The Role of Scripture

By Joe Perez

"I do not doubt that the Bible condemns homosexual sexual acts. Any intellectually honest, Christian defense of gay love and relationships needs to confront that reality," writes Andrew Sullivan. In "Scripture and Homosexuality," he discusses Scripture in the context of a defense of homosexual relationships in a recent item on his blog. He revisits some of his earlier arguments regarding homosexuality:

Fundamentally, it's about one's core emotional identity. It's about whom one loves, ultimately, and how that can make one whole as a human being ... a single person's moral equilibrium in a whole range of areas can improve with marriage ... because there is a kind of stability and security and rock upon which to build one's moral and emotional life. To deny this to Gay people is not merely incoherent and wrong, from the Christian point of view.  It is incredibly destructive of the moral quality of their lives in general ...

I am in total agreement, so far as they go, with Sullivan and other "reformists" that new ways of reading Scripture are necessary in light of reason, experience, and the demands of pastoral reality. No church should ask gays to distort themselves, to twist and subvert their basic sexual orientation, in order to adhere to social norms that are not meant for them. Sullivan's post briefly captures the point of such reformist argumentation.

I also concur with Sullivan in his assertion that homosexuality is not fundamentally about sexual acts. Its about love. It's about homophilia, the special way that we love each other.

Where I must part ways with Sullivan (and with other reformers) is that he asserts that homophilia is ultimately about "our core emotional identity", because I don't believe this quite goes far enough. Homophilia is a deep underlying structure of human nature, closer to our spiritual essence than any sensation, emotion, agreement, or belief.

Homophilia (together with heterophilia) is our opening to Spirit, the queer face of God written onto the surface of our very soul. "Gayness" goes soul deep. And so does "straightness", as heterophilia and homophilia are each the twin sides of the soul's relationship to God. It will not do to reduce homosexuality or gayness to a mere emotion or pair mating instinct. It is the opening drive to our inner divinity.

What does all this have to do with homosexuality and Scripture? The understanding that gender goes soul-deep is a relatively new idea in history, going back no further than the late 19th and 20th century. The understanding that homosexuality and heterosexuality both go soul deep is even newer, tentatively beginning with writings of homophiles in the 1950s and most recently advanced at length in this author's book Soulfully Gay (Integral Books, 2007).

I would say that the location of gender and sexuality at the core drives of human nature and even the nature of Spirit is even a relatively novel emergence into consciousness, part of very recent integral phase of development in the collective awareness of human beings and the divine unity. The fundamental concerns of homophilia and heterophilia are not revealed in the Scriptures, limited as they are by virtue of history, culture, social conditions, and other factors. To own these truths--as to own the truth that gay liberation, women's liberation, and the abolition of slavery--is to say that truth does not end with the Bible or sacred texts of any given religion. Spirit evolves in history, and today's religions must come to grips with the fact of spiritual evolution. Spirit is revealed in the modern liberation movements, and these movements tell us about the very nature of human existence and spiritual substance.

Sullivan (as many reformers tend to do) points to experience to get his foot in the door of exclusivisitic traditions. But there are many ways to look at experience, and many problems with trying to single out an individual's experience from the collective cultures and economic-technical structure of her or his society. Experience must be considered together with a higher reason that is borne of insights from spiritual evolution. Higher reason points to the awareness of the soul in many different facets: the male soul and the female soul, the gay soul and the non-gay soul (also the not-male, the not-female, not-gay, and not-nongay soul) These are four fundamental directions of of the cross inscribed on the soul of human nature: masculinity, femininity, heterophilia, and homophilia. Higher reason restores the homophilic to the realm of the divine.

Joe Perez is the author of the new book, Soulfully Gay: How Harvard, Sex, Drugs, and Integral Philosophy Drove Me Crazy and Brought Me Back to God (Integral Books, 2007)

Comments

[David]

I'm straight but i totaly support your right to be gay and I totaly believe that it is gods will for you to be who you are.

[Rollan McCleary]

Yes, you’re basically right, the gay identity is about more than just a core emotional one however important. It’s also and even especially a spiritual one though that is perhaps somewhat masked by features of the gay lifestyle within the secular society, i.e. the manifest quest, or almost addictive need, for ecstasy through sex and various artificial means which could be considered mysticism and spirituality substitutes.

