The Bishop of Liverpool has apologized for his part in opposing the proposed appointment of openly gay cleric Jeffrey John as Bishop of Reading. The Right Reverend James Jones – perhaps the Church of England’s most prominent evangelical bishop – has also drawn attention to God-sanctioned same-sex relationships in the Bible, describing the story of David and Jonathan as a “witness to love between two people of the same gender,” and signalling an openness to more dialogue on the subject.
Jones was one of nine Anglican bishops to put his name to a letter publicly opposing Jeffrey John’s consecration in 2005. The Very Reverend John, currently Dean of St Albans, has been in a civil union with his long-time partner since 2006, but has always said the relationship is celibate, in keeping with Church rules. Writing of the controversy, the Bishop of Liverpool now says:
I deeply regret this episode in our common life. … I still believe that it was unwise to try to take us to a place that evidently did not command the broad support of the Church of England but I am sorry for the way I opposed it and I am sorry too for adding to the pain and distress of Dr. John and his partner. I regret too that this particular controversy narrowed rather than enlarged the space for healthy debate within the church.
In the essay, which was published last month in A Fallible Church: Lambeth Essays (ed. Kenneth Stevenson), the Bishop goes on to talk about the Old Testament story of David and Jonathan:
Their friendship was emotional, spiritual and even physical. Jonathan loved David “as his own soul”. David found Jonathan’s love for him, “passing the love of women”. There was between them a deep emotional bond that left David grief-stricken when Jonathan died. But not only were they emotionally bound to each other they expressed their love physically. Jonathan stripped off his clothes and dressed David in his own robe and armour. With the candour of the Eastern World that exposes the reserve of Western culture they kissed each other and wept openly with each other. The fact that they were both married did not inhibit them in emotional and physical displays of love for each other. This intimate relationship was sealed before God. It was not just a spiritual bond it became covenantal for “Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul” (1 Samuel 18:3). Here is the Bible bearing witness to love between two people of the same gender. I know that at this point some will ask, “Was the friendship sexual?”, “Were they gay?”, “Was at least one of them homosexual?”, “Were they both heterosexual?”, “Were they bisexual?” I want to resist these questions at least initially. Immediately you start using such words you conjure up stereotypes and prejudices. Further, you assume that it is a person’s sexual inclination that defines their personhood. Is it not possible to say that here are two men with the capacity to love fully, both women and men?
As an Anglican in Bishop James’s diocese, I welcome this apparent acknowledgement that gay men and women can and really do love. Although this clearly does not affirm gay sex, it is nevertheless a massive step forward from the blanket prejudices of many of the Bishop’s fellow conservatives.
He refuses to draw conclusions, but hints tantalizingly at the possibility of celibate same-sex covenants. This author wonders whether such relationships can ever be a way forward for ex-gays? It has been suggested before. In 20 Hot Potatoes Christians Are Afraid to Touch, US evangelical Tony Campolo argued in favor of exactly this, proposing committed, but celibate relationships as an alternative to “practicing” homosexuality.
More thoughts from the commenters at Thinking Anglicans and Dr Mike Homfray. This was also reported in The Guardian, which rather misleadingly tells only half the story.
The Hillel Campus Organization’s handbook for engaging with LGBT Jews has a very interesting take on David and Jonathan. It is based on classical Jewish belief that nothing is added or taken away from the Tanakh, and that every (Hebrew) word has meaning. Indeed, the Scriptures are chock-full-o’-puns that contain hidden meanings to stories.
When David and Jonathan depart in 1 Samuel 20:41, in the English it says that they both wept and “David wept the longer.” The NIV says “David wept the most,” and the Masoretic Hebrew text translates the line as “they wept one with another, until David exceeded.” The Hebrew is probably the most correct in only using the word “exceeded:” the verse ends with “ad-david hee-gadeel.” In Hebrew, the G-D-L root is used in words that mean “big,” “great,” “greater,” “magnify,” etc. The use of a word that refers to an act of “exceeding,” “magnifying,” and becoming “bigger” in conjunction with “weeping” may allude to an erection – a sexual encounter between the two men.
Am I the only pro-gay Christian that doesn’t think the Jonathan-David relationship wasn’t sexual?
