</a>, which cast an entirely new light on their interpretation.)</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The INTRODUCTION then continues with an important warning:</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">“The Bible itself bears witness that its interpretation can be a difficult matter. Alongside texts that are perfectly clear, it contains passages of some obscurity "</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">(<span style="color: black;">which is why we must be cautious of glib and superficial references to single verses or passages taken at face value.)</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">One of the reasons for the difficulty, of course, is that </span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;"><span style="color: #003366;">“Readers today, in order to appropriate the words and deeds of which the Bible speaks, have to project themselves back almost 20 or 30 centuries”</span>.</span></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">(Which is exactly what our critics seldom attempt to do.)</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">The first specific approach considered is that of the "Historical-Critical" method:</span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">"Textual criticism..... begins the series of scholarly operations. Basing itself on the testimony of the <strong>oldest and best</strong> manuscripts ... textual-criticism seeks to establish, according to fixed rules, a biblical text as close as possible to the original.”</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">(To which I would simply point out that the most explicitly erotic book in he Bible, the " <strong>Song of Songs</strong>", is seldom mentioned by religious conservatives discussing homosexuality. But there are good reasons to believe that it was written as a love poem spoken by two men. At least one scholar believes that the <strong>oldest</strong> available manuscript has a text with language that is unambiguously and exclusively masculine - and that later texts were effectively censored to hide the homerotic element. See the <a href="http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2008/04/song-of-songs-bibles-gay-love-poem.html">The Song of Songs: the Bible's Gay Love Poem</a> at <strong>The Wild Reed</strong> for a useful discussion and review of this book.)</span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">"The text is then submitted to a linguistic (morphology and syntax) and semantic analysis, using the knowledge derived from historical philology"</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">(No translation which followed this principle would ever have inserted the modern term "homosexuality" anywhere in the Bibple. Not only the word, but even the concept as we understand it, would have been unknown in Biblical times.)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">The report continues with a discussion of three forms of <strong>literary analysis</strong>: <em>rhetorical</em>, <em>narrative</em>, and <em>semiotic</em>.</span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: navy;">“Applied to the Bible, the new rhetoric aims to penetrate to the very core of the language of revelation precisely as persuasive religious discourse and to measure the impact of such discourse in the social context of the communication thus begun</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">“With respect to the narrative approach, it helps to distinguish methods of analysis, on the one hand, and theological reflection, on the other.”</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">“Connected with this kind of study primarily literary in character, is a certain mode of theological reflection as one considers the implications the "story" (and also the "witness") character of Scripture has with respect to the consent of faith and as one derives from this a hermeneutic of a more practical and pastoral nature"</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">This approach of literary analysis as a basis for pastoral reflection surely supports the kind of Gospel reflections from a gay/ lesbian perspective offered by writers such as <strong>Richard Cleave</strong>r ("<strong><a href="http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/books/books-single-title-pages/cleaver-know-my-name/">Know my Name</a></strong>"), <strong>Michael B. Kelly</strong> in "<strong>The Road from Emmaus</strong>" (reprinted in "Seduced by Grace") or on -line by <strong>Jeremiah</strong> at "<strong><a href="http://gospelforgays.com/">Gospel for Gays</a></strong>" - and many others.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: black;">The next group of approaches discussed are those <strong>based on tradition</strong>, including the "<em>canonical</em>" approach, which begins </span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">"within an explicit framework of faith: the Bible <strong>as a whole</strong>.”</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">to which I can add only, "Hear! hear!")</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">We then go on to approaches f<strong>rom the human sciences</strong>, particularly the sociological and cultural anthropology approaches, which require</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">"as exact a knowledge as is possible of the social conditions distinctive of the various milieus in which the traditions recorded in the Bible took shape”.</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">and seeks</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">"to define the characteristics of different kinds of human beings in their social context....