Is pro-gay Christianity really a tenable position?

[lovemuffin]

Frank, if the question is about whether there is a tenable argument for a pro-gay Christianity, then from a Catholic perspective here is what I would suggest might be the most reasonable approach:

The church does not view the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture in a perfectly immutable and general way. See for example the Constitution of Divine Revelation from Vatican II:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation...​

"For salvation" is an important caveat, and the proclamation goes on to elaborate on at least some of the ways in which interpretation is a nuanced matter.

"However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."
​

It seems to me that it's reasonable for a Catholic to accept (and I think it's really the only tenable approach) that not every single thing in the scriptures represents an absolute and immutable truth. They were elaborated in "human fashion", and humans are not perfect. We accept and acknowledge the failure of human authors of those texts in condoning slavery, so why not acknowledge a failure in not understanding or accepting homosexuality? The phrase "for the sake of salvation" allows us at least that much room, I should think. There is no reason to suppose that the moral status of homosexuality amounts to a pivotal question for a Christian understanding of salvation and union with God, any more than any other putative sin does.

So my opinion is it may be better to acknowledge that the authors were probably not well-disposed towards homosexuality, even given the exegetical caveats, but deny that their understanding represents an inerrant and infallible reflection of God, rather than to try by those exegetical caveats to argue that the authors themselves weren't opposed to homosexuality, or that almost all of Christianity throughout history hasn't been opposed. It seems more reasonable just to say we've been wrong. In my opinion it's possible to do so without destroying the basis of a Catholic faith and understanding.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

I don't see any obstacle to a gay-friendly Christianity that wouldn't also be a problem for woman-friendly or abolitionist Christianity. I doubt you'll find much support of gay rights among the early Christians, but they weren't exactly opponents of slavery or champions of women's rights, either.

And throughout the Bible, you can find enough verses in praise of love that if you believe that love in a homosexual or bisexual context is genuine, then you can point to the Bible in support of your position.

Seeing that the RCC won't 'bless' (acknowledge) or preside over a homosexual marriage, and seeing that it explicitly states its position on sexuality being between a man and women in holy matrimony (and that sexual relations must always be open to life)..that should indicate its stance. The RCC is pretty clear on it.

I have a thread kicking around where I examine the theological implications of having a male priesthood and a mixed-sex laity. IMO, it supports male same-sex marriage.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If this helps:
Lev. 18:22
ואת - and
זכר - male
לא - not
תשכב - [second person, male, future tense prefix] lay
משכבי - layings of
אשה - woman
תועבה - abomination
הוא - it

Wow, word salad. Is that the literal Hebrew translation?

 

[Jainarayan]

I gave you a like because I enjoy the humor.

But I disagree with the premise.

I don't think this guy is trying to change the world, or planning to march on the Vatican. He's just gathering information for personal argument's sake, it seem. You and I and everyone else deal with a lot more personal religious beliefs than we will ever encounter on the formal, level, right? What's wrong with having a solid, substantiated, argument prepared for when he has to deal with devout and pious bigots?

I think he nailed it when he said he chose the wrong subforum.

I see your point, I really do. But I don't think there's an answer to the question because it's been debated for two millennia. As for the devout and pious bigots (and let's not forget the hypocrites!) many of us do have to deal with them... a gay Heathen? Of course unless the guy is 6'3" and 250 lbs, they can expect a size 10 boot planted in their jacksie.

 

[suncowiam]

That's not what the thread is about. Go make your own thread.

You tend to do this often. You make thread, don't like some people's answers then "kick" them off your thread.

Is there truly a thread ownership definition around here? Just because you initiated a thread makes it yours?

 

[suncowiam]

I gave you a like because I enjoy the humor.

But I disagree with the premise.

I don't think this guy is trying to change the world, or planning to march on the Vatican. He's just gathering information for personal argument's sake, it seem. You and I and everyone else deal with a lot more personal religious beliefs than we will ever encounter on the formal, level, right? What's wrong with having a solid, substantiated, argument prepared for when he has to deal with devout and pious bigots?

I think he nailed it when he said he chose the wrong subforum.

Well, I'm trying to change the world concerning Gay views.

This type of rhetoric does very little for Gays in the long run...

 

[Tumah]

Wow, word salad. Is that the literal Hebrew translation?

To the best of my ability.