That’s a double negative, did you mean that you don’t think it was sexual? If so, not at all. Also, just for the record, Emily is Jewish 😉
Maybe it is sexual and also not sexual at the same time. Different types of readings will generate a different lesson. I refuse to believe that biblical stories can only be read a single way.
While there are certain core tenants of belief on which one must agree to be a follower of Christ, I do not believe stories such as this come even close. Mandating this or that interpretation of such a thing is, in fact, what gave us the so called “fundamentalist Christian Right.” Unfortunately, the line beyond which one is compromising a core belief rather than simply disagreeing with personal interpretation, has been steadily pushed back by organizations such as Focus on the Family, AFA, TWC, FRC, etc.
Those who first simply believe on Christ’s sacrifice and want to follow Him, are told they must adhere to the entire party line to be true to God and, above all, to compromise on anything is to give ground to the enemy.
What a mess we have made.
That’s because they believe everything they think. big mistake.
Gay celibate relationships? Personally, I find that concept more ridiculous than the solitary celibate position, if they expect every gay couple to follow this model, since it trivializes the sexual component of romantic relationships. That is an unrealistic compromise for the large majority gay and lesbian Christians. James and Campolo seem to have a total disregard for this fundamental concept, so while recognizing some special cases of celibate gay couples, their change in position makes no real difference until they take another one. In the end, their views will succumb to more realistic and positive positions, such as the one Jay Bakker took.
I agree, it’s far from a perfect solution, and may not even be practical at all for most gays. On the other hand, I know from my own experience of splitting up from my partner just a few months ago that I miss the companionship far more than I miss the sexual contact.
As I said in the article, the most promising thing about +James’s words is that he appears to be acknowledging that “gay men and women can and really do love.”
If a gay couple are happy with a “celibate” relationship, then that’s fine – it’s their right to make their own decisions – but it would be absolutely improper to demand such a modus vivendi. I agree with Rob (aka Xeno) that the sexual component of a gay relationship is a positive good, which should not be devalued.
I’m perfectly willing to sanction a straight, “celibate” relationship 😉
Speaking of gay ministers, did anyone see that Ted Haggard slipped the leash?
https://www.coloradoconfidential.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3422
So you’re in favor of ex-gay marriages after all
😉
Yeah, cheers, we did see that, and may be doing a short write-up soon.
Where does this put Mr. Haggart? Is he ex-gay or ex-ex-gay?
In all of the www where should Mr. Haggart go for help? For an outreach program?
I would suggest he come to XGW and get some insightful advice.
There would no problem with having a dialogue with Ted here, right? In spite of his history we should welcome him. Who better to understand his plight than us?
What I would give for the opportunity to have a chat over dinner with him. Him and a seat right next to the one where I would have Larry Craig seated.
Just call me: Dr. Phil.
Good one, Timothy! Ba-bing!
Emily,
I consulted a Hebrew scholar on the point you raised, and was told that it is complete nonsense to argue that the verb higdil in 1 Sam 20:41 could hint at David getting an erection. First, the verbal root g-d-l is never used with any sexual meaning; second, and more importantly, the verb is in the Hiphil form, meaning a causative form, meaning, “to make great, magnify” rather than “to become large,” which would have been expressed with a different verbal aspect. That’s why no serious translation of any kind in history and no Hebrew lexicon has ever suggested such a meaning. Rather, both David and Jonathan wept, but David’s weeping was even greater.
On that subject of meanings, it’s a little off thread, but perhaps has an answer with some authority to it. accroding to Boswell, the phrases in those lovely passages of Leviticus allegedly dealing with homosex translate nots as in KJV, but literally as “if a man shall sleep the sleep of a woman.” According to ne commentary I read, like malakoi and arsenokoi, no one really knows that those terms mean, as they appear nowhere else. cooments?
I don’t find the idea of gay celibate relationships ridiculous at all. Some people are truly called to celibacy. The Eastern Orthodox Church blesses celibate male/female “straight” relationships. They are rare but they do occur and show that the Eastern Church has a very different understanding of marriage than Rome. If someone has a truly strong emotional bond with someone else but not a sexual one, why not support that?
