DO WE KNOW ALL THAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY?
In the letter composed below and published in our local newspaper, I am giving you a peek at a controversy that is raging here in north Idaho. North Idaho is a demographically unique area composed of a curious patchwork of liberals, hippies, conservatives, extremists, and everything else in between. In many respects, it is - ideologically, at least - a microcosm of the nation, which is one reason I decided to move here almost six years ago. I came to the conclusion that if my message has any redemptive value for our people, it will have to be tested here in north Idaho first.
I have been under unrelenting attack by conservative Christians the past six months. The minister below, who I leave anonymous for now, has been under unrelenting attack by liberals. Both of us have a theological and ideological background in Christian Reconstructionism. I believe his interpretation of Biblical law leads to fascism. I have a libertarian view of Biblical law. Everything turns on your view of the role of the state.
You will have the opportunity to learn more about this local controversy in the coming months, either from posts to this website or a weekly radio program over the Internet - to be announced.
Because this letter was too long for the Editorial Page, it was published as a display advertisement in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News on January 30th
The recent leap in logic by a local clergyman that somehow his civic tolerance of slavery justifies his civic intolerance of homosexuality is an example of why the Religious Right is not taken seriously by the thinking public.
As a theologian and amateur jurist, he ought to know that law is words and words have exact meaning, especially if we believe the Bible to be divinely inspired law. Looking closer at the text he uses for support, the Hebrew actually says "Do not lie with a male the lying of a woman," (Leviticus 18:22). That rendering might not seem to be anything extraordinary, until we consider that there were three gender types in the ancient world: the male, the female, and the "eunuch".
That the eunuch was a separate classification is evident from how the ancient jurists treated its regulation in their respective societies. But the Church changed the definition of what a eunuch was after about the 5th Century to make way for a celibate clergy.
We normally view the eunuch as a man who has been sexually mutilated. This is the Church's definition which has been handed down to us. Prior to that time, however, there were other classifications of the eunuch. A eunuch could be an anatomically intact man who was simply sterile or impotent. Such eunuchs were recognized as having the right to marry and even to have children!
A little research will quickly reveal that eunuchs - even the mutilated ones - were not devoid of sexual capacity. Many of them serviced the women of harems while others were homosexual. This, of course, is meaningless to the Christian, until we discover that eunuchs - often mistranslated as "officers" (e.g. 1 Chronicles 28:1) - served in the courts of the kings of Israel, even King David's. Were it considered a perversion, we would expect that King David - ever zealous for the Mosaic law - would have banned such men from his palace. Since he did not, it suggests that eunuchs were considered men who were not "male" and did not fall under the classification outlined in Leviticus.
Christ acknowledged that the usual standards of marriage did not apply to eunuchs as he said in that curious passage of Matthew 19:12 "Let him who is able to receive it, receive it." His ratification of this classification of human gender - with its unique sexual proclivities - should cause His followers to reconsider their irrational attacks on homosexuals. Just because some homosexual acts might be sinful and deserving of legal sanctions does not mean they all are, not any more so than the fact that some heterosexual acts might be sinful, while others are not. And just because we might find homosexual acts to be distasteful on a personal level, it does not give us the justification to impose our tastes and values through our civic institutions, even if we could get a majority of our fellow citizens to agree with us. Homosexuals, bigamists and other sexual minorities will never have the political clout that the majority heterosexual monogamists enjoy. A free society finds its strength in its diversity and the loyalty which comes from a citizenry that protects its minorities. Otherwise, we destroy everyone's right to pursue their own uniqueness in other human endeavors. And that diminishes us all.
A well-researced study on eunuchs as homosexuals, by Faris Malik, can be found at http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/rome.htm . Follow the links to the respective chapters. Although I believe he overstates the connection between the two - that most eunuchs were gay or bisexual - it seems conclusive that the term "eunuch", as used by our Lord, certainly included that connection in its very definitition. The historic Church's definition of eunuchs as only mutilated men circumvented the ban of the earlier tradition that asexual men be forbidden the priesthood.
The above material on eunuchs will be developed at length in a forthcoming book entitled Hierogamy & the Married Messiah.
Status of publication can be found at http://www.grailchurch.org/marriedjesus.htm
A ruling on the status of eunuchs can be found at Church Policy.