I've been thinking about homosexuality recently...

for an essay wrote this term. Forgive me for throwing the elephant, but pasted a few chunks in here to try to start some dialogue. I have often wondered about the discrepancy between a belief in God as the spirit of life, love and wholeness that many Christians like to talk about, and the ideas floating around that take such a clearly unloving, condemnatory position on homosexuals. Such ideas often come from an unreflective, uncritical gut feeling about what is right and wrong, and don't adequately consider the various historical and cultural factors involved.

I know its quite long, but have a scan and see what you think. The full version should be available on the moot grey space soon, if anyone's interested.

R.R. Reuther points out that the ideological context in which the Hebrew and Christian scriptures were written was one of patriarchy. (1983: 22) This ideology denied the full humanity of women (1983: 19), and it also encouraged homophobia. (1994: 387) The initial reason for this appears to have been the emergence of a dualistic view of reality, originating from a gendered understanding of ‘the culture of heroism and death’. (Graham, 1995: 13) This early cultural form was male dominated and seen as opposed to ‘nature’ and its associations with women, powerlessness, sexuality, and ‘Others’. (Graham, 1995: 12) Given the essential and all-pervasive role that war and violence have played throughout all of human history, one can imagine that even the most basic, prehistoric societies (such as the culture in which the Genesis creation narratives were written) functioned within varying degrees of patriarchal rule. This view of the world as split into binary pairs was developed more fully by Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. (Graham, 1995: 12) Graham sees their work as ‘responsible for all subsequent systems of Western thought in which male and female are dichotomous and polarised.’ (1995: 12) Influential theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo popularised this way of thinking within Christianity. (Miles, 2005: 172) Because men and women are seen as binary opposites (1983: 389) with differing abilities and strengths they are also dependent on one another. Women are seen as dependant upon men because of physical weakness and deficiency in the areas of leadership and rationality (1983: 389); men are dependant upon women for more private familial matters such as nurturance and assistance. (1983: 389) This is the real substance of the complementarity argument, which sees ‘males and females as rigidly opposite personality types’ (1983: 389) and the basis of the whole patriarchal social order, where men are the masters, and women, or non-men (Moules, 1999: 4) are slaves.

It is worth making note at this point, of some general thoughts regarding the interpretation of those biblical texts that seem very clearly, to denounce homosexuality as sinful behaviour. Given the feminist critique of patriarchy of recent decades, we approach the text with an awareness of the bias of those that write. We are aware that there are other stories to be discovered, the stories of those who did not hold power, win wars or write books. We are suspicious of the self-interest, cultural context, and even the ‘missiological pragmatism’ (Vasey,1995: 131) of those that write and we therefore leave no statement untested or unquestioned. We not only question the bias of the author of the text, but also that of subsequent translators. We apply what has been called a hermeneutic of suspicion. For example, 1 Corinthians 6: 9 – 10 may not actually be the explicit and unambiguous condemnation of homosexuality that many take it for. The precise meaning of the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai remain illusive (Vasey, 1995: 134), with two popular translations coming out with very different results: in the King James Version they are translated ‘effeminate’ and ‘abusers of themselves with mankind’ respectively; the Revised Standard Version has them translated together as ‘sexual perverts’. (Vasey, 1995: 134, 135) Alternative translations might render malakoi as ‘voluptuous persons’, ‘wanton’, or ‘loose living’. (Vasey, 1995: 135) According to Vasey, there is little evidence that this word refers to men having sex with each other. (1995: 135) The word arsenokoitai was, to the original readers probably connotative of ‘slavery, idolatry and social dominance that were associated with corrupt Roman society’ (Vasey, 1995: 136), and not of a covenanted, respectful, loving relationship between two people of the same sex.

According to Reuther the rejection of homosexuality is based on three false assumptions upon which the patriarchal ideal rests. Firstly, that sex is in itself somehow sinful (1994: 390). Augustine held this view and said that sex was the means of the transmission of original sin between generations (Miles, 2005: 171). Theologian Jerome put it this way: “Any love for someone else’s spouse or very much for ones own is adultery.” (Boswell, 1994: 364) It was at best only venially sinful for procreative purposes within marriage. (Reuther, 1983: 388) In this way homosexuality is subsumed within a general condemnation of sexual activity in all its forms. There are few in the Christian church today who would uphold such a view of heterosexual activity (The Holy See, 2004: pt 223), and yet, according to Reuther, the condemnation of homosexual activity is still based to some degree on this most basic of errors. Secondly, that procreation is the only worthy purpose of any sexual activity. (1994: 390) This view, held by many of the worlds religions (ODWR, 1997: 440) is a hypocritical position to take, given that sexual activity is not denied to the aged or the sterile (cf Reuther, 1994: 390), and as such this can also be seen as a false basis for the rejection of homosexuality. Thirdly, the view that sex can only be wholesome when directed towards a member of the opposite sex (1994: 390). This view, as we have just seen, is founded on the patriarchal value of complementarity. Reuther insists that this arrangement requires a ‘pathological interdependency’ (1983: 390) that does not enable the full humanity of either partner: “The relationship is set up to reinforce … deficiency in each.” (1994: 390) Homosexuals, by rejecting the male-female binary relationship of ‘dominance-submission’ (Reuther, 1994: 389) defied the social order and have therefore experienced rejection and persecution throughout much of world history.