MysteriousFaith

Question #3: Can you set aside your own homosexual stereotypes?

Contentious issues such as homosexuality rarely find environments where they can be wrestled with outside of simple stereotypes. As do many others, I would suggest that homosexual stereotypes serve several important functions. Most importantly, they allow us to reduce human beings to outrageous and egregious anachronisms versus simply human beings. In doing this, stereotypes ensure we do not have to really struggle with the underlying complexities to a question we are inherently uncomfortable with.

Question #3: Can you set aside your own pet stereotypes about homosexuals?

“You can say, If that’s the way you are, you are no son of mine! You can cut off relations as though the child never lived or as though the child has died. That’s an option many parents have taken and an option congregations have regularly chosen in response to their lesbian and gay members. But quite frankly, that was never even an option for us, because we could not believe this son we knew so well was in any sense a perverted person. The other choice is to suffer the death of your own misunderstandings, ignorance, and attitudes. Then you mourn the loss of a nice and tidy view of the world in which everything fits neatly into boxes of black or white, right or wrong, true or false. And, as a Christian, you mourn the loss of security provided by a few biblical passages that can tell you which is which so you don’t have to take any responsibility for making a judgment.” Homosexuality and the Christian Faith, “One Family’s Story” by Bishop Paul Wennes Egertson, pages 26-27 (bold emphasis mine).

Stereotypes play a critical role in how most of us approach issues. People who see complexity tend to be able to help make a situation better versus those who reduce things down to simple one-dimensional positions. Reductionism has its place in science where individual biological or chemical pathways can be best identified through reduction to their simplest levels; however, human beings rarely benefit spiritually or therapeutically from this type of approach. The essence of humanity is complex and multi-modal; our sense of being can not be reduced to one set of cause and effect. We are who we are because of biology, psychology, environment and trauma. It is only within an analytical framework that accommodates each of these components into its model that we can hope to find truth. Where we find ourselves in a debate predominantly characterized by stereotypes, it is highly likely that participants in the discussion and the issue being discussed are both being done a disservice. Contentious issues such as homosexuality rarely find environments where they can be wrestled with outside of simple stereotypes. As do many others, I would suggest that homosexual stereotypes serve several important functions. Most importantly, they allow us to reduce human beings to outrageous and egregious anachronisms versus simply human beings. In doing this, stereotypes ensure we do not have to really struggle with the underlying complexities to a question we are inherently uncomfortable with.

For Christians, a predominant homosexual stereotype is that of a tormented individual. Many Christian pastors and counselors describe homosexuals they have dealt with as being highly conflicted to the point of being tormented. Two realizations should be brought to this stereotype: first, recognition that there is a difference between legitimate and illegitimate torment. To assume that the torment is in and of itself admission that the homosexual realizes his sin but is unwilling to give it up, is to ignorantly overlook other equally valid issues that compose legitimate torment. Legitimate torment is the second realization that needs to be brought to more Christian’s perspective. Set aside your belief that their homosexuality is wrong; to realize the hate these people feel from society - particularly those they are supposed to be able to trust like family, friends and the church - it would be surprising if they were to feel anything but torment. Within this particular stereotype Christians adopt a circular line of reasoning that is damning to homosexuals: you are tormented because you are who you were made to be by God. Torment then becomes the natural condition of the homosexual and is used by Christians as justification for their demeaning view of homosexuality. Small wonder that homosexuals view the Church as the enemy: the Church teaches that your sexual identity is a mistake, which is inseparable from the message that you are a mistake. Try personalizing that and seeing if you would feel tormented or not? To use torment as a means of diminishing any part of the homosexuals claim to live life as they were made is to intentionally starve a child and then condemn the child for the act of stealing a loaf of bread. Torment is not the same as guilt and does not serve as proof of the wrongness of homosexuality. It is an obvious, and I would suggest intentional, byproduct of the Church’s teaching. Some churches may be able to change their position on homosexuality; I would imagine their homosexual community would begin struggling with issues more synonymous with relational problems of heterosexuals. Others simply may be unable to do this given what they feel Scripture teaches; even for these churches, a special dispensation of grace would decrease the torment their homosexual members feel over the identity they now have.