 

[gsa]

If this helps:
Lev. 18:22
ואת - and
זכר - male
לא - not
תשכב - [second person, male, future tense prefix] lay
משכבי - layings of
אשה - woman
תועבה - abomination
הוא - it

It does a bit, but not without some context for the ancient Hebrew. From something I wrote elsewhere, based largely on Olyan's analysis and others:

It doesn't say it is an abomination; the KJV is way too liberal with that word. It doesn't even describe it as detestable. The actual phrasing is extremely awkward: V'et zachar lo tishkav mish'k'vei ishah to'evah hee, or "you shall not lie with a male the beddings of a woman." Everything we know about this passage is based on linking it to later developments, because the command only appears twice (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), and the idiomatic expression is found nowhere else. We actually have no idea if this expression means what traditionalists claim, partly because it has unique features that do not appear frequently if at all (the use of zachar coupled with ishah, for example, when the corresponding word for ishah is usually ish). We also know that a to'evah is best translated as taboo or boundary violation; it implies no necessary moral judgment.

 

[columbus]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

If you want to base your ethics and worldview on the extant writings of primitive people, such as the authors and audience of the Bible, you have to get used to the fact that they would beat you to death with sharp rocks if they got the chance.
They were primitive people. Their primitive science, ethics, language, psychology, logic, etc. is what modern Abrahamic religions are founded on.
Tom

 

[Jainarayan]

It does a bit, but not without some context for the ancient Hebrew. From something I wrote elsewhere, based largely on Olyan's analysis and others:

It doesn't say it is an abomination; the KJV is way too liberal with that word. It doesn't even describe it as detestable. The actual phrasing is extremely awkward: V'et zachar lo tishkav mish'k'vei ishah to'evah hee, or "you shall not lie with a male the beddings of a woman." Everything we know about this passage is based on linking it to later developments, because the command only appears twice (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), and the idiomatic expression is found nowhere else. We actually have no idea if this expression means what traditionalists claim, partly because it has unique features that do not appear frequently if at all (the use of zachar coupled with ishah, for example, when the corresponding word for ishah is usually ish). We also know that a to'evah is best translated as taboo or boundary violation; it implies no necessary moral judgment.

This may be a stretch to the point of snapping, but is it possible that this was made a taboo for the same reason other cultures made it taboo, or swept it under the rug? That is, it does nothing to further procreation and the survival of the clan or tribe, not because there's anything intrinsically wrong with homo-sex. The Romans turned a blind eye to the active partner, but the passive partner was looked down on. The Norse held the same view, for the reason of procreation and making a family. Inheritance was not a problem in Norse society because women had equal standing with men, and could even rule. They had another view in that if a man submitted to another man, no matter how 'butch' he was, would he possibly surrender in battle? Otherwise many cultures had no problem with what two men or women did in the privacy of their huts. Why should the ancient Hebrews be any different?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

To the best of my ability.

Thank you. That's the sort of stuff I need. As a Jew, can you tell a bit about how Jews have interpreted that verse? Male homosexuality was always a no-no, right?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Well, I'm trying to change the world concerning Gay views.

This type of rhetoric does very little for Gays in the long run...

Fantastic!

Are you going to change the world by telling St. Frankenstein how he should conduct his personal inquiry? It's a simple thread asking for references and sources for his position. He wasn't trying to get into schisms between good, better, and best gay arguments.

 

[Deidre]

I don't see any obstacle to a gay-friendly Christianity that wouldn't also be a problem for woman-friendly or abolitionist Christianity. I doubt you'll find much support of gay rights among the early Christians, but they weren't exactly opponents of slavery or champions of women's rights, either.

And throughout the Bible, you can find enough verses in praise of love that if you believe that love in a homosexual or bisexual context is genuine, then you can point to the Bible in support of your position.

I have a thread kicking around where I examine the theological implications of having a male priesthood and a mixed-sex laity. IMO, it supports male same-sex marriage.

You have my vote to be the new Pope of the RCC.
I might return then.

((jk))

 

[Tumah]

It does a bit, but not without some context for the ancient Hebrew. From something I wrote elsewhere, based largely on Olyan's analysis and others:

It doesn't say it is an abomination; the KJV is way too liberal with that word. It doesn't even describe it as detestable. The actual phrasing is extremely awkward: V'et zachar lo tishkav mish'k'vei ishah to'evah hee, or "you shall not lie with a male the beddings of a woman." Everything we know about this passage is based on linking it to later developments, because the command only appears twice (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13), and the idiomatic expression is found nowhere else. We actually have no idea if this expression means what traditionalists claim, partly because it has unique features that do not appear frequently if at all (the use of zachar coupled with ishah, for example, when the corresponding word for ishah is usually ish). We also know that a to'evah is best translated as taboo or boundary violation; it implies no necessary moral judgment.

That's an interesting view, but the word "TO'EiVaH" (I do that to distinguish between consonants and vowels) does appear in other contexts.

Deut. 32:16 "They made Him jealous with strangers, they angered Him with "TOEiVOTH""
So however you want to translate the word, its clearly not meant to be taken as something acceptable.

