History of Christianity and homosexuality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| LGBT and Queer studies series |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Gender · Homosexuality · Bisexuality · Transgender |
| LGBT history |
| Timeline · Gay Liberation · LGBT social movements |
| Culture |
| Community · Pride · Drag · Gay slang · Gay village · Queer theory · Religion · Symbols |
| Law |
| Marriage · Civil union · Adoption · Sodomy law |
| Categories |
- For Biblical teachings on homosexuality, see The Bible and homosexuality
- For teachings of Christian Churches on homosexuality see Homosexuality and Christianity.
The history of early Christianity and homosexuality has been much debated. Some maintain Early Christian Churches deplored same-sex relationships, while others maintain they accepted these relationships on the level of their heterosexual counterparts.
These disagreements concern, in some cases, the translations of certain terms, or the meaning and context of some passages.
Those who claim early Christianity denounced homosexuality are called conservative Christians, and likewise those who claim the opposite are called liberal Christians in this article.
Contents |
[edit] Conservative Christian view
Conservative Christians argue that there were denunciations of sodomy in the writings of the era, such as in the Didache and in the writings of St. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Eusebius, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, and in doctrinal sources such as the Apostolic Constitutions. In response to the claim by liberals that such passages have been mistranslated due to certain obscure words whose meanings are unclear, conservatives point out that many passages use commonplace words whose meanings are well-known, such as the passage from the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea which condemns "the union of women with women and men with men", or St. Cyprian's denunciation of "men with frenzied lusts rushing upon men".
They are critical of the views that early Christians and Biblical figures had same-sex relationships. Conservatives claim that neither the Bible nor ancient Jewish law records such unions and that the term "son-in-law" at the heart of the Jonathan and David dispute could be used symbolically rather than literally.
Many who share the view that early Christians deplored homosexuality cite a translation of St. Aristides blaming the Greco-Roman heritage for what he believed to be corrupting early Christianity as illustrated in one of his quotes:
- "Some polluted themselves by lying with males. The Greeks, O King, follow debased practices in intercourse with males. Yet they in turn impute their monstrous impurity to the Christians." St. Aristides ("Apology" c. 125 A.D.)
In response to liberals who claim that even the medieval Church tolerated homosexuality, conservatives cite documents such as the "Summa Theologiae", the chief summary of doctrine in that era, which states the official position on sodomy in passages denouncing "copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female" (ST: II:II: Q154: Art.11). Likewise, Christians of the time period, such as Thomas Aquinas, denounced sodomy as second only to bestiality as the worst of all sexual sins writing, "After this bestiality comes the sin of sodomy, because use of the right sex is not observed." St. Hildegard's book "Scivias", which was officially approved by Pope Eugene III, related visions from God which contain quotes stating: "a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight", and "a man who sins with another man as with a woman, sins bitterly against God and against the union with which God united male and female", and similar quotes in which same-sex relations are condemned as "perverted forms". Conservatives point out that such passages use commonplace terms which are neither obscure nor in dispute.
In response to liberals such as John Boswell [see below], who claim that the medieval Church did not condemn or prosecute people for sodomy until the 12th century, conservatives would point out that there are many doctrinal sources prior to that which do condemn sodomy, and Boswell's citation of harsher penalties from the 12th century onward reflects a general trend with regard to all ecclesiastic punishments, which gradually increased in severity over time for all offenses.
In response to liberals who say that the Bible and early/medieval saints condemned sodomy only due to a misconception that homosexual relationships could not be stable and committed, conservatives would point out that revealed sources such as St. Hildegard's visions quote God as condemning sodomy both in same-sex relationships and also when sodomy is practiced by a husband and wife, explaining that this is not the form of sex which He had ordained - meaning that the issue here is not "commitment", but rather God's purpose for sex. ISBN 0-8091-3130-7 They would also point out that the Bible and other revealed sources are based on direct revelations from God Himself rather than human opinion, and are therefore not subject to misconceptions.
In response to liberals who allege that an anti-sodomy viewpoint was based on flawed translations made in the 12th century, conservatives point out that the standard Biblical translation which was used throughout that period - both before, during, and after the 12th century - was the ancient Vulgate version by St. Jerome, written in the 5th century, meaning that the translation in question was of very ancient origin. They also point out that views denouncing sodomy go back to the early Church, as noted farther above. Early Teachings on Homosexuality
Conservative Christian scholars believe that the original texts must be translated by abiding by the standard definitions of ancient words as defined both by previous generations of scholars and by the people who lived close to the time periods in which the original languages were in active use, such as the early Church Fathers and ancient Christian writers (see examples of their interpretations above). Conservative scholars reject attempts by liberals to redefine terms or to question passages which are expressed in plain language.
Many conservatives accept the sources from the mystic-saints which both confirm the plain, literal meaning of Biblical verses but also provide clarification on any vague points, arguing that one must examine the entire body of revealed doctrine to resolve any ambiguities that may exist.
They believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and the other revealed sources, arguing that these constitute a large body of mutually-confirming evidence handed down by God Himself. They interpret passages according to their literal, plain, long-accepted or corroborated meaning.
They respond to liberals who believe the Bible is no longer relevant in modern society by arguing that the chief tenets of the Bible (as opposed to some material which was specific to the ancient Israelites) are relevant in modern times, arguing that the Divine Law never changes, and cannot be modified by human judgment.