What I do find ridiculous is the expectation that people who aren’t called to celibacy can be in relationships where that is imposed to meet a purity code. While people can be expected to abstain from sex for periods in their lives, imposed lifetime celibacy rarely works and causes all kinds of emotional problems for those involved.
In response to Ivan, I simply want to say that if he had read my comment more closely, he would see that I was citing a publication of the Hillel organization, not giving my personal study or commentary of scripture. Nor did I claim I had the ‘correct’ interpretation. Much much MUCH more study is needed to understand the book of Samuel, on MY end. much more than the word of a single hebrew scholar, much more than a Hillel Campus publication.
It doesn’t surprise me that anybody would vehemently oppose any interpretation, however, because there are those out there who – for example – take everything the Torah commentator Rashi said as complete “gospel.” Yet there are those who are dismayed at this and say Rashi was himself against fundamentalist Torah interpretation.
And sometimes a certain interpretation can make people feel angry – even threatened – so much so that they have to lash out. Otherwise we wouldn’t have books like the one Joe Dallas wrote for Christians, “Responding to Pro-Gay Theology.”
Emily,
You’re reading and understanding my comment a little more than I intended it to be read and understood. Take the critique as it is…
Ivan said:
You may have added a little more than you meant to, but I think I can see why Emily would respond as she did.
That’s probably not the most tactful way to disagree with someone, particularly when they are simply relaying an “interesting take” on a scripture from a handbook. It sounds rather adversarial and reactionary to me. Perhaps that’s not what you wanted to convey, but one can be forgiven for interpreting it that way 😉
At any rate, I think it’s obvious that the Hillel handbook take is not a common one, but no one is harmed by exploring the possibilities.
David said:
Well, as duly noted by Emily:
Just responding to the theory she mentioned…
And is it really adversarial and reactionary to consult a Hebrew scholar for a critique of a theory published in a GLBT handbook published by and for the largest Jewish campus organization in the world? I don’t believe so.
Ivan:
Keep in mind that scholars are human and can error, even the most learned. Whenever Scripture is translated, all possibilities have to be taken into account. Just because one scholar does not approve of a translation does not mean it is automatically invalid. In Orthodox Christianity it has always been understood that there are several layers in Scripture, and that, while they may be at times a literal translation, there is also a metaphorical aspect, an allegorical aspect, a moral aspect, etc. Judaism, to the best of my knowledge, is also of the same understanding. That is why Biblical studies are an ongoing process and not something that was done a thousand years ago, declared infallible and unchangeable for all time. There is always new insight, and it is important as religious for us to be open to the new possibilities. I can’t speak for Emily, but I think that she was merely pointing out how new insight has brought to light some interesting aspects about the story of Jonathan and David.
I don’t find much value in debates that consist of “my anti-gay scholar disagrees with your pro-gay scholar”.
As for the Jonathan and David story, I don’t know if it is about a sexual relationship.
But consider for a moment if it were not the Bible but some other text. If it were read in school, there would be anti-gay activists protesting the “homosexual propaganda”.
Because outside of the context of Sacred Text – which by definition must always be read by some as strictly heterosexual – it would certainly be assumed to be a story about two lovers.
I think you’re onto something Timothy. I wish there were a way to test your theory.
Alan,
Thanks for the comment, but the Hebrew simply doesn’t support the point, plain and simple, no matter who is reading it. It’s grammatically incorrect. Anyone fluent in biblical Hebrew and honest with themselves – be that person gay or straight – would have no argument with this.
Timothy said:
You may be right, but that says more about our culture today than the meaning of the story, no? If it were a story read at the time that it happened, it wouldn’t be interpreted the same way we would interpret it today. If someone were to write such a story today, there would be little chance that they were talking about something other than homoerotic love. But again, that has to do with where our culture is holding, more than anything else.
I disagree. I don’t think the language by which two lovers are described interacting has changed much at all in the past few thousand years or so. Look no further than Song of Songs (Song of Solomon). I mean, the emotions certainly haven’t changed. The strength at which people feel those emotions hasn’t changed. People are free to interpret what David meant when he said Jonathan’s love was greater than the love of women – many would say this is absolutely nothing to do with romanticism or eroticism. Fine by me. That’s irrelevent.