Targum Onkelos also renders it as the Aramaic equivalent "TOEiVTA". But Targum Johnthan uses the word "MeRḤaKA". A word he also uses in Lev. 20:21 to refer to something that is outcast. This Aramaic word means "a distancing." Interestingly though, Johnathan also uses the same "ToEiVTA" as Onkelos for Lev. 20:13.

I might be able to agree that there is no moral judgement being passed. I think a more accurate translation would be "disgusting".

 

[Tumah]

Thank you. That's the sort of stuff I need. As a Jew, can you tell a bit about how Jews have interpreted that verse? Male homosexuality was always a no-no, right?

As far as I know. Two males are a Biblical prohibition and two females a Rabbinical prohibition. Any talk in Rabbinic literature about it is never positive.

I'm not even really sure how to anyone could translate this verse in a fashion other than what I've done here.

 

[atpollard]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

Good luck with your quest.
Ironically, I find myself charting a similar course from completely the opposite direction.

The simplest reading of the Bible is that it condemns homosexuality ... just as it condemns drunkenness and adultery and fornication and fits of rage.
Any efforts to read alternative meanings into the words always seemed forced to me.
So I approach the issue from the initial position of 'the Bible says this is wrong'.

The articles linked to in your Catholic DIR topic have forced me to think about what this actually means in human terms.

Starting with something easy, I have met people who come to our local church that are living with someone out of wedlock. They will often have children, occasionally some from a previous marriage and some from the current living arrangement. It is easy to know what to do and what God's word advises ... they are as welcome as any other sinner ... my sin's didn't bar me from admission into the fellowship, so why should theirs. On the other hand, nobody is going to pretend that they are not doing wrong and no one expects that God will not deal with their sin (through repentance and justification) just like God deals with everyone else's sin. In our church, we love them, we encourage them and we urge them to consider trying to make it right and get married. The church has funded more than one wedding ceremony for people who came to faith already in an un-biblical situation and wanted to do something about it.

So looking at something a little harder, some of our church members are recovering alcoholics and recovering drug addicts. Most of them were not really 'recovering' when they first joined us. We shared in their failures and struggles and successes. My pastor describes our church as 'A Spiritual Hospital' ... a place for the wounded to come and find love, start over, be built up. Some stay and some return to other churches. Nobody pretends that drug or alcohol addiction isn't wrong, we just don't treat it like 'the unpardonable sin' or forget from what God has delivered us.

So what about Homosexuality? What about Transgender-ism?
I just do not know.
I had not been forced to deal with it.
I have contacts in the gay community. A friend who left his wife to marry a man in Massachusetts. Cousins who have always been openly gay. Acquaintances from college and work. In general, I find them to generally be 'gentle spirits'. I have no problem accepting the individual while not approving of the choice itself.
I don't like to smoke, some do ... I have no problem believing that smoking is a bad thing while feeling no need to throw water on smokers or even tell them to stop smoking. Don't smoke in my car and we will get along fine.
Homosexuality poses some unique problems for me.
I can't really treat it like fornication or alcoholism.
On the one hand, I can easily love and accept them ... but I cannot say 'your sin is different, your sin is OK'.
I don't think that it is OK. My sin was not OK to God. The violence of the former Black Panther that attends our church was not OK to God. The drug addiction of the former crack addict who attends our church was not OK with God. The fornication of the unmarried couples that attended our church was not OK to God.
How can I say that something that God has said is wrong is really OK?

And yet ... asking someone to change their sexual preference (or their perceived gender identity) is not like controlling anger or remaining sober or keeping it in your pants until you get married ... is it?
Therein lies my moral conundrum: How to show love without affirming something that I believe God calls sin.
So far, I have no answers ... only more questions.

 

[gsa]

This may be a stretch to the point of snapping, but is it possible that this was made a taboo for the same reason other cultures made it taboo, or swept it under the rug? That is, it does nothing to further procreation and the survival of the clan or tribe, not because there's anything intrinsically wrong with homo-sex. The Romans turned a blind eye to the active partner, but the passive partner was looked down on. The Norse held the same view, for the reason of procreation and making a family. Inheritance was not a problem in Norse society because women had equal standing with men, and could even rule. They had another view in that if a man submitted to another man, no matter how 'butch' he was, would he possibly surrender in battle? Otherwise many cultures had no problem with what two men or women did in the privacy of their huts. Why should the ancient Hebrews be any different?

Unsure, but Olyan's view is that the initial prohibition actually only applied to the active partner (the Leviticus 18:22 prohibition) and that the language of 20:13 was modified to extend the prohibition to the passive partner. His work is worth taking a look at.

 

[gsa]

That's an interesting view, but the word "TO'EiVaH" (I do that to distinguish between consonants and vowels) does appear in other contexts.

Deut. 32:16 "They made Him jealous with strangers, they angered Him with "TOEiVOTH""
So however you want to translate the word, its clearly not meant to be taken as something acceptable.