Andrew Sullivan is not a theologian and his view that homosexuality is totally against scripture seems like a controversial concession to popular conservative opinion. Really the case is pretty strong that (at least in its origins) the Levitical ban – which notably applies solely to men thus not letting “homosexuality”, a word the Bible never uses, quite apply – marks a refusal of a prevalent form of cultic sex. Also Jesus does speak about those who are eunuchs from their mother’s wombs (Mt 19:12). This could mark a reference of sorts to innate “homosexuality” since eunochos didn’t automatically signify a castrate in the ancient world and may even have been the nearest thing to generic “homosexual” that the Bible possesses. In which case the meaning of Jesus’ statement in the context in which he made it could have implications for the nature of religion. Should everyone be just a little bit gay to be Christian and spiritual at all, might GS even be some model?

It’s one of many issues touched on in my arguably landmark survey/assessment of the forms of GS, "A Special Illumination: Authority, Inspiration and Heresy in Gay Spirituality". The issues have nevertheless not been considered by Sullivan (to whom I have twice written without response) or others similarly well placed to generate debate in the normal way one might have hoped for. It has however been easy for people in America to ignore my contribution because since the end of ‘04 when Illumination was published in Britain it has never been published in America (a situation novelist Perry Brass recently discovered and wrote me he found astonishing given the nature and relevance of the work). Quite simply right from the first the book hit a wall of indifference (or perhaps resentment?) among virtually all gay Christian and spiritual groups I and others tried to contact in the English speaking world, especially America : no support, no features, no interviews very few reviews. This of course also now means no translations for the book such as some want into Spanish but which the show of indifference doesn’t let a publisher recommend.

The situation has been troubling to me not simply because any author likes their work to be known and sold but because, as I’ve tried to indicate to at least some of the people who’ve ignored me, academically I had been given a unique chance to help establish and lend new respectability to gay spirituality as a separate study. I have also had to struggle unsupported during ‘03 and beyond against serious disinformation around my work like that of one Australian paper and several TV stations which absurdly made out I had been government funded to study Jesus’ sexuality. Another paper claimed I’d written Jesus incarnated to have sex with his disciples – I’d never said anything of the sort and my GS studies, a world first from a religious studies department, were not even focused on Jesus though they had a major section on gay theology.

Here, hard to credit and fit for a black comedy, is a list of just some of the people and groups who, almost cruelly given my various situations, have either ignored or dismissed my work some of whose significance as regards at least "Illumination" (there is more) may be derived from the recent review on Amazon by theologian, Tom Hanks, of Otras Ovejas in Argentina.

Soulforce – on principle couldn’t link to my website, it “advertised my books” (I didn’t realize it notably did)
Australia’s ABC Religion Report’s gay interviewer: We can’t interview you: you haven’t written about religion.
Dignity – no reply.
Integrity – no reply.
Rainbow Baptists – no reply yet despite recent promises from someone recommending dealing with me.
MCC – no reply and no interest (except from MCC independent and writer, Kittredge Cherry, whom my Blog reviews).
Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement – several promises over the course of a year none kept and not even a listing of the book.
(ditto for also Australian Dr Michael Carden’s magisterial work on the Sodom Story throughout history.
John McNeill – read my latest book.
Andrew Sullivan - no reply despite indications of some help within journalism needed. (My reward for giving A.S. as I told him I’d given him, good coverage in my book!)
Advocate Magazine – no reply re my book or anything else like Papal matters, certainly no reply to the suggestion they might correct the disinformation from international press in ‘03 they had published about me. Thank you Advocate, but I think you’re wrongly named and I can’t change nationality to get your attention.
Pacific School of Religion – apparently not polite enough even to reply to me (nor to gay theologian Michael Carden) our books never it seems acknowledged or listed though both would almost ideally suit their gay theology courses as a lead texts.
No replies from bishops or Archbishops’ offices except an apology from a bishop who defamed me in the Australian press without reading me and following press hearsay only.
Not interviewed by any Australian newspaper including not replied to by one hetero Christian journalist who has frequently written on gay church issues and speaks in a synod that could usefully read my summary of gay theology. (Almost all church groups are woefully ignorant of the relevant theology when they pronounce on gay issues).
Dismissive treatment by Rainbow Sash movement in Australia – a priest alleged to me it insured I would not be invited to a rare Melbourne conference on gay theology that featured –inevitably - an American theologian constructing a gay theology.