But when two people talk of how they are spiritually intertwined, how they share in their most precious possessions with one another, make covenants with one another, and love one another as they love their own souls, that is profound indeed. It’s something worth paying attention to. I love the mystery in that. it’s one of the most beautiful stories in the Tanakh, IMO.
Ivan:
It would be nice to see the original Hebrew of the passage in question and see how it cannot be deduced as being homoerotic. As I rely on the Latin Vulgate, I do not see any indication that an erection took place on David’s part, but I do see a relationship between two men that is not normal for Hebrews of that time period (at least what has been recorded).
Emily said:
This is what I meant:
I’m not necessarily talking about the descriptions having changed. I’m talking about the interpretation of those descriptions, to the point where if someone were to write a story like the David and Jonathan one, it would likely be interpreted as homoerotic in nature.
The point here is to know the difference between ANE conventions of affectionate friendships (that are non-erotic,) and homoerotic love. Better put, what does a non-erotic, but loving and affectionate relationship between two guys look like? I think the David and Jonathan story is a perfect example. There is nothing in the story to imply anything erotic IMO.
I have friends who are not gay, who hold hands in the street, who sleep in the same bed sometimes, hug for long periods (far longer than the average guy would be comfortable with), but are 100% straight. True, it is rare, and no doubt interpreted by most, if not all, as gay. But that’s my point.
Does that make sense?
Alan S said:
Do you know Hebrew?
I’d be more interested in seeing how it can be deduced as homoerotic.
I don’t believe that is true at all. It was in fact quite common.
Ivan:
Provide the Hebrew text and demonstrate why it is impossible for it to be translated as homoerotic.
Alan,
Do you know Hebrew?
Just submitting so as to keep up with the comments. Interesting thread.
Ivan:
No, I do not know Hebrew well enough to make a translation from it to another language. That is why I am asking you to demonstrate how the story does not display homoerotic undertones in the Hebrew text.
Alan,
If you don’t know Hebrew well enough to translate, I don’t understand why you’re asking for the original Hebrew, and for me to demonstrate it isn’t homoerotic. If you feel it is, share your thoughts please!
I think Alan is asking for YOUR translation of the Hebrew. Give us your drash on the story. He wants to understand why, from the perspective of the original language, it is not homo-erotic.
Alan, for your own personal study, the original Hebrew side-by-side with the English can be found here. Enjoy.
I’m not sure I know how to show something that I think isn’t there, really isn’t there. If Alan believes there’s something in the Hebrew text that supports his position, hopefully he’ll write down what it is, and I can respond in kind, stating why I think he’s incorrect.
I still can’t understand why Alan would ask about the original Hebrew if he doesn’t know it well enough to translate.
Good grief, Alan just wants you to explain the passage from the original Hebrew, emphasizing your exegesis. If you don’t know how, or don’t want to, just say so. This exchange is getting tedious.
One doesn’t have to know how to do something in order to understand someone else who does, as long as the latter will explain it clearly enough. It’s offensive and condescending to assert otherwise.
I’d have to write a full essay to do that. How about Alan just refers to the words he thinks indicates homoeroticism, and I can respond to the point. Isn’t that much simpler?
Oi Vey. If you can’t point something like that out in less than an essay, somehow I doubt it would clarify much.
More reason for Alan to be specific.
No, Ivan, it isn’t simpler. It’s just more convenient for you.
Alan is stating that the story, as translated into English, has strong suggestions of homoeroticism. And, frankly, he’s correct.
I would go so far as to state that the Biblical story of David and Jonathan has more homoerotic undertones than Capote’s Other Voices, Other Rooms or Thomas Mann’s A Death in Venice, both of which are well known to be intentionally so.
If there is some translation of the Hebrew that does not have the components of nakedness together, unusually deep emotional connection, or claims that Jonathan’s love was greater than the love of a woman, then please present it.
If there is some way of explaining these components so that they do not encompass same-sex love, please do so.
I think that you are getting caught up in the question of whether, oooooh, they had sex. I would suggest that this is the least important question.
