Diadectes

Why would the conversation get uncomfortable? I should have thought this is the kind of thing BAC's love - a self-loathing homosexual who repents of his abominable sin, is accepted by Christ, and goes on to live a life of chastity and obedience. Praise the Lord!

But, in any case, the argument that Paul was gay (or more properly homosexual - there were no gays in the first century) is highly tenuous. The link provided doesn't seem to be working for me at the moment, so I can't comment on the specifics of that particular essay, but I recall reading Bishop Spong's own argument in "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism". While I have no doubt that his heart is in the right place in his desire to see a more inclusive and less literal Biblical Christianity, I can't help feeling that there is an unwitting 'reverse' homophobia going on. After all, consider what we are being asked to believe: that Paul was gay because he loathed himself , he could not accept what he was and - most disturbingly - he hated women.

As a homosexual man, this is not a picture I recognise of myself, or anybody else I know who is homosexual. It's a cliche, and as insulting and damaging as suggesting that all gays are potential child molesters, or that allowing gay people to enter into a legal partnership will result in the downfall of civilisation. It just seems to me to be a very big leap from saying "Paul hated himself and he hated women" to saying "Paul hated himself and he hated women, therefore he must have been gay".

andy_d

I don't think anyone is making that exact logical connection.

I think the assertion is that Paul obviously found something within himself that he found impossible to reconcile with the morality of his religious upbringing (declaring himself a "sinner", a religious description). He was also a pretty twisted dude on issues of gender and sexuality. It's not a massive leap of faith to surmise that his moral hangup was somehow linked to his gender/sexuality hangups.

Nobody is saying "Paul was a wanker*, and therefore must have been gay". The suggestion is that he couldn't reconcile his homosexuality with his religion, and that's what made him unpleasant. Not the first time repressed homosexuality led to serious dysfunction, surely?

Anyway, it's just a theory.

Personally, i'd feel sorry for him if he was straight. He'd be unlikely to be popular with the womenfolk


*Translation for the US audience: Wanker = a~~hole

DMB

andy_d: don't mislead our friends. That's the figurative use of "wanker". Its basic meaning is one who indulges in masturbation (verb "to wank").

Doctor X

Indeed, it disturbes me that someone would mistake assholes for self-pleasure. . . .

As for evidence of homosexuality . . . it will remain tenuous because we do not have any actual evidence. I am reading a book on the Renaissance--gift--and the author wonders about one of the artists and another. He notes that the practice--"older"--twenties--man with a younger--young teens--relationship was, apparently, very common with the older man eventually settling down and the younger becoming the older for another teen.

However, since no evidence exists for this relationship, he can only "suppose" that one could very well have existed.

The problem with the OT texts is they are discussing fictitious characters--even if one wishes to argue a "real" David existed. So I do not think anyone can extend this to hypothetical "real" or "base" figures.

So, are the characters gay . . . not that there is anything wrong with that. . . .

I have to admit the Jonathan-David relationship suggests a not uncommon relationship between comrades-in-arms [Stop that.--Ed.] Indeed, as I have [Pontificated.--Ed.] mentioned before, recent papers on the Leviticus prohibition seem to regulate "who does what to whom"--something preserved in Roman law if I remember correctly. Basically, a higher class person cannot "receive" from a lower-class person.

So . . . as we heap on more assumptions . . . did the characters have a "thing?"

Whatever the answer, it did not seem to bother the author and redactors. He preserved the language which is suggestive enough for us to conclude it. He does not condemn the practice.

However, on the other pseudopod, he does not "flaunt" it either . . . though that harp thing with David . . . that is definitely gay . . . in otherwords it is not a major issue one way or the other.

As for Paul . . . who knows? Gore Vidal picks up on it a bit in a wonderful book Live from Golgotha. Readers who believe Paul is responsible for "deifying" Junior will enjoy it. One thing he preserves is that the concept of having a homosexual relation and a heterosexual relationship was not so "either or" as the more morally obsessed are today.

--J.D.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): You're not a 1st Century Jew. Spong devotes a lot of ink to Paul's religious background and devotion to the Law.
It's not far-fetched, imo--he makes a good case for the possiblility that Paul was a repressed homosexual.

Diadectes

1st century jew or not, I just don't buy it. Spong does indeed spend a lot of time asking questions about Paul's sexuality, but, like much of his writing, that is pretty well all he does. He provides precious little evidence to back up his assertions. It's pure guess work. Interesting, but unverifiable and therefore not really of any great importance. And, at the end of the day, the only reason for supposing Paul was homosexual is that he had an obsession with the Law and appeared to dislike sex and women. Sorry, but that description fits plenty of straight men.

Paul's apparent obsession with sex seems to me to be mainly directed at heterosexual men anyway - marry, rather than burn. They are his main concern. He seems to recognise the tension very well, which indicates familiarity. Paul's comments on homosexuality have, to my mind anyway, been overblown. They are almost an aside. I just don't understand the purpose behind suggesting Paul was homosexual. So what? What good does it do? Frankly, Paul's gratest crime was not that he repressed his own sexuality - whatever that was - but that he saddled future generations with his particular brand of Christianity.

Fr.Andrew

(Fr Andrew): You've obviously not read a lot of John Spong if you think "much of his writing" dwells on Paul's sexuality.
In Rescuing the Bible he goes to great efforts to describe Paul's religious background (a perspective which you and I lack) and the effect that would have on a 1st Century Jewish man with confusion as to his sexual identity.
In that light, some of Paul's remarks can be interpreted as the self-loathing and guilt of a gay man in a very hostile environment.
Spong does not say that Paul was gay...he raises the possibility as one explanation for his demonstrable anguish.

Diadectes

No, what I meant was that Spong's writing consists of an awful lot of questions, but not much else. At least, that's my overriding memory of the two books I have read ("Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" and "Why Christianity Must Change or Die"). I recall thinking it at the time, and finding it extremely frustrating. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Spong dwells exclusively on Paul's sexuality. Apologies for not making myself clearer.

Yeah, but again, so what? Everything Spong and others suggest could just as easily apply to a straight man. Maybe Paul spent a lot of time and money on prostitutes. That could just as easily explain his later self-loathing and misogyny. But, as you say, we just don't know; which is why I think the speculation is pointless. After all, it's not as if knowledge of Paul's sexuality is going to alter the Church's response to his theology. And I don't see how it in any way helps the many gay Christians in the world who are struggling to come to a better understanding of the relationship between their religion and their sexuality. Indeed, my original point was that it doesn't help, because, although we are of course talking about someone from a different time and a different culture, the picture being presented is nevertheless still just another stereotype.