A Good Quote for Sunday


Slapping the Other Cheek by MAUREEN DOWD
NY Times OP-ED COLUMNIST
Published: November 14, 2004

"You'd think the one good thing about merging church and state would be that politics would be suffused with glistening Christian sentiments like 'love thy neighbor', 'turn the other cheek,' 'good will toward men,' 'blessed be the peacemakers' and 'judge not lest you be judged.'

"Yet somehow I'm not getting a peace, charity, tolerance and forgiveness vibe from the conservatives and evangelicals . . .I'm getting more the feel of a vengeful mob - revved up by rectitude - running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels.

"Sounding more like the head of a mob family than a ministry, Dr. [James] Dobson [founder and chairman of Focus on the Family] told Mr. [George] Stephanopoulos about a warning he issued a White House staffer after the election that the president and Republicans had better deliver on issues like abortion, gay marriage and conservative judges or 'I believe they'll pay a price in the next election.'

****

"Mr. Stephanopoulos asked Dr. Dobson about his comment to The Daily Oklahoman that 'Patrick Leahy is a '"God's people-hater."' I don't know if he hates God, but he hates God's people," noting that it was not a particularly Christian thing to say about the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. (Especially after that vulgar un-Christian thing Dick Cheney spat at Mr. Leahy last summer.)

"'George,' Dr. Dobson haughtily snapped back, 'do you think you ought to lecture me on what a Christian is all about?' Why not? The TV host is the son of a Greek Orthodox priest."

Perhaps "Do as I say and not as I do." is in the Bible somewhere, but I can't find it.

St. Philip and the Eunuch (Acts 8:26-39)
What is to prevent me from being baptized?

Throughout the history of the Church, from Old Testament times to the present, scripture has been interpreted for the most part by heterosexual white men. Only occasionally have they set out intentionally to misrepresent what scripture says, but it would be impossible for these straight men to read anything in scripture without filtering it through their world view as heterosexaul males.

Their experience, training, and socialization have conditioned them to ponder the ideas and principals they read with a particular view that blinds them to many things that leap out at women, racial minorities, and lately to homosexuals when they read the Bible. One such passage is the story of St. Philip and the Eunuch. It is found in the 8th chapter of Acts, which was written by the author of the Gospel of Luke and is a continuation of the Gospel which relates the beginning of the life of the Christian church after the Resurrection.

According to the story, Philip, one of Jesus’s apostles is wakened by an angel and told to go south on the wilderness road that runs from Jerusalem to Gaza. On the road, Philip encountered an Ethiopian eunuch, a high official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians who is the treasurer for her court. He has been in Jerusalem for Passover and is returning home. Seated in his chariot, he is reading from the prophet Isaiah. In those days people were not accustomed to reading silently and had to read a text aloud or have someone read it aloud to them in order to understand it.

Philip hears the eunuch reading and prompted by the Holy Spirit, he goes over to the chariot and joins the man. He asks the Ethiopian if he understands what he is reading and the man answers by saying: “How can I understand unless someone guides me?”

The passage the eunuch is reading is Isaiah 53:7-8 which deals with the suffering servant of the Lord, one of the passages that early Christians believed prophesied the coming of Christ, the Messiah. It reads: “Like a sheep he was lead to be slaughtered, and like a lamb he is silent before the shearer, therefore he does not open his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can explain his generation? His life is taken away from the world.”

The eunuch asks Philip who the prophet is talking about, himself or someone else. Philip begins to speak and starting with the passage from Isaiah, he tells the eunuch the hole story of the Gospel: the good news about salvation through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

As they are going down the road, they come to some water and the eunuch says, “Look there is some water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” He stops the chariot and both he and Philip go into the water where Philip baptizes him. When they come out of the water, Philip is snatched away by the Spirit of the Lord and the eunuch sees him no more, and goes on his way rejoicing.

At first brush, this story seems to be only an instance in which the Gospel begins to be proclaimed outside of Jewish circles into the gentile world, which is a major burden of both the Gospel of Luke and Acts. Both books relate the Gospel story for gentile ears, and Acts in particular tells how Paul proclaimed that Gospel to non-Jews. This first brush however overlooks some important details of the story.

Not only is Candace’s servant a gentile, but he is also a eunuch. The story tells us that the eunuch as been to Jerusalem to worship, which makes him what is described as a “God fearer,” a non-Jew who was attracted to the Jewish religion, its ethics, and its belief in one God. As a eunuch, however he was prohibited from becoming a Jew. Conversions to Judaism was rare in those days, but it was impossible for someone who was not a “whole man” that is one with intact testicles. Because the eunuch was castrated, he could not become a Jew and therefore a part of the salvation promised to Jews.

When Philip explained to him that salvation was offered to all through Jesus Christ, his immediate response was: “Then what is to prevent me from being baptized?” Philip’s response is to take him immediately into the water and baptize him. One can certainly understand why afterward “he when his way rejoicing.”

In the New Testament epistle to the Galatians (3:28) Paul writes that “in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave and free, there is no longer male or female; for in Christ for all of you are one. The story of Philip and the eunuch shows clearly that he too can be added to this list of those made one in Christ.

Adding the eunuch to the list, however, requires a reason for doing so. What does he have in common with the others? In each of the pairs in Paul’s list one of the two could not be a Jew according to the traditional understanding of scripture and its interpretation. Under the old Jewish understanding, the eunuch was excluded from salvation, under the new dispensation in Jesus Christ, he is now saved.

A Jew, of course was an heir of Abraham and a party of the covenant he received from God, but a Gentile was not. A slave also could not become a Jew, but a free man could, and a woman was part of the Jewish covenant only through a male; her father, a brother, a husband, or as in the case of Naomi in the book of Ruth, her kinsman Boaz. It was because of Naomi’s need to be attached to a man’s household that the widow had to leave Moab, which prompted one of the most poignant expressions of loyalty in the Bible, when her daughter-in-law Ruth declared “Whither thou goest, I will go.”