As greater minds than mine have suggested, any two young men who behaved and said exactly what Scripture records David and Jonathan as doing and saying would be unceremoniously kicked out of most conservative churches on their butts today.
Timothy,
No, it is more difficult. I’d then have to transliterate the whole thing, and explain and justify my position versus every interpretation that says there is homoeroticism. If he can point to something specific, narrow it down, it would make it far easier and I can respond to his specific point.
Regarding the English translation, I understand it as very common among male-male non-erotic affectionate friendships in the ANE. If you have a disagreement with that explanation, please state why you disagree.
That doesn’t quite cut it. Sorry.
Ivan,
The grand sum of your argument is “I don’t have to support my claims and I’m right unless you can prove me wrong”.
Unless you have more to say than this I think it fair to rely on other sources and dismiss your contributions as nothing more than argumentative and baseless.
Well, considering Alan, David and you have given me nothing to go on in response to what I said, I could understand your (false) impression. Nonetheless, I’m awaiting a linguistic or biblical critique of what I said, and then I can respond.
Ivan,
You remind me of an ex of mine. He would ask where I wanted to go to dinner. I would list two or three places and he’d say, “no, I don’t feel like there.” And then he’d expect me to go on thinking up more places so he could say, “no”.
As he learned, few people have patience for this tactic.
If you have an opinion on the nature of the David and Jonathan story, state it. You don’t get to sit back and wait for others to explain their understanding of Hebrew so that you can say, “No”.
I’ve explained that I think the story has a strong homoerotic subtext in English and why, specifically: “nakedness together, unusually deep emotional connection, or claims that Jonathan’s love was greater than the love of a woman”. I asked you to explain these within the context of your position.
Your response was, “That doesn’t quite cut it.”
This is the hallmark of the argumentative – ignore the question and keep demanding more “proof” until you find some little point that you can say “No” to. Then pretend that this is the entire extent of the argument and that you’ve disproven your opponent.
Yawn.
We’ve all seen it and it neither influences our opinions nor impresses us with your intellectual prowess.
Ivan:
If you need to write an essay to explain a few versus of scripture then don’t bother.
What is striking in the Latin Vulgate is I Kings 1:18 (I Samuel 1:18)
et factum est cum conplesset loqui ad Saul anima Ionathan conligata est animae David et dilexit eum Ionathan quasi animam suam
From this is bears the understanding that David and Jonathan’s souls are bound together in servitude toward each other. For the Greek and Latin, the “anima” is the very essense of the person, in other words, everything that they truly are is in the “anima.”
It contrasts with a union between a man and a woman in that:
quam ob rem relinquet homo patrem suum et matrem et adherebit uxori suae et erunt duo in carne una
Penteteuch I; 2:24 (Genesis 2:24)
The union is that of “carne” or flesh and not “anima” or soul. The couple unite physically, but there is not a spiritual connection. The woman does not posses the man nor does the man posses the woman. But in David and Jonathan’s case, the argument can be made that both possessed each other’s soul or “anima” by the agreement they made between them. The question then is, why did they need to do that? Why was it necessary for them to bind themselves in such a manner? In fact it appears, at least in the Latin, that they willingly do so of their own free will.
Does this mean that David and Jonathan had a physical relationship as well? At least using the Latin Vulgate there is no way to prove they did or did not 100%. But it does open up a flood of questions that deserve being asked and answered.
Alan,
Yes, I don’t want to bother writing an essay for every pro-gay interpretation of all 5 verses with a critique, since you won’t give me a specific claim. But if there is one verse, or a word or a few words, and you have a specific critique of what I said, throw it my way please. I’d be happy to respond.
Timothy,
And if your ex didn’t name a place, and you did, he said no, but wouldn’t give you another choice instead of yours? Is that what happened? I don’t see the comparison otherwise. You’ve rejected my opinion, but didn’t give a critique, and hence, nothing to respond to. I’ve already stated my opinion several times on this page. If you feel I am wrong, state your reason why.
As for nakedness, I don’t know what’s homerotic about that. Have you ever been in a gym shower? Nakedness is only homoerotic in the context of something sexual. If this is homoerotic to you, show me how. I don’t know of any “nakedness together”. Can you show me where it says this? Maybe it’s a bad translation. I’ll look into it.