When they see same-sex activity condemned in general terms (e.g., passages condemning sex between two men), they argue that such passages refer to all such activity and not merely certain instances of it. They therefore reject efforts by liberals to interpret such passages as condemning only certain activities or in certain contexts.
They believe that regardless of what gives rise to same-sex attraction, it is - like all other sinful inclinations - an impulse that can and should be resisted just as all people are called upon to resist the inborn temptation to commit adultery. They reject the claim that inclinations produced by the flesh should be interpreted as Divine approval of the associated act, arguing that this would lead to the assumption that God also approves of adultery, pedophilia, or any other action resulting from inborn inclinations. They would additionally argue that a major theme of the Bible and other revealed sources is the inherent sinfulness of the flesh and our need to overcome its impulses.
[edit] Liberal Christian views
Liberal Christians claim that Biblical passages have been mistranslated or that these passages do not refer to homosexuality. They also believe early Christians accepted homosexuality.
Liberal Christian scholars, like conservative Christian scholars, accept earlier versions of the Bible in Hebrew or Greek. However within these early Bibles there are many terms that liberals have interpreted differently than previous generations of scholars, claiming that earlier Christians may have interpreted the matter differently. They are concerned with copying errors, forgery, and of biases among the translators of later Bibles. They consider some verses such as those supporting slavery [1] or the inferior treatment of women [2] not being valid today, and against the will of God present in the context of the Bible, and they cite these issues when arguing for a change in theological views on sodomy to what they claim is an earlier view. They differentiate among various sexual practices, treating rape, prostitution, or temple sex rituals as immoral and those within committed relationships as positive regardless of sexual orientation. They view certain verses, which they believe refer only to homosexual rape, as not relevant to consensual homosexual relationships.
They believe that same-sex relationships were practiced by a number of early Christians, such as St. Augustine [3], as well as Biblical figures such as Ruth and Naomi [4], Jonathan and David [5], Daniel and Ashpenaz [6].
One disputed example is located in Ruth 1:14: "Ruth clave unto her", where the Hebrew word translated as "clave" is identical to the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24.
Another example is of David and Jonathan at 1 Samuel 18:21, which the King James Version translates as "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law in the one of the twain", where "twain" means "two", in a reference to a proposed marriage between David and one of Saul’s two daughters. However the fact that the words "the one of" are shown in italics indicates that they are an interpolation by the translators. Thus a more literal translation would be "Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain", which some claim to be a reference to what they believe to have been David’s prior marriage with Saul’s son Jonathan. Many of those who claim the early church did not condemn homosexuality mention the fact that Jonathan was the son of King Saul in Israel and that after the relationship with David, King Saul then made David the next King instead of his own son. However, the Biblical text states that this was done by the prophet, Samuel (I Sam 16:13).
Biblical historians that share the liberal view such as John Boswell indicate the rite of adelphopoiesis ISBN 0-679-75164-5 may have been such a documented religiously-sanctioned same-sex union.
Two Christian martyrs, the Roman soldiers St. Serge and St. Bacchus are considered by some to be an example of an early Christian gay union on the basis of writings during the era and an early still surviving icon at St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai depicting what some claim to be a wedding.[7] The artist Robert Lentz has advocated this view, portraying the men as a gay couple in his religious iconography painting.
Boswell argues that Christianity only began to persecute gay men and women during the twelfth century a.d. He cites various translations and laws of the time period enacted to persecute minorities. In his essay “The Church and the Homosexual”[8] he attributes Christianity’s denunciations of homosexuality after the twelfth century a.d. to rising intolerance in Europe reflected in the laws enacted during the period to restrict women's’ rights, and expelling Jews and Muslims from Christian lands.
Archbishop Ralph of Tours had his lover John installed as bishop of Orléans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II [9].
Writings of later time periods deploring homosexuality are discounted by many liberal Christians. They ascertain that such opinions were formed upon flawed Biblical translations caused by human error or personal bias of translators. With many claiming that wording in verses denouncing homosexuality were created after the twelfth century A.D. and were reflective of the society at the time not the word of God.
[edit] References
- Early Teachings on Homosexuality
- Summa Theologiae - online version
- Hildegard of Bingen, "Scivias," Columba Hart and Jane Bishop, translators; New York: Paulist Press, 1990
- Homosexuality in the Bible
- The Church & the Homosexual
- John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980
- Christian Passage On St. Serge & St. Bacchus
- Debate: St. Augustine's Sexuality
- Gagnon, Robert A.J. (2002). The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. Abingdon Press. ISBN 0-687-02279-7
- RobGagnon.net Author & seminary professor's site with many resources
- Johansson, Warren 'Whosoever Shall Say To His Brother, Racha.' Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp. 212-214
- Smith, Morton "Clement of Alexandria and Secret Mark: The Score at the End of the First Decade." Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp.295-307
- Mader, Donald "The Entimos Pais of Matthew 8:5-13 and Luke 7:1-10" Studies in Homosexuality, Vol XII: Homosexuality and Religion and Philosophy. Ed. Wayne Dynes & Stephen Donaldson. New York & London: Garland, 1992. pp. 223-235.