The importance of the eunuch’s being added to the list is not only because in Christ he was a child of God, but also because his inclusion changed a traditional scriptural interpretation defining who could be a party to God’s covenant. This is an important point for those who have difficulty with changes to the traditional reading of scripture.

In Matthew 19:10-12 Jesus Christ also mentions eunuchs. During one of his private teaching sessions after a discussion with the Pharisees about divorce (a subject that begs discussing with respect to the "protection" of the institution of marriage) his disciples asked him if it might not be best never to marry.

Jesus answers: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

This passage suggests something unsettling for anyone who looks to scripture for guidance in how to enter the Kingdom of heaven, but it must be particularly frightening for those who believe in literal the interpretation of the Bible. With the exception of Origen, a 3rd-century Christian mystic who did in fact emasculate himself in literal obedience to the Lord’s words, I have never heard of any other man who destroyed his manhood because of Jesus’s words, regardless of how insistent the person might be about taking the Bible literally. Presumably the literalist would not object to using reason and a 21st Century world view in interpreting this particular passage.

The traditional interpretation is of course not literal, in spite of Origin’s believing he would please God by doing so. The traditional interpretation, which reflects the sensibilities of heterosexual men, is that being celibate is the best way to serve God. This understanding is certainly one that underlies the Roman Catholic requirement that priests be celibate, although in recent times Roman Catholic practice seems to have begged the issue with respect to pederasty as a disqualification for continuing to be a practicing priest.

The interpretation that Jesus is referring to celibacy seems charmingly naive, however, to those who are familiar with eunuchs in their historical context. Eunuchs may have been unable to father children, but they certainly were not celibate. Their primary function was to serve highly placed females as guards, ministers, and advisors. They were a fixture in the domestic lives of queens especially because the were incapable of begetting a bastard heir.

Another argument that Jesus was suggesting celibacy when he encouraged men to become eunuchs was that he was not worldly wise enough to know much about the immorality of the “street,” and therefore would have been ignorant of the sexual excesses attributed to eunuchs. That suggestion is laughable when one considers that Jesus was often criticized for cavorting with prostitutes, drunks, tax collectors and other riffraff. The fact that eunuchs might have been part of that riffraff does not require a greater degree of supposition than other factors that influence the interpretation of scripture.

Eunuchs also served as male concubines for kings and other rich and highly placed men in the ancient world. Mary Renault in her novel The Persian Boy tells the historically accurate story of Boaz a castrated favorite of the Persian king Xerxes who later became the lover of Alexander the Great. Castration of boys continued well into the 18th century in Europe to preserve the soprano and contralto voices of young boys by keeping them from entering puberty. The sexual escapades of these famous castrati are well known tales told by opera buffs.

Clearly a castrated man was not the equivalent of a celibate man. In fact, they were considered unclean and unacceptable as Jews not only because they lacked testicles, but also because of their reputation for sexual excess. So much for the celibacy of eunuchs.

Looking at the story from Acts and Jesus’s words in Matthew with a gay man’s eyes reveals a possibility that is obscured by the delicacy or prejudice of heterosexual interpretation. Jesus’s first and last words about eunuchs contains an essential clue to understanding him. He begins: “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” And he ends with “Let anyone accept this who can.”

Jesus frequently speaks cryptically to his followers preceding his words by saying, “Let those with ears to hear, hear.”and similar expressions. He speaks cryptically not only because of the danger of his enemies misrepresenting what he says, but also because much of his teaching goes counter to accepted, traditional beliefs (including scriptural interpretation) of his time. He is in constant conflict with Pharisees who try to trap him into blasphemy. He speaks sometimes in riddles which can only be understood because he uses an insiders’ argot, much like the argot of oppressed groups, such as street gangs, racial minorities, and homosexuals whose expressions and choice of clothes have meaning only to the initiates of a group.

Gay men and women are very familiar with the need to speak in code and the code is in constant flux. As gay-speak becomes intelligible to the straight world, it changes to preserve the ability to communicate without being understood by those outside of or not trusted by the group.

Few lexicons of gay-speak are ever current. By the time they are compiled, the argot has moved on, but a gay man or women can usually surmise a new term or meaning without having to be taught what it means. The context and the intent are usually quite clear even if the expression is a new one. The ability to constantly reformulate and invent verbal code goes along with being in any tight-knit group, particularly a persecuted one.

Gay men and women, live in a world of code-speaking. For one thing code is necessary because the information conveyed would be shocking, and probably repulsive or disgusting to outsiders, although not necessarily so to a member of the gay group. The more disgusting to the outsider, the greater necessity for the code.

The discussion of sex acts in a gay context, such as cunnilingus, analingus, fellatio, and the use of sex toys, and drugs are, for the most part, commonplace among gay men and women, even among those whose sex habits are more restrained than others. A group of gay men are just as apt to discuss sexual encounters as straight men, and perhaps with the same amount of graphic detail, and no more attention to the bizarre. The difference is that being overheard and understood would have far greater consequences than if a group of straight men were overheard.

While it is not possible to know exactly the meaning of the code in Jesus’ statement about eunuchs, it does provide clues to those who regularly use insiders’ code in speaking. Jesus is obviously encouraging his disciples to consider a particular sort of ministry, one that he can not describe plainly. To a Gay man, the subject of eunuchs immediately suggests something sexual in nature given the sexual associations with eunuchs in ancient times. Their condition as non-reproducing males has a parallel with the fact that usually a homosexual male is a genetic endpoint. Figuratively a gay man, even though virile and capable of fathering children as many do, is perceived as a social eunuch. If Jesus is suggesting becoming a social eunuch, however, he does not seem to be suggesting that his followers become non-active sexually.

When receiving instruction for confirmation from an Episcopalian priest, a candidate for confirmation asked if his being queer would prevent him from being confirmed. The priest did not tell the man he had to stop being queer, or that a queer could not be a Christian. He told him to be a queer for Christ. In a gay man’s ears, Jesus is saying that there are (social) eunuchs who have made themselves (social) eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. A gay Christian is called through his homosexuality to proclaim the Gospel to the gay world and he can do so only by entering it. A gay man is called to take Christ into the baths and the bars, the streets and the beds: wherever gay life takes him. He imitates Christ who took the Gospel into the homes of sinners, into the company of prostitutes, drunkards, and all the other outcasts and riffraff of his day. Who, but the gay man can take the Gospel into those places in the gay world?