As for brotherly love, well, what can I say? You’d have to experience it for yourself to realize that love between two guys can, and sometimes do love each other in a way that surpasses the love of a woman, but that’s precisely because it’s a different kind of love that it can, without it being erotic/sexual. Again, quite common in the ANE.
For a Greek and Latin audience reading the passage stating:
amabilis super amorem mulierum
would make one flinch for a second or two because the word “amor” is used instead of “diligo.” “Amor” is designated for intimacy as a rule, whereas “diligo” is non-intimate love.
honora patrem et matrem et diliges proximum tuum sicut te ipsum (Honor your father and mother and love your neighbor as yourself.)
ait illi Iesus diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo et in tota anima tua et in tota mente tua (You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind.)
Diligo is where we get the word “diligent.” The word “diligo” means to esteem, to admire, and is the kind of love one would give to their parents, siblings, family members, friends, and even to strangers.
“Amor” is reserved for a person and the feelings and emotions he or she has towards another person with the understanding of a physical relationship either realized or desired to be as such.
nakedness:
expoliavit se Ionathan tunicam qua erat vestitus et dedit eam David et reliqua vestimenta sua usque ad gladium et arcum suum et usque ad balteum
The Douay version translated “expoliavit” as “stripped” which is pretty accurate.
Emily:
I didn’t see your post at first. Thanks. 🙂 And yes, you are correct in assessing what I am asking for.
That is precisely what I am trying to say.
Thanks again Emily.
Comment removed by me, Timothy.
מא הַנַּעַר, בָּא, וְדָוִד קָם מֵאֵצֶל הַנֶּגֶב, וַיִּפֹּל לְאַפָּיו
אַרְצָה וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ שָׁלֹשׁ פְּעָמִים; וַיִּשְּׁקוּ אִישׁ אֶת-
רֵעֵהוּ, וַיִּבְכּוּ אִישׁ אֶת-רֵעֵהוּ, עַד-דָּוִד, הִגְדִּיל.
Ivan:
challenge – in fifty words or less – translate the Hebrew portion that says in English
“until David exceeded.”
and explain why it cannot mean “erection.”
Alan,
I commented above in response to what Emily originally posted. I can’t see how you’re critiquing what I wrote to her, nor are you correcting me. If you have something to add on, or if I said something wrong in your opinion, show me where and then we can go from that point. Blankly asking me to translate something, and then to show you why it doesn’t mean what you think it means, after already responding, doesn’t give me much. Emily didn’t translate anything. Emily only gave a theory, which I responded to.
If I’m misunderstanding something, perhaps you can clarify.
And again, if you don’t know Hebrew well enough, why are you asking me? What difference would it make?
Ivan:
Forget it. I’ve had root canals that are less painful than this.
Moving on.
I wanted to comment on the fact that the Episcopal Church (and the Angelican Church in general) has made great progress in the inclusion of the LGBT community. It has not an easy road for this branch of Christianity, but I applaud the Church on its effort to make the message of Christ be accessible to everyone and to give its LGBT members a home and to those of us from other faith communities. True there are some who are opposed to inclusion, and the many churches who have broken from the Episcopal Church in the US is causing controversy, but the Episcopal Church, under its present bishop, is willing to hold fast and leave the doors wide open to welcome all who seek to worship God in love and truth.
So I guess you didn’t have much to say after all. I could have used the time efficiently had you said so earlier on.
Alan, it’s true that the first thing Ivan did when he came to this post is to respond to the interpretation i presented.
Also, there is no Hebrew word that directly relates to “eros” (greek) or sexual love. the word used most commonly is “אהב” (“ahav”) – much like the English “love,” it has different meanings depending on its context. “ויאהבו” is used to describe how Jonathan “loves” David as his own soul – “ahav” is used here within that word. The same root word is used to describe how Jacob “loved” Rachel when he first saw her. Rachel became his wife. So ambivalence seems to abound.
Ivan, you are not adding anything productive to the debate. It’s becoming clear that you simply can’t answer Alan’s question. It would indeed have saved a lot of time if you had just said so in the beginning, and it would have been much kinder to all involved.