-with all that this involves by way of studying the rural or urban context and with attention paid to the values recognized by the society....... to the manner in which social control is exercised, to the ideas which people have of family house, kin, to the situation of women, to institutionalized dualities (patron - client, owner - tenant, benefactor - beneficiary, free person - slave)...."</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">(and, I should not have to add</span><span style="color: black;">, to prevailing ideas of "normal" sexual relations. I do however, have to stress this point, because this is precisely what the standard view of the Bible and homosexuality ignores. When one does indeed consider the social context of the times, the extraordinary thing about the Bible is not what it says about homosexuality, but how very little it says: no more than six or seven verses, of dubious relevance, in the entire Bible - <strong>none of them</strong> from the Gospels- this when most societies in the Mediterranean world did not disinguish between the morality of same sex or opposite sex genital acts. )</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">Of "<strong>contextual approaches</strong>", the commission examined only "liberation theology" and "feminist theology". Since 1993, however, there has been an explosion of writing in areas known variously as gay & lesbian, queer, or indecent theologies, which are of particular relevance to us. As these have largely developed out of other contextual theologies, the remarks of the commission may be easilty extended to them too.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;"><em>Liberation theology</em> had its roots in Vatican II, and found its most famous expression in Latin America, later also in South Africa and Asia. </span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">"...starting from its own socio-cultural and political point of view, it practices a reading of the Bible which is oriented to the needs of the people, who seek in the Scriptures nourishment for their faith and their life.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">It seeks a reading drawn from the situation of people as it is lived here and now. If a people lives in circumstances of oppression, one must go to the Bible to find there nourishment capable of sustaining the people in its struggles and its hopes."</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">It is of course true that liberation theology has drawn some strong criticism from the Vatican, particularly in some of its later excesses, and the Commission notes these "risks". Still, it observes, </span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">"Liberation theology includes elements of undoubted value".</span></span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;">Both of these observations (of risks simultaneoulsy with value) apply equally to Queer Theology.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em>Feminist readings</em>, which began in the late 19th Century with the "<strong>Women's Bible</strong>" but took on fresh vigour in the 1970's, especially in the US, emphasises the patriarchal conditions in which Scripture was written, and the resultant biases , requiring that one adopt a position of suspicion about the texts as they stand and instead look for</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">"look for signs which may reveal something quite different."</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">We in the LGBT community would do well to adopt this attitude of suspicion not so much to Scripture, which was not writen with a specifically heterosexual bias, but to much of the traditional commentary, which certainly applied later prejudice retrospectively onto the text.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">On the final approach, of fundamentalist interpretaion, the Commission is scathing in its criticism</span></span></div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;">“The basic problem with fundamentalist interpretation of this kind is that, refusing to take into account the historical character of biblical revelation, it makes itself incapable of accepting the full truth of the incarnation itself. As regards relationships with God, fundamentalism seeks to escape any closeness of the divine and the human. It refuses to admit that the inspired word of God has been expressed in human language"</span></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">Of fundamentalism, I say no more.</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">Where does this leave us?</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">I freely acknowledge that in going through the Commissions report, I have necessarily been seleective and certainly display my own biases. This was unavoidable given the limitations of time and space. By all means, go through the full report yourelf, or if you want a full discussion on the contents, see "<a href="http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/interpreting-the-bible-three-views-38">Interpreting the Bible: Three Views</a>"at <strong>First Things</strong>"</span></span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="color: navy;"><span style="color: black;">I, though, must work with my own conclusions:</span></span></div><ul><li style="text-align: justify;">Biblical interpretation is tricky, and must be undertaken with care. Simplistic use of isolated texts is particularly dangerous.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">No single approach is complete and sufficient to itself. To one degree or another, all have weaknesses., and so need to be used in combination.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Particular sections, let alone single verses, must be evaluated in the context of the entire passage, or even of Scripture as a whole.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Careful attention must be paid to the social and cultural conditions of the time, and to the precise linguistic meaning of the words used.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">The techniques of literary and contextual analysis are useful in providing pastoral reflections appropriatae for our conditions and oppression as LGBT Christians in the Church. There are however risks, and approaches such as queer theology need to be balanced also by other approaches.</li>