Shocking? Certainly, but Jesus prefaced his statement saying, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given.” And he ends with “Let anyone accept this who can.”

At this point, it is necessary to reiterate that this discussion is not meant to persuade non-gay men and women of its validity. For them it is a shocking idea, but it is not written for them. It is written to provide a gay person with insight into scripture from a gay person’s life and experience. Whatever Jesus intended to convey to his disciples, he had to convey in verbal code. If he had been merely encouraging them to a life of celibacy, encoding his message would have been unnecessary.

The story of the eunuch in Acts and Jesus discussion in Matthew both offer persuasive evidence that Jesus Christ intended his Gospel message for many who had traditionally been denied salvation under the old covenant God made with the Jews. The fact is that Biblical reinterpretation is not only permitted but required. This seems clearly to make contemporary protestations about “reinterpreting” scripture pointless. If the Hebrew scriptures had not been reinterpreted by Jesus Christ, most of those currently claiming eternal truth in "traditional" interpretations would not now be eligible to become God’s children. “Let anyone accept this who can.”

Free States versus Slave States

For an eerie look at the correlation between the former slave states (and territories) and the "red" states in the November 2 election, click on the link below. This illustrates pretty clearly the politics of divisiveness being practiced by the political and religious right. The battle for freedom in the United States did not end at the close of the Civil War, it's continued unabated through the Civil Rights movement of the sixties right up to the present combatants in the homophobia war.

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

Victory for the Blue States?

A quote from Frank Rich's article published in the New York Times, November 14, 2004.

On 'Moral Values,' It's Blue in a Landslide

After you read the quote, click on the article to read about the rank hypocrisy of the "moral right wing." After that you might want to refer your "Evangelical" acquaintances to Matthew 7:1-27, in particular where it says (vs 21) "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.'"

"There's only one problem with the storyline proclaiming that the country swung to the right on cultural issues in 2004. Like so many other narratives that immediately calcify into our 24/7 media's conventional wisdom, it is fiction. Everything about the election results - and about American culture itself - confirms an inescapable reality: John Kerry's defeat notwithstanding, it's blue America, not red, that is inexorably winning the culture war, and by a landslide. Kerry voters who have been flagellating themselves since Election Day with a vengeance worthy of "The Passion of the Christ" should wake up and smell the Chardonnay.

The blue ascendancy is nearly as strong among Republicans as it is among Democrats. Those whose "moral values" are invested in cultural heroes like the accused loofah fetishist Bill O'Reilly and the self-gratifying drug consumer Rush Limbaugh are surely joking when they turn apoplectic over MTV. William Bennett's name is now as synonymous with Las Vegas as silicone. The Democrats' Ashton Kutcher is trumped by the Republicans' Britney Spears. Excess and vulgarity, as always, enjoy a vast, bipartisan constituency, and in a democracy no political party will ever stamp them out."

Can Lesbians and Gay Men Survive Scape-Goat Politics?

Twenty-three percent of self-identified Gay people voted to re-elect George W. Bush. Presumably they are happy with the election and confident that their greatest concerns will be protected, defended, and respected in whatever way is required. For many of the 77% of gay people who did not vote for him, however, George W. Bush’s re-election to the presidency is not just disappointing it is deeply frightening. Homosexuals are now the scapegoats of that was not abundantly clear before the election was over.

As dangerous as this blatant use of homophobia is in providing a political scapegoat by the Republican Party, it is not the greatest danger however. The real danger is that because scapegoat politics is effective and very difficult to combat, the Democratic Party may not be able for very long to provide political cover for homosexuals. If “moral values” are effectively defined by conservatives as prohibiting the rights of Gay people, will Democrats continue to resist demonizing homosexuals themselves? Doing so might appear to be anathema to Democrats (at least liberal democrats) but so is losing elections if they are consistently lost on the issue of “moral values.”

Scapegoat politics has given right-wing conservatives a tactical victory–the winning of one particular election–but in doing so it has proved that the strategy of scapegoat politics still works. The scapegoat strategy helped the Republicans leave their long exile in the wilderness after their pro-business policies brought on the Great Depression. During the civil rights movement of the 1960s, the Republicans allied themselves with the southern racists, which eventually destroyed the southern base of the Democratic Party as it became an anathema to racists. Black Americans became the scapegoat.

With white bigots holding their backs in the south, the Republicans were able over the next several years to increase their support nationally by proclaiming the conservative mantra of low taxes, less government, fiscal responsibility, and a subtle form of xenophobia, while at the same time providing enough “states rights” (code for pro-white) sops to maintain the loyalty of the southern racists. The flawed ideology that underpins right-wing conservatism weakens it however when it must depend on reason and empirical evidence. It depends, as does all ideology, upon having enough emotional content to overcome rational contradictions. Their so-called conservative ideals did not have enough emotional content to win them a national majority. Racism does have enough emotional content, but it doesn’t work well enough outside the south to provide a national majority either, particularly as social acceptance of racism slowly erodes.

The answer, of course, is not that the scapegoat strategy does not work. It works just fine. From time to time, however, you have to find a new scapegoat. Ideally the new scapegoat ought to work with the same population base provided by the old scapegoat, but the new goat also has to engender emotion in a new and larger group of people than before. In other words, not enough people in the United States hate blacks, so they need to exploit the cultural distaste for a new group. If the 2004 presidential election shows anything, it shows that homosexuals are the new scape goat of choice, and it was an obvious choice.

The Black American has served as an effective scapegoat in the south and continues to do so, but there are too few racists outside the south to provide enough political support to control the country. Besides, middle-class Blacks make good Republicans if they think (and here emotion plays a part) that their newly acquired affluence will be served by “low taxes, less government, fiscal responsibility, and a subtle form of xenophobia.” White people are not the only ones who are fooled by promises of something for nothing, which is the falsehood that underlies the conservative ideology of government.