It goes relentlessly on. These are merely some obvious cases that spring to mind in the long sad history and I do mean long and covering years as it’s not just over GS I’ve had my problems. (The late poet and critic, Kathleen Raine, opined I can write poetry at the level of Coleridge but though a lot of my poetry is broadly gay themed and I’ve had a whole poetic drama broadcast you won’t have seen a line of my poetry as not one line has ever been published thanks to lack of acceptance from the poetic establishment and gays within it). On GS I have perhaps invaded territory some are intent on preserving for themselves but if so this means my own less self-serving aim of trying to help give gay spirituality wider perspectives and more academic status with women’s studies has been prevented.

I have not been able to continue my studies or writing in this line which I intended to take into the realm especially of the under treated theme of gay ethics (on which I've never got even an essay published for lack of interest to see such). All the research has as good as been wasted. Churches furiously debate gay issues but despite the ignorance often displayed amid this no one has ever asked me for an informed comment. I doubt I should or could ever return to this field now. I’m currently living in Asia and no longer even keep up with developments much as years ago I left off writing poetry and couldn’t now bear to start again. Since gay theologian, Dr Michael Carden has also received some of the same poor treatment despite his own very special work, at least some of the problem may be as Simone de Beauvoir had it, even Americans of goodwill find it hard to believe people matter outside of America. However, spiritual people are meant to be at least polite and helpful or they can’t really claim to be spiritual!

An Indian friend once told me they felt I was a person who disposed of a considerable measure of divine grace. I can’t comment on that but I know I need exceptional amounts of it to carry among other things the load of neglect and even insult I’ve had not least from (beyond a few worthy names) a gay community so uncaring I scarcely feel I belong to it. As one gay Australian (president of a gay group no less) said to me earlier this year: if I have problems I go to my straight friends they’ll be more supportive, the gays are just lightweight party boys. Could that be true? Perhaps to be really spiritual I shouldn’t even think that the irritations of life I point to here matter. Perhaps the truly spiritual lesson would be to accept there’s much more to life and religion than gays and gay spirituality and throw it all away. And if it weren’t I am still attempting from a sense of duty to push through press and media some unique perspectives on specifically Christ (see my Blog March article, "Behind and Beyond the Latest Jesus Mystery") I would frankly almost gladly do that and let the greedily self assertive gay voices in especially America get on with their sometimes merely noisy views. I feel I have to thank the gay community, forever complaining of “discrimination”, for being quite discriminatory and making me like one of life’s victims, a true case of the biblical “he came to his own and his own knew him not”.

I have a Blog which – occasionally - deals with gay relevant issues, most recently in its article on Brazil at:

http://rollanscensoredissuesblog.blogspot.com/

[Matthew]

even though society has a long way to go in terms of accepting homosexual communities, I think it is gradually getting better and better every year. This brief article talks about how various churches around the country are changing their attitudes/beliefs toward reasoning homosexual behavior:

http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/418578/US?c_id=wom-bc-mam

--Matthew from the US desk at TheNewsRoom.com

[Harold]

As long as the so called christian church believes that the bible is the "Word of God" then homosexuals and anyone else found wanting in thae book will be denied full membership. The bible is a history book and very important to humanity so that we don't make the same mistakes over and over

[Tom]

Joe, thank you for this. You articulate so well ideas and ideals that have simmered in me most of my life, and confirm that what I have sought and continue to seek in myself and other human beings is not only valid for me but also for the general evolution of holy spirit and holy soul through history (and not alone Christian history, though I consider myself Christian first and foremost).

Most appreciated.

Tom

[Alan]

"Fundamentally, it's about one's core emotional identity. It's about whom one loves, ultimately, and how that can make one whole as a human being ... a single person's moral equilibrium in a whole range of areas can improve with marriage ... because there is a kind of stability and security and rock upon which to build one's moral and emotional life. To deny this to Gay people is not merely incoherent and wrong, from the Christian point of view. It is incredibly destructive of the moral quality of their lives in general ..."