</ul><div style="text-align: justify;">Finally, having considered what the Magisterium (as formulated in this one report) has to say about Scripture, I would like to reverse the question: what does Scripture, and specifically the Gospels, have to say about the Magisterium?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Noting the observations about context and the Bible as a whole, I ask you to consider the religious conditions of Jerusalem during Christ's ministry there. Consider the powerful Sanhedrin, the rabbinical hierarchy, the pharisees, sadducees and scribes who feature so prominently. Now consider Christ's response to their challenges to His failure to follow the letter of religious law. Time and again, He insisted that adherence to the fundamental law of love, love of God, of one's neeighbour, and of oneself, took precedence over merely literal adherence to religious regulation.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Now what do you suppose would be His response to those who insist on our blind obedience to the Catechism and to canon law, where it makes religious outlaws of people who are simply following their natural and god -given sexual orientation?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Just a thought.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-73270556841516843142010-04-19T19:00:00.000-07:002010-04-19T11:41:21.683-07:00The Gospels' Queer Values.<div class="mceTemp mceIEcenter"></div><div style="text-align: center;"><img alt="Jesus & Family" class="size-medium wp-image-639" height="225" src="http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/files/2009/01/800px-christ_and_the_apostles_-_tiffany_glass__decorating_company_c_1890.jpg?w=300" title="800px-christ_and_the_apostles_-_tiffany_glass__decorating_company_c_1890" width="300" /></div><br />
The opponents of gay same-sex marriage and of the "gay lifestyle" (whatever that is), like to claim that their opposition is rooted in traditional family values, "as found in the Bible." This claim is so completely spurious, is is remarkable how seldom it is challenged. Just a little thought and reflection shows not only how the Gospel values have little to d with modern Western conceptions of the "traditional" family, but they are so far removed from it, that the real values espoused can certainly be described as "queer", if not quite as specifically gay. In reaching this conclusion, I have been reading and reflecting on the social context of the 'family' as experienced in Jewish society and the broader social environment, at Jesus' own 'family' in childhood and maturity, at His actions, and at His words.<br />
<br />
<strong>The Jewish Family.</strong><br />
<br />
It is important to recognise that traditional Jewish society did indeed place enormous importance on the idea of family, both in the narrow sense of the immediate biological family, and in the broader sense of the ethnic Jewish community. <br />
<a name='more'></a>This was so important that on the one hand, everyone was expected to marry and produce l, and on the other, that those outside the narrow ethnic group were regarded as inferior, even unclean. The detailed dietary and other regulations well -known from the Old Testament were part of an elaborate legal structure to maintain the 'purity' of the Jewish nation. The Jewish family, however, was very different from our modern conception, deeply patriarchal, and with uneven treatment of men and women. Women were were expected to show rigorous sexual fidelity totheir husbands, and thought of as the 'property' of their men.<br />
<br />
In the broader social environment, the Jewish state in Jesus' day was under Roman military occupation. Like the Greek society of the time, the Romans too had a deeply patriarchal society, and one in which there was not the modern distinction between 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' activities. Distinctions were drawn rather, on the social class of one's sexual partners, and male citizens would routinely have sex not only with their wives, but also with other lovers, prostitutes and slaves of either gender.<br />
<br />
<strong>Jesus' Families.</strong><br />
<br />
My reflections on this theme were initially prompted by a posting on <a href="http://nihilobstat.info/2008/12/28/the-ecology-of-man/">"Nihil Obstat"</a> for the feast of the Holy Family, in which she pointed out how very atypical for the time was the Lord's own childhood family, so often quoted as a model for all Catholic families.<br />
<br />
But our childhood families are not the only ones we live with. More important as we grow older are those adult families we make for ourselves, usually by forming couples in marriage or out of it, and with or without children. As LGBT people we are also very conscious of how often we may remain single, but still form looser groups of friendship, who may in a real sense become our 'families' of a different sort.<br />
<br />
So what were the adult 'families' that Jesus made for himself?<br />
<br />
First, and famously, He did not marry. This alone is remarkable, given the expectation in Jewish society of marriage and procreation. So, what were His other relationships - what informal 'families' did He form? We get the answer to this easily enough by looking at the Last Supper. The Jewish Sabbath meal, and most especially that of Passover, are the occasions above all when Jewish people get together as families. It si significant then that the Lord spent his own Passover meal - which we know as the 'Last Supper', with the 12 apostles: these were the people we must take to represent His closest family. Who were these men? If they ever had wives and families of their own, they had been set aside to spend the rest of their lives with Jesus.<br />