Foreigners have always served as scapegoats in American politics: Irish, Asians of all varieties, Hispanics of several varieties, especially Mexicans, and lately anyone who could possibly be from the middle east, even Indians and Pakistanis. For the most part, however, none of these make an effective scapegoat to replace blacks. For one thing, each of the hyphenated sorts of Americans has enough political power in enough places to have political protection. In addition, other than their foreignness (their ‘non-European whiteness’) they do not make a very good scapegoat particularly one that can be made socially acceptable.

Religion once had and still has some value in scapegoat politics. Jews and Catholics especially in the past have provided targets for harnessing the emotional energy of hate for political purposes. Jews, because in some places they are still scapegoats, have not been attracted to scape goat politics for the most part. They remember in particular the hideous experience of being scapegoats in Nazi Germany. They also have been political scapegoats in the United States, in western society in general, and in the middle east in particular. Being scapegoats themselves, they resist, for the most part, being taken in by scapegoat politics.

Unfortunately the same thing can not be said for the Roman Catholic hierarchy. The great irony in the actions of the Roman Catholic Church is that it has fulfilled the worse fears warned about them when they themselves were a scapegoat: direct interference in politics by telling elected officials (under threat of excommunication) how to vote and telling Roman Catholics who to vote for and who to vote against. They can afford to forget their scapegoat past now because they have enough political power to protect their own interests and to ignore the plight of the scapegoats who have taken their place. They are also institutionally immune to being hurt because their institutional power is not located in the United States or answerable within it. This is the case because lay Roman Catholics have very little power over the hierarchy. This was made perfectly evident in the on-going attempts among lay Roman Catholics to hold the hierarchy accountable for their shameful handing of child molestation charges against members of their priesthood. This is particularly offensive in the light of their postures of righteousness about homosexuality, and women’s issues, particularly abortion.

The Criminal Element of Society also makes a convenient scapegoat. “Law and Order,” issues, particularly drug related crime (murder, robbery, and other violent crimes), are closely related to poverty, poor education, and lack of vocational skills. These conditions are usually associated with racism since blacks are more likely to live under these conditions. Criminals make effective scapegoats because they have almost no political power, especially if they are poor criminals. Criminals are not reliable scapegoats however when crime rates fall and the general public grows weary of an ongoing, non-effective “war on drugs.” There is also a growing opinion that the war on drugs is as futile as Prohibition and is doing as much social harm as Prohibition did.

Unpopular political positions are sometimes a convenient scapegoat. The latest was the vilification of anti-war sentiment during the Viet Nam era, which enjoyed a revival in 1992 and 1996 against Bill Clinton’s antiwar activity and again in 2004 in the attacks on John Kerry’s war record as well as his post-war activity exposing the underlying disgrace of the war. It is a tribute to Republican manipulation of the public in that they could invent and sustain the artificial image of George W. Bush as a patriotic leader in wartime and that this image could be sustained in the face of the vague records of his service during the time of the Viet Nam War.

Diseases have provided convenient scapegoats as well. Tuberculosis, cancer, bubonic plague, small pox and typhoid fever are examples that resulting in creating scapegoats out of victims of disease. The most recent scapegoat disease showed up during the AIDS crisis when those infected and the community in which the early infections occurred provided a convenient scapegoat. HIV disease as an effective scapegoat faded somewhat as the disease spread into other populations, but in passing into and out of the Gay male population, it left a very attractive taint for making scapegoats of Gay men–and ironically of Lesbians, who were a population least effected by the virus.

With so many candidates for scapegoat, why are Gay men and women the obvious choice? For the most part their numbers would suggest some degree of political power. Gay people and their friends managed very well to sway public opinion and mobilize a resistant government in dealing with the AIDS crisis. One advantage they had in that struggle was that they were virtually united without the incredible 23% defection of their numbers as in the 2004 election.

In some areas of the country where the general public is liberal on social issues Gay people do have political cover and even some elected representation from among their numbers. These areas are those where the political majority are Democrats who have historically been less susceptible to the allure of scapegoat politics at least with the traditional scapegoats. Unfortunately the number of liberal regions in the country is declining and at the same time moving away from a liberal attitude toward some issues, characterized as “moral values” such as legal abortion and the acceptance of homosexuals in society.

Another problem with homosexuals exercising political power commensurate with their numbers is the matter of visibility. AIDS, for all its tragedy among Gay people, their friends and families, made homosexuals visible in a way never before seen in modern times. Gay men who died from HIV disease or became sick from it, were forced to acknowledge their own sexual orientation. Friends, and particularly families, had to acknowledge homosexuals among their own friends and relatives where previously they had been able to ignore their existence. Now that AIDS is no longer “outing” Gay men, however, they are free to go back into the closet or never leave it (other than for the occasional venture out on the Internet or through “phone sex,” public restrooms, and anonymous bar crawling–often out of town.)

Even some Gay men and Lesbians who have publically acknowledged their orientation feel safe from the consequences of being made scapegoats because somehow it will not effect them personally. Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary is a good example of a Lesbian who appears to consider herself and her partner immune from the consequences of being part of a scapegoat group. Her father will not always be in power, however, and in a country sufficiently swayed by the emotion generated by homophobia they may not always be safe. One day, there will be a time when scapegoat politicians do not remember Dick Cheney. The closest historical parallel is of course Jews who felt safe from Nazis because of their wealth, social position, or public stature. Unfortunately many wealthy public figures ended their lives in a gas chamber.

Lesbians and Gay men provide an ideal scapegoat however. They appeal to the same population that embraces racism because most racists are also religious conservatives and religious conservatives are easy sells for homophobia because of their literal interpretation of the Bible. Like Islamic arch-conservatives they have managed to pervert religion to the service of hate. In its heart Christianity is a religion of love, acceptance, and tolerance. It is a religion that cares deeply about the underprivileged, the sick, hungry, homeless, and outcast. Nothing in the religion supports scapegoat politics and it is only though the most disgraceful misreading of scripture and the most callous definition of “morality” that a large segment of Christianity has been taken captive by political manipulation.