Perhaps little is more damaging to the cause of homosexual equality than their sexual expressions. The images these expressions evoke in the minds of many are, without a doubt, the most damaging of all stereotypes the Christian church has. It is very difficult for most Christians to see homosexuals without certain revulsion over the physical manifestations of their sexuality. To believe that homosexuals are more than sexual beings is to believe that their orientation is about more than sex, and in point of fact, is actually about love before it is about sex. Bruce Bawer in his excellent book A Place at the Table argues that most heterosexuals have gathered their impression of homosexuality from the media’s coverage of Queer Day parades. The media loves a good story and overlooks the majority of the marchers who look just as you and I do in favor of those homosexuals who flaunt their differences as if to say, “if you are unwilling to see me as anything other than a sexual being, then I am going to push my sex in your face.” And so the ball gags and open-backed leather chaps become the image projected into our homes; as a result of this, extreme individuals become the stereotype we envision when contemplating homosexuality. Bawer’s response to these images is to argue that they represent the normative homosexual condition as much as letters to Penthouse represent the typical heterosexual (unless I am badly mistaken and am missing out on a really good time, Penthouse exists for its value as fantasy, not for its accurate portrayal of American heterosexuality). Where we can, we should set aside these easy stereotypes and believe that healthy homosexuality is, while as physical as your heterosexual attraction, based on a longing for intimacy that is spiritual, relational and communal. Yes, sexuality is different for homosexuals than it is for you; but their desire to know real love is not. Perhaps we choose to see them first as sexual beings because in doing so we do not have to put ourselves in their shoes; longing for a type of relationship, a way of being they were born as. Were this a different forum, we could explore in more detail how the primary use of sexual imagery is related to power (sex being a critical part of power we can hold over others and can have held over ourselves), and how most men fear ever being put in a situation where they may have homosexuals express power to them in this fashion. The fear of sexual subrogation by a homosexual to a heterosexual man plays a big part in fashioning the fear that motivates the tired gay stereotype. Nothing would be more helpful to the discussion in America over homosexuality than to set aside the imagery associated to same-sex eroticism.

Seeing a homosexual as more than a one-dimensional sexual being leads to a third stereotype which is key for people who wish to tear down their prejudice: realize that the typical homosexual is pretty much like you in their desires, looks, and values. For a number of reasons, homosexuals are assumed to have a secret agenda all their own. As long as the homosexual political agenda can be seen as anything other than asking for mere acceptance, tolerance and equality, they can be broadly dismissed as illegitimate. The Christian Right has done a very good job in creating the myth of a homosexual agenda that is more than a request for tolerance and equality. While it is true that homosexuals have been and continue to be politically active, it is unfair to take the actions of some of the most extreme members of their community as evidence for the positions held by the majority. Of all demographics, the Christian Right should be aware of this danger. Many agnostics and non-Christian Americans view Christianity through the lens of intolerance and wackiness of the fringe elements of the Church. Yes, there are some within the homosexual movement who have advocated teaching about homosexuality within the public education system in ways that many see as unnecessarily invasive. It is important to recognize that the primary motivation behind even these actions has been to address the misconceptions of their lifestyles that lead to intolerance. My intent here is not to place blame, only to again make the point that if we could, as a society, rise above the level of stereotypical thinking it would be possible for some of the extreme positions certain homosexual activists have taken to be avoided. As you read and study homosexuality, one specific experience is almost always key to people changing their attitudes: having a loved one or close friend admit they are gay. Almost without exception, this moment in time changes people’s attitudes towards homosexuality. Why is this? Because in the blink of an eye, all of the stereotypes held about homosexuals are cast aside against what we know about our loved one. We can not see them as just a sexual being; we know too much about their lives, their desires, and their goodness to allow our vision to be limited to their sexual identity. What was a convenient image of an ambiguous other becomes a damning one for those we hold dear.

For some who have a loved one admit their homosexual identity, the initial reaction is usually “I know this person; I know they are good, and I can’t really say I see them as confused.” This is a healthy initial perspective and is usually vocalized by the Christian on the receiving end of this news within the constraint of “hate the sin and love the sinner.” My contention is that as you continue in fellowship with this loved one, the “hate the sin and love the sinner” becomes a more tenuous position to hold to and one of two things will happen: either you will succumb to prejudice, being unable to see them as anything more than sexual beings, or you will begin to walk with them and realize that this deep longing in their hearts is not about sex, it is about relationship and love. When you have this realization your theology will fall down around you, leaving you to ask why God would make someone for a particular type of relationship only to condemn that person for the desire He gave them. This moment in time, if followed by diligent searching and study, will force you to change your theology. William Sloane Coffin in Homosexuality and Christian Faith writes, “I think it is fair to say that most, if not all of us, tend to hold certainty dearer than truth. We want to learn only what we already know; we want to become only what we already are. And some of us even go so far as to embrace ‘The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent’ put forth by the British academic who said, ‘Nothing should ever be done for the first time.’” (Page 105) What will rock your certainty is typically that which is closest to you; it is no coincidence that the most eloquent speakers who can touch and change the Christian church are those who once held positions on homosexuality only to be forced to live with the consequences of their teaching as evidenced by friends and family who revealed themselves as homosexuals.