<br />
Think about it: on the most solemn holy day of the Jewish calendar, when it was customary for all Jewish people to share a ritual meal with their closest family, Jesus and the apostles spent the evening as a group of single men. Does this not sound remarkably like a modern group of urban gay men spending our equivalent family festivals sharing meals together, away from biological families?<br />
<br />
Single people know, of course, that the concept of "family" can be fluid. In addition to our closest, most intimate circle, there are often others who might be very close, almost family, but not quite in our innermost circle. Who represented this 'almost family' circle to Jesus Christ? The most obvious candidates to me are the household of Mary, Martha and Lazarus, with whom He had an obviously close and special relationship. What was the nature of this household? Once again, very far from the expected "traditional" family. The two women are described as 'sisters' and come across to me as the stronger, more vividly drawn characters: Lazarus is famed more for his death and rescue from it, than for anything in his life. Even at face value, this is an unusual household: Jewish women would typically have been married off at an early age, not still living as adults with their brother. Where such households did exist, it would normally be the brother, as the only male, who would be expected to dominate the household and be the focus of attention. For a clearer understanding of the household, it is worth remembering that the word 'sister's may have been used euphemistically: it is at least possible that Mary and Martha were a lesbian couple, living with a gay friend as lodger.<br />
<br />
So: in His families of choice, the Lord spent His time either with a band of single men, or with a household of two single women (possibly a lesbian couple), and yet another unmarried man. Even in the broader social circle, I am not aware of any instance where He is reported as spending time with a a conventional married couple with children. Thus far, in examining the Lord in His own family context, we have found not an endorsement, but a repudiation, of the traditional family.<br />
<br />
I still need to show that this repudiation of the traditional family is continued in His words and actions. That I will do later in a follow-up post.<br />
<br />
<strong><br />
</strong>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7029334471559741039.post-21480960078499168502010-04-18T03:49:00.000-07:002010-04-18T03:49:00.601-07:00Homosexuality and the Bible: Bishop Gene Robinson<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Queer Catholics often have a tortured relationship with the Bible. As Catholics, scripture has usually been less prominent in our faith formation than for other denominations. As lesbians, gay men or other sexual minorities, we are always conscious of the abuse of Scripture used as a weapon against us. Fortunately, there are others, including some who should be important role models, who see things rather differently.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="mceTemp mceIEcenter" style="text-align: justify;"><br />
<dl class="wp-caption aligncenter"><dt class="wp-caption-dt" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/kellsfol183vtextmark15.gif"><img alt="" class="size-medium wp-image-4116" height="300" src="http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/kellsfol183vtextmark15.gif?w=193" title="KellsFol183vTextMark15" width="193" /></a></dt>
<dd class="wp-caption-dd"><div style="text-align: justify;">From Mark 15, Book of Kells (Wiimedia Comons)</div></dd> </dl></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">A year ago at this time, I was developing my ideas for what became this blog: prepared during Advent, launched during the Christmas season. In this current season Advent season, I am naturally reflecting on what I have and have not achieved. One of the more important failures has been around Scripture. Right from the start, I planned to share with my readers some of the Good News of Scripture – good news that applies specifically to us as gay men and lesbians, but also the more important Bible messages of hope and joy that are relevant to us all. It is far too easy to hit the roadblock of the clobber passages, and either turn back, or to spend endless time and energy trying to climb over them. It is important to remove the blockage, but sometimes it is also important to simply walk around, and to enjoy the rest of the biblical landscape. I have been seeing a lot of useful insights recently, form John McNeill and others, which shed useful insight into the situation of queer Catholics, but which also have a lot to say to the wider church about the nature of authority and the workings of the Holy Spirit. I have a further commentary on John McNeil which should be ready for posting later today, but in the meantime, as a useful corrective to the common queer Catholic wariness of Scripture, I thought it could be useful to share with you some thoughts of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, renowned as the first openly gay man to be ordained as bishop in the Anglican Communion.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">(These are extracts from his book “In the Eye of the Storm”)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I <em>LOVE</em> THE BIBLE”</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">I <em>love</em> the Bible. With no reservations, no holding back.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>I grew up in a Bible-believing congregation of the Disciples of Christ Church. Every Sunday morning, from ten to eleven, every member of the church, young and old, went to Sunday School, and the study was always about Scripture. From eleven to twelve, we worshipped God, always from the perspective of scripture.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i><br />