The lure of homophobia goes well beyond the southern racist population however. Religious conservatives are not always racists, but they are almost entirely homophobic. Homosexuals as scapegoats, therefore extends the appeal well beyond the deep south into the very heartland of America, even into the suburbs as well. Homophobia also extends well beyond the traditional “conservative” white populations. It appeals to many blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and other ethnic groups that are usually socially conservative and resist any suggestion that they include gay friends and relatives themselves. For this reason, most of the gay people in these cultures are deeply closeted and are in denial about their security.

Homosexuals as scapegoats also provide a perfect target. First to a great degree they are an invisible minority and too often a silent minority that depends on a few brave vocal and visible leaders who carry the struggle for too many who will not stand up for themselves–or are deluded into thinking they do not need defending. A history of ignorance and misinformation about homosexuality makes breaking though that history of ignorance particularly difficult. It is difficult to dispel the long-standing religious objections that are still promulgated as true, sometimes in ignorance and sometimes with a will to misrepresent the truth.

Homosexuals themselves provide much of the ammunition used against them. Gay Pride parades and the infamous “Southern Decadence” festival held annually in New Orleans provide a wealth of opportunities to characterize Gay men as degenerate, immoral, sex-crazed and disgusting particularly to mid-America. Although much of mid-America is represented in the revels of Gay Pride parades, and Southern Decadence they are still “shocked and disturbed” by the assumption that Gay Pride excesses accurately reflect the lives and values of Lesbians and Gay men as a whole. One suspects that with an intent to do so, one might gather enough evidence of depravity and immorality at NasCar rallies, Rodeos, and even the goings-on after hours of many who attend conventions of religious conservatives. Even a short residence in New Orleans reveals a very hypocritical underbelly of most conservatives of any ilk.

Sodomy laws were only recently declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and the aura of illegality still shadows the very act through which homosexuality expresses itself existentially. The very court decision that legalized private homosexual practice has in itself fueled the homophobic engine that makes them effective scapegoats. Scapegoat politicians make good use of an innate distaste towards homosexual acts by generating fears that decriminalizing homosexuality threatens society endangering the traditional family, the moral level of society and finally invoking God’s anger. In the midst of the national tragedy of 9/11 a prominent evangelical Christian leader suggested that the attack was a consequence of God’s abandoning the United States because of leniency towards Lesbians and Gay men.

This article opened with the statement that as dangerous as this blatant use of homophobia is in providing a political scapegoat by the Republican Party, it is not the greatest danger however. The real danger is that because scapegoat politics is effective and very difficult to combat, the Democratic Party may not be able for very long to provide political cover for homosexuals. The Republican route of the Democratic party in the 2004 election shows how successfuly they have used scapegoat politics.

How long can any politician afford to ignore such a dynamic and hope to be elected? This does not augur well for the future of Gay rights and should be a source of real concern among Gay people. The fact that 23% of gay voters chose to support the party that has made them scapegoats is deeply disturbing and indicates that Gay people have a real task before them in looking to their own welfare. The time is past when they can look for protection from the kindness of straight Democrats. In particular they need to realize that they can not look for protection from Republicans with the false hope that they are rich enough, socially secure enough, or such prominent public figures that their welfare is secure.

Viewing the Bible with 21st Century Eyes

Differences in World View

Interpreting of the Bible, both the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament, begins by recognizing from the very start, that the Bible was not written in the language or with the viewpoint of people living at the beginning of the twenty-first century. Such a patronizing statement is necessary because unless that fact is kept constantly in mind a new look at scripture is not be possible. This is because the principal argument of a religious conservative is always that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God: that the words we read, written in modern English, or perhaps in the early 17th century English of the King James Bible, convey to us with precise, literal, exactitude of meaning, God’s will for us.

Depending on the issue, of course, conservatives of different degrees of permissiveness, and one would suspect, self interest, differ on the literalness of their literalism. This should be kept in mind because conservatives of a literal bend are not united on the literal meaning of each and every passage of scripture.

Each era of human history has it own way of viewing the world and deciding what is socially acceptable based on that viewpoint. It is a constant of human nature that each era will revise social acceptance for their own time. Perhaps this social turmoil is due simply to an inherent and perhaps perverse restlessness in human nature. This restlessness is influenced by what each new age believes about nature, both human and otherwise. As a result it is impacted by technology, affluence or lack of it, and the broad or narrow base of education among the people at large. As a general rule, the more conservative a person, the more apt he is to see perversity in human restlessness. The more permissive individual will be less fearful of the change brought about by the restlessness of human nature, and most likely will be part of the restlessness himself. There is also a direct correlation between the degree to which a conservative will suffer a loss of power, wealth, and position as a result of social change.

With this principal in mind, one can readily see the vast chasm that exists between a 21st century world view and that of the ancient civilizations in which the Hebrew scriptures and the New Testament were compiled. It is also important to keep in mind not only the difference between modern and Biblical times, but also the differences that developed over the time span separating the most ancient part of the Hebrew scriptures and the most recent parts of the New Testament.

The argument for considering the differences in viewpoint between different eras is not just a simple matter of logical reasoning. Archeological evidence, research in anthropology, comparative religion, linguistics and a diversity of academic fields support and illuminate the changes that distinguish the viewpoints of historical and modern societies.

Another important thing to remember is that even though societies can be separated by time, they can also share many common ideals and principals. This constant in ideals and principals lies at the base of all that is good in humanity, and it is the search to achieve these social and spiritual ideals that believers seek in Holy Scripture.

The Dangers of Literal Interpretation: Discovering how best to grow towards eternal truth and goodness often requires peeling away the multi-layered obscurity of ancient society that hides the truth. Often this ‘peeling away’ requires challenging the literal words themselves in order to understand their truth in a modern context. This process is anathema to a literalist, at least when dealing with those issues that threaten his personal happiness, power, or position. Conservatives sometimes term this sort of interpretation “spiritualizing scripture” although the term, which they use with derisive intent, does violence to any traditional religious doctrine of “Spirit.”