Targum Onkelos also renders it as the Aramaic equivalent "TOEiVTA". But Targum Johnthan uses the word "MeRḤaKA". A word he also uses in Lev. 20:21 to refer to something that is outcast. This Aramaic word means "a distancing." Interestingly though, Johnathan also uses the same "ToEiVTA" as Onkelos for Lev. 20:13.

I might be able to agree that there is no moral judgement being passed. I think a more accurate translation would be "disgusting".

I am not talking about taboo/to'evah however, I am talking about the idiomatic expressions related to zachar/isha and the beddings/layings of a female. And that does only appear once really, in the prohibition section and the penalty section, which is extended to active and passive partners. I know what rabbinic tradition teaches but secular scholars are not bound by it and reject divine authorship as a rule.

 

[McBell]

Okay, so I generally take the position that Christianity is not against homosexuality and that the verses seeming to pertain to it have been misinterpreted and mistranslated. But lately I'm having some problems with this line of thinking. Is there any evidence that those verses were ever interpreted differently? Were ancient Jews and Christians ever accepting or tolerant of homosexuality? If they were misinterpreted, when did the interpretation change and how was it interpreted originally?

If there isn't evidence that ancient Christians and Jews were accepting or tolerant of homosexual sex, then I have to conclude that the view that homosexual sex is sinful is the correct and traditional reading.

Would this same logic also apply to eating tomatoes and the world being flat?
If not, why accept it for anything else?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Good luck with your quest.
Ironically, I find myself charting a similar course from completely the opposite direction.

The simplest reading of the Bible is that it condemns homosexuality ... just as it condemns drunkenness and adultery and fornication and fits of rage.
Any efforts to read alternative meanings into the words always seemed forced to me.
So I approach the issue from the initial position of 'the Bible says this is wrong'.

The articles linked to in your Catholic DIR topic have forced me to think about what this actually means in human terms.

Starting with something easy, I have met people who come to our local church that are living with someone out of wedlock. They will often have children, occasionally some from a previous marriage and some from the current living arrangement. It is easy to know what to do and what God's word advises ... they are as welcome as any other sinner ... my sin's didn't bar me from admission into the fellowship, so why should theirs. On the other hand, nobody is going to pretend that they are not doing wrong and no one expects that God will not deal with their sin (through repentance and justification) just like God deals with everyone else's sin. In our church, we love them, we encourage them and we urge them to consider trying to make it right and get married. The church has funded more than one wedding ceremony for people who came to faith already in an un-biblical situation and wanted to do something about it.

So looking at something a little harder, some of our church members are recovering alcoholics and recovering drug addicts. Most of them were not really 'recovering' when they first joined us. We shared in their failures and struggles and successes. My pastor describes our church as 'A Spiritual Hospital' ... a place for the wounded to come and find love, start over, be built up. Some stay and some return to other churches. Nobody pretends that drug or alcohol addiction isn't wrong, we just don't treat it like 'the unpardonable sin' or forget from what God has delivered us.

So what about Homosexuality? What about Transgender-ism?
I just do not know.
I had not been forced to deal with it.
I have contacts in the gay community. A friend who left his wife to marry a man in Massachusetts. Cousins who have always been openly gay. Acquaintances from college and work. In general, I find them to generally be 'gentle spirits'. I have no problem accepting the individual while not approving of the choice itself.
I don't like to smoke, some do ... I have no problem believing that smoking is a bad thing while feeling no need to throw water on smokers or even tell them to stop smoking. Don't smoke in my car and we will get along fine.
Homosexuality poses some unique problems for me.
I can't really treat it like fornication or alcoholism.
On the one hand, I can easily love and accept them ... but I cannot say 'your sin is different, your sin is OK'.
I don't think that it is OK. My sin was not OK to God. The violence of the former Black Panther that attends our church was not OK to God. The drug addiction of the former crack addict who attends our church was not OK with God. The fornication of the unmarried couples that attended our church was not OK to God.
How can I say that something that God has said is wrong is really OK?

And yet ... asking someone to change their sexual preference (or their perceived gender identity) is not like controlling anger or remaining sober or keeping it in your pants until you get married ... is it?
Therein lies my moral conundrum: How to show love without affirming something that I believe God calls sin.
So far, I have no answers ... only more questions.

Thank you. That was a very beautiful post. I am trying to discern what is the truth of the matter and that's why I started this thread. I'm currently abstinent, so I'm not sleeping with or in a relationship with anyone, anyway. But I am bisexual and so this effects me. I'm also a female to male transsexual, but that's a different topic altogether and, perhaps surprisingly, it's a lot easier for me to reconcile my transsexual condition with my Catholicism than it is to reconcile bisexuality or homosexuality.