The last prejudice that needs to be dwelt on is part spiritual, part physical and part sexual: no one is homogeneous in our sexual identities. During the last year I read Jeffrey Eugenides’ Middlesex, a book about a Greek family escaping to the US. It is part love story and part biographical fiction as written from the perspective of Calliope Stephanides, a hermaphrodite. Born androgynous, Calliope makes the journey from Callie (a girl) into Cal (a boy). The book is charming and eloquent, making a number of points while telling a wonderful story. What has surprised me almost a year after having finished this book is how it changed my view of homosexuality. In the last year, Calliope has served as an object lesson for one of my own cherished stereotypes, that homosexuality is a deliberately selected persuasion by the individual. I chose to believe that homosexuality is the result, as Romans teaches, of people who have become so deranged in their pursuit of sexual experiences that they have turned in towards their own kind. Middlesex forced me to realize that we are part biology and part psychology. Both are deeply encoded parts of us, including that which we find sexually provocative and relationally stimulating (best seen as that which we desire for in intimacy). A hermaphrodite is born with the identities of both; the “plumbing” of both, and typically the psychology of one or the other. Can you imagine the torment this causes them? Can you imagine being born with a malformed penis, to have a doctor change this into a female sexual organ, and yet to realize as an adolescent that you identify more with men than women? It is, for me, deeply instructive that we are only now beginning to understand the connections between biology and sexuality. While we understand the biological component best (frankly, the physical presence of particular organs forces this issue), we struggle to believe that sexual attraction (and again here I think it best to see this as a desire for intimacy, not just sexuality) is the result of more than perversion.

Many more prejudices exist for homosexuals to deal with: the effeminate man, the butch lesbian, the pedophile homosexual, the “ex-gay” myth. My intention in these essays has been to provoke you to question your own beliefs, and perhaps to change them. Where I can not do this, I beg you to be gracious to our homosexual brothers and sisters. These people know a burden only those who grew up in racially segregated situations can attest to. Homosexuality is not an easy path; it is typically marked by hate, loathing, and enormous pressure to be something they are not. We will visit later on in this series of essays questions that are theological and hermeneutical; but that part of this discussion is meaningless if it is not built on top of non-prejudicial thinking.

previous post: The Challenge of Personal Change
next post: Book Review: The Demon Haunted World

• Posted in Theology
• 2 comments
• Trackback
• January 22, 2005

• Bookmark on del.icio.us
• Bookmark on Digg

2 Responses to “Question #3: Can you set aside your own homosexual stereotypes?”

1. Anonymous Says:
   January 26th, 2005 at 2:18 pm

   How thought provoking! How do you reconcile I Cor.6:9 with your thoughts on homosexuality? Verses 10 & 11 seem to say that is what some of the Corinthians were, but that they had been washed. How can God hold people accountable for being something He condemns? It strikes me that the initial problem with Christianity’s response to this is we tend to view it as worse than other sins - but does God? Showing love to the world does not seem to be the Church’s strong suit. Also, I am curious, where do you stand on the authority of the Scriptures? I’m not sure that was clear to me in this piece.

   Also, how do you reconcile being a homosexual, but not living as one - what God think of that?

2. Ben Shobert Says:
   January 26th, 2005 at 7:50 pm

   I believe each of your questions can be answered in how I would suggest we treat I Corinthians 6:9-11.

   Before we begin, the relevant text: “Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitues, sodomites, theives, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers - none of these will inheret the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” NRSV

   One of your questions, and I would suggest the foundation of much that will compose the latter parts of my response, is how I view the authority of Scripture. I respectfully would tell you that I believe we have to introduce three components into what we hold as “absolute truth” (which is one of the underlying questions beneath the issue of Scriptural authority). The three elements I would propose we include are first, that we must interpret through the lens of Christ. Christ spoke to hearts, a point that if dwelled on would rob much of contemporary Christianity’s arguments against homosexuality of their validity as this issue has become political (much like the Pharisees and their presentation of the adulturous woman to Jesus). Second, we must accomodate those truths that modernity has revealed to us (best seen as a paraphrase of Calvin’s argument that “all truth is God’s truth). Of all the signs of God’s existence that He has left us, the underlying order and design of the universe is a primary apologetic. To say that God’s moral laws have no other reason for being than “He knows best” is to argue that He is arbitrary. If He is arbitrary He is capricious; if He is capricious He is not a God of love nor of order. Third, since I do not hold to a dictation view of Scripture (from God’s mouth to man’s pen quite literally), I have to test for what within Scripture is of man, and what is of God. This is a delicate question to ask that requires supreme graciousness and thoughtfulness. Taking all three of these together, I view Scripture as being a part of what we have as humans to guide us along the way. I do not view it as wholly Divine; nor do I view it as being wholly the invention of humans.