When the conservative resists a discovery of real truth in scripture, he plants at least two land minds in the path towards it. First, his attempt to protect his own position in society keeps him in error with respect to the will of God. This is especially serious if he does so in defiance of what his reason tells him about God’s ongoing revelation through science and human intellect. The conservative’s resistance also presents a far graver danger in that he reinforces and keeps in place barriers that deny access to God for others. Those whom society keeps on its margins, but who seek God, might find Him if the minefield of literalism were cleared away. Tragically the religious conservative, in maintaining barriers that his intellect should tell him ought not to exist, thwarts the spread of the very Gospel which the conservative claims to love and seeks to proclaim.

Divisions in Western Christianity: After the great schism between the east and west in 1053, Christianity was united under Papal dominance until the late fifteenth century when that unity came apart. In the late sixteenth-century Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, posited at about the same time the Pope excommunicated the Church of England (Anglicans) during the reign of Elizabeth I, that truth in Holy Scripture could only be discovered through a process that combined Reason, Tradition, and Scripture.

Hooker’s position was in opposition not only to the Roman Catholic Church, but to most of the Protestant reformers as well. The Roman Catholic position held that only those authorized by the Church could interpret the meaning of scripture. Further, ordinary people were forbidden even to read the words of scripture in the language of their everyday lives. According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, only the Church, governed and control by Christ’s vicar on earth, the Pope, was competent to discern God’s will for the world and his people. The restlessness of human nature at the time resisted the totalitarian governance of the church because the Roman Church had become corrupt. Those, like Martin Luther, who as a priest, knew and read scripture, raised issues with the authority of the church based on what he perceived to be the will of God through his reading of the Bible. The rest is history, as the saying goes.

Challenging the authority of the Papacy took at least two major forms: totally protestant, which claimed that only the words of Scripture had authority: Sola Scriptura, to use the Latin term. This view accepted no authority in the ancient practices of the Church. Unless a doctrine or belief was explicitly stated in scripture, it was corrupt. Although this position might be understandable given the absolutist mentality of society at the time, combined with a great deal of ignorance of biblical and church history, it had the result of abandoning very important elements of the ancient Christian faith. On the European continent, this literalist Christianity developed into an extremely legalistic, judgmental, and forbidding faith derived in great part from a one-sided
reading of the Hebrew prophets and the angry, vengeful God they describe. Its very absolutist positions, however, were very attractive to a plague-ridden, poor, and unenlightened populace who were just emerging from the intellectual darkness of the Middle Ages.

Reformers in other places, particularly the Swedish expression of Lutheranism and those in England took a different course. It is necessary to describe this process in England in order to understand the positions taken in this article. Henry VIII’s problems over divorce and the resulting fight with the Papacy are well know and are the major initial cause of England’s break with Rome. Henry, however, is by no means responsible for the final breach under Elizabeth I in 1585. Mary Tutor return the Church of England to papal obedience when she became queen at the death of her half-brother Edward VI. When Mary died in 1558 and Elizabeth ascended to the throne, she inherited a kingdom dangerously divided between the “new Protestant religion” of
continental Europe and the “Old Religion”, the Roman Catholic Church. In an astute decision which was undoubtedly based on political necessity more than on religious conviction, she established the Church of England as neither Protestant nor Catholic, but under her own person as Head of the Church. This resulted in Papal excommunication of Elizabeth and all adherents to this ‘new religion’ in 1585.

Elizabeth’s newly reformed Church of England retained most of the ancient Christian traditions abandoned by the Continental reformers. Following the protestant reformers, the Church of England allowed clergy to marry, but more importantly the church retained the sacraments, or divine channels of God’s Grace made available through the institution of the Church. In the reformed Anglican catholic version, the sacraments were retained in two forms. The first, influenced by the new respect for the Bible as source of authority are termed “dominical,” that is the two established by Jesus Christ, which are Baptism and Holy Communion.

The five other sacraments are termed ‘sacramental in nature’ and are believed to be ordained by the Holy Spirit after the text of the Bible was established by canon. These five are confirmation (the adult affirmation of baptismal vows) ordination (the making of the three-tiered ministry, deacons, priests, and bishops). marriage, penitence (confession), and unction (anointing for healing.)

The other ancient catholic traditions having to do with vestments, ceremonial, the decoration and embellishment of churches and cathedrals, were a battleground within the Anglican Communion for centuries. The way in which this conflict was resolved is important not only to understanding the genius of Anglicanism, but also in recognizing that disagreement among Christians is not only possible, but can lead ultimately to finding unity in truth, however temporary that peace may be. Elizabeth I, as head of the Church of England, made very few demands in terms of belief. What she did require was that her subjects worship together using the Book of Common Prayer, the essential, defining liturgical document that unites the diversity among all the separate independent Anglican Churches throughout the world. Each of these owes its beginnings to the Church of England, including the Episcopal Church in the United States.

The important point to remember is that unity within the body of Christ does not demand unity of belief since it can rarely be found even under the most benign of conflicts. The outcome of this common worship gradually removed the initial catholic/protestant divide in the Anglican Communion and (except for the fairly recent conflict over homosexuality and the ordination of women) brought the entirety of the communion to the point were internal differences are minimal and the differences with Roman Catholicism have been reduced primarily to resisting the claim by the Pope to absolute authority in matters of faith and morals, the same position rejected by the Church of England in 1585.

Recent human restlessness in Anglicanism has increased this distance again, however, because of the decision in most parts of the Anglican Communion to ordain women as priests and bishops, and now the decision, at least in the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church in Canada, and in some cases the (mother) Church of England itself, to do away with the ancient anathema towards sexually active homosexuals. A majority of Episcopalians (if not all) have decided to bring homosexuals into the full life of the church, which includes ordination as priests and the consecration of bishops.

Restlessness of the Spirit among members of the Episcopal Church has now resulted in fuller expansion of freedom in Christ. While conservatives bemoan a loss of the moral authority of the Church, and most certainly a perceived loss of their power and influence in the Church, they are in fact retarding the work of the Holy Spirit.