</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>But the experience I had as a child that sealed my love for the bible was this: I heard God’s voice coming through those scriptures. I’d already begun to wonder about my “difference” and the thought scared me to death. My church was using the words of scripture to say that people who were attracted to others of the same sex were despicable, an “abomination” in the eyes of God. And yet – and here’s the miracle – I heard God saying to me the words God said to Jesus at his baptism: “You are my son, the beloved. With you I am well pleased. [“Luke 3:22”]</i></blockquote><blockquote><a name='more'></a></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i><br />
</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>I have professed at each of my three ordinations, “I solemnly declare that I do believe the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the word of god, and to contain all things necessary to salvation.” But what do I mean when I say it?</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>First, let’s remember that the real, actual “Word” of God is Jesus, the Christ. As the Gospel of John so beautifully says, “in the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God. And the Word was God.” That “Word” proceeding from the mouth of God, and existing concurrently with God since before time is Jesus Christ. Jesus himself is the only perfect revelation of God.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>All too often we forget that the holy scriptures, while the Word of God, are not the words of God, dictated from on high. The words of scripture are a snapshot spanning fifteen hundred years of humankind’s encounter with the living God. The Hebrew scriptures describe the movement of God in calling God’s people to do things in God’s behalf. The Gospels give three accounts of the life of Jesus, plus one theological reflection on those events and that holy life. The rest of the New Testament contain the story of how the community came o believe that Jesus was still alive, still guiding them.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>The Bible is a collection of many accounts of what it is like to encounter the living God. They are dramatic stories about what happens when God cares enough about creation to be actively engaged in it. They area faithful accounts of the indescribable, they are words used to recount that for which there are no words: the mystery of God.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>Are those words holy? Absolutely. Are they inspired? I believe they are. But are they inerrant? I don’t believe so. The people who authored those accounts were not inerrant. They were faithful people describing – and testifying to – the meaning of God’s actions on our lives.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>That is “all” the Bible is. It’s a compelling, useful and primary source of our knowledge of how God works in the lives of human beings. For countless generations it ahs been the foundation of our faith and a witness to God’s love for us. But what of “tradition” and “reason”?</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>“Tradition” is the history of how the church has come to understand, interpret and use those testimonies in the life of the church and the lives of the faithful. Is the “tradition” inerrant? Of course not. We don’t have to look far for evidence: the Crusades and the Inquisition are obvious examples of how misguided Christians can be when it comes to putting biblical values into action. Later, we can also not see how far we have strayed from the Revelation of God in Christ? Could the Church’s accumulation of wealth, which continues to this day, have been what Jesus longed for when he cautioned against the corrosive power of possessions? Could the disregard and ill-treatment of the poor be the sort of thing Jesus had in mind?</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>Still, the “tradition” is important for several reasons. The tradition is a check on our all too easy self-confidence. We need to learn what our forebears have thought. The history of the church, though I has its share of regrettable actions, is also replete with holy and courageous people of staggering faith, people who risked life and limb to be the loving arms of God in the world. Countless people of faith have written theology, poetry, prayers and reflections that dwarf our own meagre efforts at spirituality and are worthy of our study and thoughtful consideration. There is much to be commended as worthy of our careful and prayerful attention.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>Today, in the midst of a struggle between those who suggest that we change the “tradition” of a particular understanding of scripture and those who resist such a revision, it’s instructive to note how many times within our two-thousand-year tradition – always with confusion and pain – the church has changed its understandings. Just a couple of examples:</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>Marriage, for most of the first millennium, was seen as a legal arrangement, blessed by the church, to provide for the proper , peaceful and orderly transfer of property: of the woman from one man to another, the husband; and the transfer of land and property to those who deserved them by virtue of marriage and legitimacy. Since such concerns were relevant only to those who owned any property to be transferred, marriage was regarded as unnecessary for ordinary people. That changed in the Middle Ages and a fuller understanding of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony developed; today marriage is understood as a sacrament open to and recommended to all. And the notion of marriage –for- love is a concept that developed only in modern times.