   Specifically taking these three principles and focusing them backwards onto the passage in I Corinthians we can make several extrapolations (keeping in mind these have validity only when the previous three points are assumed to be reasonable).

   Some would argue that Paul’s comment here is best seen as being couched within antiquity, before we understood the complex causalities that go into “being” a homosexual. The pronounced difficulty in this argument - which my earlier comments unfortunately require us to accept and struggle with - is that we have to parse each of Paul’s statements and wrestle with what is of God and what is of man. Forgive me for going outside the scope of the discussion to make this point, but wrestling with what Paul actually meant in his writing has colored even the most orthodox of today’s Christianity. The Trinity is not some self-evident truth within Scripture; it took up to four centuries post the crucifixion for the Church fathers to develop the idea of the Trinity. We accept (probably because we don’t know this fact, or because their struggle is so far in the past that it no longer seems germane to our current day) the idea of the Trinity, but we don’t wrestle with the fact that these concepts had to be wrestled with! I am suggesting that homosexuality is another such issue - an issue that has to be wrestled with, that is not as self-evident as small segments of Scripture would seem to attest to. To summarize, some may choose quite simply to say that Paul over-stepped his bounds, that he did not have the knowledge we now do in the form of anecdotes, biology, psychology, etc. that serve as better explanations for homosexuality than the simple argument that “it’s wrong.”

   Another, equally caustic position (if you are a foundationalist) to take is to argue that God’s morals are not right simply because He says so. Not because He does not have that right; but because it is outside of His nature and it is outside of all that He has left behind for us to see Him with, to say that He is arbitrary. God’s morals make sense. Go back to the passage in question: fornicators (wrong because it violates the sacred trust of marriage, an institution two people freely go into and grow into something more deep and profound than they had as singles), idolaters (because looking for meaning in the wrong areas will be unfulfilling), etc. For each of the sins listed, one can argue that God’s reason is clear; save homosexuality, whose condemnation rarely rises above that of simply “God says it is wrong.”

   People such as Walter Wink, John Boswell and John McNeill (the best apologists who view Scripture in an actually more strict fashion than I do), argue that the introduction of homosexuality in this passage is unwarranted and innapropriate. To quote John Boswell in his Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality; “The first of the two, (basically, ’soft’), is an extremely common Greek word; it occurs elsewhere in the New Testament wirh the meaning ’sick’ and in patristic writings with sense as varied as ‘liquid,’ ‘cowardly,’ refined,’ weak willed,’ ‘delicate,’ ‘gentle,’ and ‘debauched.’ In a specifically moral context it very frequently means ‘licentious,’ ‘loose,’ or ‘wanting in self-control.’ At a broad level, it might be translated as either ‘unrestrained’ or ‘wanton,’ but to assume that either of these concepts necessarily applies to gay people is wholy gratuitous … What is more important, the unanimous tradition of the church through the Reformation, and of Catholicism until well into the twentieth century, has been that this word applied to masturbation.” (pages 106-107)

   This is a very analytic response whose merits I am not entirely qualified to judge. What I would be willing to argue is the underlying point Boswell is attempting to make is that there is a difference between legitimate homosexuality (something he would maintain Scripture does not address at all) and the rampant form of homosexuality associated to temple worship and to the practice of pederastry which Paul does address. In Boswell’s mind, Paul’s treatment of homosexuality is purely from the perspective of those who have given themselves over to it as a lifestyle but who are not really homosexual; think of Paul’s position as being anti-Dorian Gray (the promiscious playboy bored by playmates who decides to experiment with men). One has to go back into the sexuality of the ancient Greeks and Romans to appreciate that much of what we assume to be homosexual behavior was not; it was accepted as the moray of the day for men (in Greece) to “teach” young boys about sex. It was accepted in Corinth that sexual activity with temple prostitutes was part of the culture. In neither case is a legitimate argument for what we now call homosexuality accomodated.

   Let me know what additional questions you may have after my response or if I left any of your questions / points unaddressed.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website