Denying marriage to gay people is not incoherent and wrong at all. Would you use this same argument to support polygamy and/or consensual incest?

The problem which many gays experience is PRECISELY that their core emotional identity is tied to the wrong thing -- their sin. Jesus taught us to deny ourselves, not embrace ourselves. Culture teaches the latter; Christ does not. One's core emotional identity is to be found in a relationship of deliverance, healing, and forgiveness which is found in Jesus Christ our Saviour. The Bible speaks AGAINST embracing homosexuality as an alternate lifestyle. It doesn't suggest that you embrace it and then complicate by perverting marriage to suit your own emotional needs.

[Michael Carden]

I would really have to disagree with Andrew Sullivan's statement that 'that the Bible condemns homosexual sexual acts'. Apart from the fact that three is no such beast as 'The Bible' only Bibles determined by faith communities they serve (Jewish Tanakh, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Slavonic Orthodox, Syriac, Ethiopian and Armenian Bibles - none of which are exactly the same) I'm not certain what he means by homosexual sexual acts. The only clear reference is the two passages in Leviticus which I think would appear to condemn anal sex between men. It makes no mention of any other homoerotic activity between men and none whatsoever about female homoeroticism. Indeed none of these scriptures have anything to say about 'lesbianism'. What about that passage in Romans 1.26? James Alison reminds us that "we have several commentaries on these words dating from the centuries between the writing of this text and the preaching of St John Chrysostom at the end of the fourth century. None of them read the passage as referring to lesbianism. Both St Augustine and Clement of Alexandria interpreted it straightforwardly as meaning women having anal intercourse with members of the other sex. Chrysostom was in fact the first Church Father of whom we have record to read the passage as having anything to do with lesbianism." http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng15.html

And I find on closer examination most of the other so-called proof texts (and there are only a handful) referring to 'homosexuality' turn out to have nothing whatsoever to do with homoeroticism at all. The Old Testament/Tanakh canons really have nothing outside Leviticus which itself reflects a cultural antipathy across the ancient middle east and Mediterranean against the penetration of men (unless slaves or foreigners). Anal sex between men was understood as a question of power and domination/subordination not love or joy or mutual pleasure. It was what you did to prisoners you captured in war to de-man them

As for the New testament, the sinners lists in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy in my opinion have no clear reference to the homoerotic at all. And as for Romans well just read what Alison has to say. And that's about it for any such homosexual references

So basically if same sex love and eroticism was such an important issue for these scriptures, it is really surprising just how little there is to go on. And if anyone raises Sodom and Gomorrah just check out my book http://www.equinoxpub.com/books/showbook.asp?bkid=22 and you'll soon see how much prejudice has shaped the reading of that story.

[Rev. Paul M. Turner]

I love this site and will visit often as I hope you will visit mine!

God Bless

[Rick Brentlinger]

Thanks Joe, for your interesting article. I too disagree with the contention that the Bible condemns gay and lesbian relationships.

I wrote a 400 page book which carefully examines the clobber passages in cultural, doctrinal, historical and linguistic context.

My conclusion is that God affirms gay and lesbian relationships which are within the Biblical moral framework - committed, faithful, non-cultic.

Rick Brentlinger
http://www.gaychristian101.com

[joe perez]

a few commenters have conflated my point that the Bible condemns same-sex sexual relations with other notions such as that God condemns gay and lesbian relationships. not the same thing! the words matter, folks

i stand by my point that the most honest claim about the Bible is that it, on the face, includes condemnations of same-sex sexual relations. you know, it even says that men who lay with a man should be stoned to death. it's not that difficult to grasp, really. the point is HOW to INTERPRET these passages and what we think they tell us about God. gay liberation messages, feminism, anti-slavery messages and the like are historical developments that i do NOT want to read into the Bible centuries after it was written

as I see it, the Bible contains words inspired by the fullness of Spirit and words that reflect the darkest of human cruelty masquerading as the word of God. for most of us, most of the time, we should be talking about how to tell the difference between the two, not spending hundreds of thousands of words of ink in denying the basic facts of history.