Their response to the present conflict is to threaten separation, in defiance and most certainly ignorance of traditional Anglicanism, the ancient via media or middle way. It is while pursuing this middle way that we remain in communion with each other and await the resolution of our differences, trusting that the Holy Spirit will resolve conflict over the passage of time. This has always been the true, and perhaps uniquely Anglican path to reconciliation. A policy of separation can never remedy difference in belief, and is a most un-Anglican path. Elizabeth I would have had the heads of separatists on a pike.

Joy over the full inclusion of homosexuals in the Church comes at the expense of many who object to the decision. Their pain is regrettable, but there is no reason to grieve their loss. Those who threaten to leave the church are like those southern aristocrats who moved to Mexico after the Civil War trying to regain the lives they lost when their slaves were freed. They are like disgruntled men who objected to giving the vote to women. They are like the racist southerners who abandoned the Democratic Party in the 1960s because of the civil rights movement.

If a homosexual could sustain a lifetime of commitment to the Gospel while being held outside the fold during most of his life, then surely straight Christians can endure the presence of gay people among them as equals. The gain of gay people has cost straight people nothing of value. They can still marry. They can still worship. They can still serve as ordained ministers. They can still participate in the governance of the church. Their threats of separation are clear evidence of spiritual poverty.

The Three-legged Stool: As was mentioned above, the late sixteenth-century Anglican theologian, Richard Hooker, posited that truth in Holy Scripture could only be discovered through a process that combined Reason, Tradition, and Scripture. This is the origin of the ancient Anglican metaphor, the three legged stool. According to Hooker, each of the legs, reason, tradition, and scripture must be present in order to rediscover God’s truth in each succeeding age. In actual fact, this is the position now taken in Biblical interpretation by most non-Roman Catholic Christians, and non-literalist denominations in western Europe and North America. Were it not for the Papal practice of silencing progressive Roman Catholic theologians, it most likely would also be the public position of most of those theologians. A tendency to interpret scripture based on reason, tradition, and scripture exists as a source of conflict and virtual separation among many literalists as well, particularly among educated Southern Baptists and other conservative denominations in the United States.

Christian sects such as the Amish can disdain the modern world and isolate themselves from it, but can not change that world or turn back its unstoppable encroachment on the world they prefer. The tragedy is that they refuse Christ’s command to spread the Gospel to a hurting world by deciding to separate themselves from it. The same must be said of those who refuse to proclaim the Gospel in terms that are understandable in the world as it changes. Their religion is like a bee preserved but lifeless in an amber sarcophagus: like the corpse of Lenin enclosed in glass within the Kremlin walls, relics of a time that has long since passed away and no longer relevant to a living world.

The concept of the three-legged stool is central to the arguments and interpretations that must be made in order to rescue the Christain faith from a Christian version of the Taliban. The great danger to Christianity and religion in general is not in abandoning "traditional" understandings. The greatest danger is that preservation of these understanding will erode the revelance of religion in the modern world and certainly endanger the true mission of religion--providing hope and comfort to those who need it most in an ever-changing world.

Domine Non Dignus Sum: Lord I am not Worthy
The Story of the Roman Centurion and His Slave Boy
(Matthew 8:5-13 & Luke 7:2-10)

One of the most common suppositions about homosexuality and the Bible is that “Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.” Or, “Homosexuality is unknown to the Gospels and is only acknowledged as existing in the Pauline Epistles,”the inference being that Jesus was ignorant of homosexuality.

If one looks at the story of the healing of the centurion’s servant in Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:2-10 from the viewpoint of a Gay man rather than a straight man, however, a far different understanding emerges. Not only is Jesus knowledgeable about same-sex love, but he accepts it and through his action honors it as much as he does any other love between two people.

Even within the societal context of his time, however, which had no knowledge of homosexual orientation as a fact of human nature, it is wrong to assume that Jesus was not “street wise." In Evangelical circles it is generally believed that because Jesus was "totally God" as well as "totally man," he was omniscient--that is all knowing--and therefore knew things his fellow human beings did not know at the time.

The religious conservatives' assumption of omniscience however gets misplaced quickly when one tries to apply it to his knowledge of human sexuality and human relationship, in which case he suddenly becomes completely without knowledge of sex. Or perhaps they would prefer the idea that Jesus, because of his omniscience "knew" that the bond between the centurion and his slave was completely "innocent." of sexual relationship. "Puh-lease!" one is drawn to say. For a gay man or a Lesbian, no omniscience is required at all to see what the relationship is between the Roman soldier and his "boy." Omniscience is not even required. To suggest that Jesus did not know what was going on impugns his wisdom in a fashion that is on the edge of blasphemy if not completely over the line.

The details of the story are essentially the same in both versions: a Roman centurion in great distress over the illness of his slave boy seeks out Jesus in a desperate attempt to find a cure for the servant. To overarching point of the story is that Jesus praises the Centurion as an example of faith. He says of the Centurion: “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and sit at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said,” Go; be it done for you as you have believed.” and the servant was healed at that very moment.

Understanding the thrust of the story is easy. Jesus commends those who have faith in him, even non-Jews. The context of the story is also clear, at least to a Gay man. Jesus knows, understands, and accepts the relationship between the centurion and his slave boy, but a look at the social setting is necessary to appreciate what Jesus understood.

First, who was the centurion? He was a foreigner, a gentile, and a high official of an occupying power. His social position and power were infinitely superior to that of Jesus, an itinerant preacher and faith healer who would have been beneath contempt for the Roman if he had not been in a condition of emotional turmoil. He was so distraught over the illness of a slave that he would humble himself before Jesus in a desperate attempt to get help for his servant. In spite of the social distance between them, in both versions of the story, he shows respect for Jesus by calling him “Lord.” In the Lucan version of the story he sends word to Jesus saying: “. . . I am not worthy to have you come under my roof . . .” in the version in Matthew he goes to Jesus, but says: “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word and my servant will be healed.”