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>Slavery, commonplace in the scripture, continued to exist into the nineteenth century, when the abolitionists began to argue against it. Both sides in that debate quoted scripture to bolster their arguments. In the end, slavery was abolished and the church changed its position which it had held for nearly nineteen hundred years.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>For nearly two thousand years, the church accepted St Paul’s notion that it was inappropriate for women assume leadership positions in the life of the church Then, following several other Protestant churches, the Episcopal Church changed to permit the ordination of women in 1976.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>For countless centuries, anyone divorced and then remarried was unwelcome at Communion; subsequent marriages could not be presided over or blessed by Episcopal clergy. But the church began to realise that we were denying Communion to members when they were most in need of it. Over time, we began to ask, “Might our understanding of what God wants be too severe, too unpastoral, too unresponsive to God’s less-than-perfect children?”. Over time, accompanied by controversy, the Episcopal Church changed its mind. Now, the solace and sustenance of the Holy Communion is offered to those who have been divorced, and with appropriate counselling, subsequent marriages may be solemnized or blessed in the church. A very strong tradition was changed.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>There’s a much neglected and seldom quoted passage of scripture in St John’s Gospel that reports Jesus’ words to his disciples on the night before he died: “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot listen to them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you to the truth”. (John 16:12-13a). Jesus is saying, “You are not ready to hear everything I have to teach you – things you cannot culturally comprehend right now. So I will send the Holy Spirit to guide you and teach, over time, those things which you need to understand.”</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>The changes we’ve seen in the understanding of Scripture in the nineteen centuries since it was written have happened through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. God hasn’t changed God’s mind, but our ability to apprehend and comprehend the mind of God is limited and sometimes faulty. The things that seemed simply “the way if the world” - like slavery, polygamy and he lower status of women – in retrospect were examples of humankind’s flawed understanding of God’s will. Our ability to better discern God’s will has improved with time, prayer and reflection.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>God didn’t stop revealing Godself with the closing of the canon of scripture. God is still actively engaged in ongoing revelation over time, even in our own day. God didn’t just “inspire” the Scriptures and then walk away, wishing us well in our attempts to understand those words. God’s Holy Spirit continues to lead us into all the truth, as Jesus promised on the night before he was betrayed.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>This gives us a whole new way to understand our beloved Anglican Communion’s three-legged stool of authority. Scripture is the inspired accounts of encounters with the divine, written by people who knew the Jahweh of the Hebrew scriptures and the Christ of the Christian scriptures, and set down, in the best words they could conjure, what they learned about God in these encounters. Tradition is the two-thousand –year history of the church as Christians have grappled with those scriptural accounts, seeking to understand them and apply them in their own lives - and changing former understandings through their own encounters with the Living God through the Holy Spirit.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>Finally, reason is the authority that presents itself in our own lives. We not only experience life in our own day and time, but we experience God in the midst of our lives, through the power of the Holy Spirit, who continues to lead us into truth. Sometimes that leading prompts us to change understandings we may have held for centuries. The good news in all this is that we worship a God who isn’t locked up in scripture, but a God who is alive and well and active in our midst, continuing to lead us forward in our understanding of God’s unchanging truth.</i></blockquote><blockquote style="text-align: justify;"><i>To learn about God, we always begin with scripture, which, after the full and perfect revelation of the Word, Jesus the Christ, is our primary source. Then we look at how the church has understood those words of scripture over time. And then we use our experience and reason to ask what all this might mean for us today. Because we are always prone to shaping everything, including God’s will to our own ends, we must be careful as we apply “reason” in this triad of authorities. No one person can decide that our former understandings are faulty; changes that veer from long-held understandings must always be made in community. Many minds and hearts, working prayerfully together, must be employed in this discernment of God’s will. But this is a task we must not neglect, for to do so is to reject the leading of the Holy Spirit that has been promised to us.</i></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;"></div>Terencehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07504439119402756448noreply@blogger.com0