Dynes on Boswell
Jonathan Rowe on May 6th 2006 10:57 am |
Let me turn your attention to Wayne Dynes’s blog (another site which I will permalink once I reboot my template). Dynes’s blog should get more attention by the blogsphere than it does, as there is a treasure trove of historical information to be found in there.
Dynes is the editor of The Encyclopedia of Homosexuality and a retired professor of art history at Hunter College, City University of New York. He is also well known for criticizing the work of the late historian John Boswell of Yale. Back when the progay side was cheering Boswell’s argument for a progay reading of the Bible, Dynes was one of the few prominent scholarly voices on the progay side (Boswell, of course, had lots of antigay critics) cautioning against Bowsell’s revisionist view of Christianity and homosexuality.
And Wayne has new post on the matter. Check it out.
Though I haven’t read Boswell’s book, I am aware of its arguments. My own thoughts are, first, Boswell is right on the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. From a plain text, literal reading of the tale, homosexuality is only a peripheral issue. The main crime of the people of those towns was that they attempted to brutally gang rape strangers. True, God had decided to destroy the town before that particular act. But that incident with the two angels was descriptive of the kind of evil people that inhabited those towns: The kind of brutally inhospitable people who would gang rape strangers. Thus, the tale, on its face, appears to have nothing to do with voluntarily chosen and consensual homosexual acts. Yet, Leviticus still clearly condemns homosexual acts. Likewise so does Paul in the New Testament.
My own reply is, especially with Leviticus, so what? The Bible, especially the Old Testament, says a lot very strange things. So unless one believes that the book is the inerrant word of God, which I don’t (and even most self-described Christians, I’d imagine, don’t believe that), Leviticus and other passages of the Bible can simply be written off as part of the, to use Thomas Jefferson’s word, “dunghill” of nonsensical dogma contained in almost all holy books. The antigay passages of the Bible certainly are not part of the, again to use Jefferson’s term, “diamonds” of Truth and Wisdom that are scattered all over the Bible.
Filed in Uncategorized
The main problem is Paul’s argument against homosexual behavior. Bernadette Brooten takes on this issue in her book, “Love Between Women”, which is important for its focus on lesbianism (Boswell didn’t discuss female homosexuality very much) and use of early church father/medieval texts discussing female sexuality. She concludes that there’s no way around the fact that the Romans 1 argument is against homosexuality–and that the excuse many use, “there was no word or concept for homosexuality qua committed relationships”, doesn’t hold water.
Rhetorically, homosexual behavior isn’t the focus of the passage, but it does play a key role as an example of paradigmatic sin against creation. If the behavior in question is re-translated (there are questions about what “nature” means in the original Greek) to remove the sting, then the rhetorical force in the second chapter of Romans is removed.
Many conservative Christians (theologically, not politically speaking) might be able to accept homosexuality if it were only the Old Testament (Sodom and Gomorrah is iffy as an outright condemnation and an understanding of the Levitical laws as completed in Christ might allow the single verse against sodomy to be reinterpreted). Messing with the argument of Paul in such a pivotal book (this isn’t II Thessalonians!) isn’t going to happen any time soon. Only those mainline denominations who have already shown their difference with Paul, and preference for theology dominated by the Gospels (ignoring proscriptions against women elders, male headship etc) are going to take Bowell’s understanding of Romans 1 seriously. Even if the conservative Christian doesn’t take the Bible as ‘inerrant’, but only ‘God’s Word’ (that is, mostly right or applicable), they’re going to be very hesitant to redact Pauline theology.
I just finish Boswell’s two books – both the Social Tolerance and Same-Sex Rites books, and believe it is important to make a specific distinction about Boswell’s arguments in his Social Tolerance book. He does not argue that the Bible is silent on, or approves of, same-sex relationships, although he does question the translations of Paul’s works. Rather, he is making the point that the strong anti-gay theology of modern-day Christianity cannot be solely rooted in the relatively few Biblical passages now read as anti-gay. Boswell takes an anthropological journey in Social Tolerance looking at how the church could become so vehemently anti-gay in the 11 – 13th centuries, when the church had previously been unconcerned, in general, with homosexuality. He argues the passages in the Bible now cited are insufficient to justify the depth of anti-gay prejudice; part of his argument is the change in understanding of the specific passages, including those on Sodom and Gomorrah, that occurred through the history of the church.
I have to believe that Boswell’s work has been used to justify pro-gay Christian theology more strongly than he seemed to believe. It is sort of ironic, as he makes the argument that Biblical passages that are anti-gay have been blown out of proportion.
Jonathan,
Are you familiar with “Leaves of Grass” website http://generalpicture.typepad.com/leavesofgrass/ ? I’ve found it to be a marvelous site for gay and libertarian historical notes that are not found elsewhere.
Just a thought.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/