This humbling of himself is remarkable, but the reason he humbles himself is even more remarkable. It shows clearly how emotionally involved he is with his servant. It not simply the case of having a seriously ill chattel at the brink of death. He was not seeking healing for a piece of property. A Roman centurion was hardly likely to humble himself to such a degree unless his relationship with the boy was far closer than to a piece of property–even a piece of property for whom he had a degree of affection. What the centurion felt was far deeper than affection.

The other instances in the Gospels in which Jesus’ help is sought as a healer is from persons with very close relationships to the person who needed healing; the widow of Nain who seeks healing for her son (Luke 7:11-15, Jairus who asks Jesus to raise his daughter from the dead (Mark 5:22-24,35-42 and Luke 8:41-55), and of course Lazarus’ sisters Mary and Martha (John 11:1-44).

If each of these stories of faith in Jesus’ healing power presupposes the closeness of a family relationship, then to deny the same close relationship between the centurion and his slave boy is unsupportable. Their relationship is at least as close as that of a parent and a child, or of siblings. It is clear that the boy is not a son or a brother, although Jesus treats the relationship as comparable. What is the relationship then?

The term in English for the object of the centurion’s concern is variously translated as ‘servant’ or ‘slave.’ In the Greek text from Matthew, the boy is called ‘pais’ (παις,) translated ‘servant’ in Matthew 8:6, 8 and 13 .) In the passage from Luke the boy is referred to both as a ‘doulos’ (δουλος) who was ‘entimos’ (εντιμος)’ to him , translated as a ‘slave who was dear’ to him (Luke 7:2.) Later in verse 7 the centurion refers to the boy as ‘pais’ (translated servant in the English) and in verse 10 he is again ‘doulos’ (translated ‘slave’ in the English.)

Because the choice of words doulos and pais refer to the same person, it is important to try and understand what the words implied in the Greek text and why both were used as if they were synonyms. They were not exact synonyms, but in the context of the Gospel passage, they overlap in meaning.

The literal meaning of doulos (δουλος) is slave and is unambiguous. The word always refers to someone who is the property of another and a subordinate. Paul often uses doulos to refer to the relationship between a Christian and Jesus Christ (e.g., Romans 6:18,22 and 1 Corinthians 9:19.) In these cases there may be a sense in which the relationship connotes love, but it is unambiguously a relationship of obedience as owed by a chattel to his owner.

The literal meaning of pais (παις,) is child or boy, even son, but there is a great deal more ambiguity in its meaning than in the meaning of doulos. The translation of pais in other places provides a great deal more nuance in the meaning of the word than merely a servant.

In Matthew 12:18 where in referring to Jesus, the Gospel quotes Isaiah saying: “Behold my servant (παις) whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom My soul is well pleased. . .

In Luke 1:54 in the Magnificat of Mary: “He has helped his servant (παις) Israel in remembrance of his mercy. .”

Luke1:69 in the song of Zechariah “. . .and has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant (παις,) David.”

In Acts 4:25 when the friends of Peter and John exclaimed: “Sovereign Lord. . .who by the mouth of our father David, thy servant (παις,) (sometimes translated ‘child’) didst say by the Holy Spirit. . .”

From these examples it is clear that the meaning of the word παις, ranges from an ordinary servant (Matthew 14: 2, Luke 15:26) to Israel, King David, and the Son of God, Jesus Christ himself.

The word is sometimes considered to refer to a slave who has a special relationship to the master as in ‘son-servant,’ i.e., one who enjoys special favors and privileges not given to a δουλος or ‘slave-servant.’ This would certainly seem to be the case with the παις, in the story of the centurion in Luke. Both terms are used in the Gospel of Luke, but in Luke 7:2 the term δουλος is amplified by the word entimos (ἔντιμος) which is translated ‘dear,’ ‘honored,’ and in some cases ‘precious.’ In 1 Corinthians 3:12, εντιμος is the equivalent of gold, silver, and precious (ἔντιμος) stones. In 1 Peter 1:19 it is equivalent to the precious blood of Christ. When the Gospel of Luke tells us that the centurion’s servant is δουλος ἔντιμος, it definitely raises the boy’s status from that of a mere servant.

Perhaps more revealing about the relationship of the slave to the centurion is illustrated in Luke 14:7-9 where Jesus tells a parable to the guests invited to dine at the house of an important man. He remarks on how the guests chose the places of honor, saying to them, “When you are invited by any one to a marriage feast do not sit down in a place of honor, lest a more esteemed (entimoteros – έντιμότερός) than you be invited and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give place to this man,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. . .” Clearly if the slave was entimos (έντιμος) he enjoyed a place of honor in the centurion’s household and perhaps even at his table, scarcely the relationship of a mere household slave.

It also seems to be within the bounds of speculation to wonder about the close relationship between the Greek word entimos and the English cognate ‘intimate,’ in the sense of an intimate relationship, which comes into English from the Latin intimus, only one step removed from the Greek root from whom Latin borrowed it. clearly the δουλος ἔντιμος suggests more than a piece of valuable property.

When looked at from a Gay view of life, it is not a stretch to assume that a modern translation could refer to the παις as the centurion’s ‘boy,’ in which case the nature of the relationship becomes quite clear. Making that assumption not only answers the question of why this exalted Roman official is moved to humble himself to Jesus – he is pleading for the life of his lover – but it seems clear that Jesus knows the nature of their relationship and he finds their love as worthy of his concern as the other instances where he is moved to act because of the faith of those who come to him hoping he will heal their loved ones.

From the perspective of a Gay man, reading the passage in this light has the power to draw one into a relationship with Jesus Christ far closer than is otherwise possible. A Gay person can appreciate the story first-hand as an example of Jesus’ love and compassion for gay relationships, rather than a second-hand view given by Jesus’ concern for the love of parents toward their children or siblings for each other. It provides a Gay person with the vehicle for faith in Jesus Christ which the Gospels are intended to provide. Denying Gay men or Lesbians this sense of connection to Jesus Christ is nothing short of denying them personal access to the Gospel. The story answers for them the question raised by the eunuch in Acts 8:26-39: “What is to prevent me from being baptized?”