Now that Alan has withdrawn his question in frustration, let’s just leave it alone, ok?
David:
It seems actually, that Alan didn’t really have anything to ask. If he wanted to contribute, he could have critiqued my response to Emily, added something on, corrected me or asked me another question. He did none of the above except throw out a general request, which would have been meaningless to him had I complied.
Perhaps he didn’t have access to a “Hebrew scholar” from which to borrow a critique. Either way, I believe you were somewhat condescending toward him and that wasn’t necessary.
We’ve already beat this one into the ground, my comments included.
I do think that we must look at the Bible on this issue and it is stated in the Sacred Scriptures that among many things as well as thieves, liars, adulterers, homosexuals have no part in God’s kingdom. This person who “apologized” for blocking this homosexual’s ordination should be ashamed of himself because God requires us to be holy and coming from homosexuality myself, I am appaled at gays who believe that you can be gay if you were straight before, but can’t be straight if you considered yourself gay before. I think that homosexuals are the most intolerant people that you can meet because while many say that they are being oppressed and battered only 177 hate crimes were reported as such and not only gays, but cops, lawyers, seniors, soldiers, and even pastors have been targets of hate crimes. Not only that but in upstate NY a billboard promoting a pro life cause was paintballed but there was no word of a hate crime being commited when it was done with the intent of destroying something that these group of Christians belived and on top of that it was private property and is a hate crime. I think as far as gay clergy, no biblically minded Christian is going to want anyone who is a practicing homosexual serving in ministry, it is an affont to God and is an injustice to those being served as they will become cold to the movement of God and his convicting power.
Emily,
Thank you. Your response helps me understand why St Jerome used the word “amor” in the Vulgate.
Emily, I realize that, and thank you for pointing that out. I merely wanted proof from Ivan for what he said. As you probably already know I don’t just take things at face value (or if you don’t … now you do! 🙂 )
And thank you for the link again. It has proven to be very helpful.
David:
ditto
If anyone is interested in the Episcopal Church and the direction it is going in the US, I recomend Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s book “A Wing and a Prayer.” I think the Church in the US is greatly influencing the Church in the UK in a positive way. I think they are beginning to see how being open to all God’s people is what it’s all about. Her book is an excellent starting point to understand what this branch of Christianity is all about for the GLBT community.
Not to say there isn’t controversy, but at least the head of the US Church understands the need to include the GLBT community in the church, and not just as pew warmers, but active participants in the Body of Christ.
I do not know much about the differences and nuances of the “mainstream” protestant churches in the US. I was under the impression that the Episcopalians were “fairly” liberal – am I wrong? I also thought this of Presbyterian (USA) – but some churches of that denomination tout ex-gay therapy!
The Episcopal Church owes its liberalism to Queen Elizabeth the first who, by her desire to keep the church united, made a compromise in which an attempt was made to include all levels of faith under one Church of England. While most were willing to accept this, the extreme traditionalists (Catholics) resisted being part of the Church of England and the extreme Protestants (Calvinists) resisted as well.
This is thew dilemna the Episcopal Church is facing yet again with the Calvinists, this time under the title “fundamentalists,” not wanting to remain in the Church.
The Episcopal Church is often been referred to as “Catholic Lite,” same great faith, less guilt. As an Orthodox Catholic going to a “middle church” Episcopalian Church, it is easy for me to adapt because the liturgy is fairly similar (I just had to get used to it being in English). There are no high churches in the Long Beach area that I know of, but I hear they would rival a Catholic Church any day. Low churches are usually Calvanistic or ultra-Protestant at best. These are the churches that, for the most part, are breaking away from the Episcopal Church of the US and forming alliances with churches in Africa.
I am not familiar with Presbyterians, but my experience in understanding Protestantism is that there always seems to be two versions of the same type of community: accepting and not accepting not just of gays, but of everything). Some are open communities and some are very closed. They usually tend to be divided BECAUSE of being liberal or conservative, but I hate using those terms because they have negative cognotations to them now.
Enough with the David and Jonathan stuff! The story here is that Bishop Jones may be coming around to a more inclusive understanding of Christian community, and thus be putting some distance between himself and those who would use ostensibly Christian language to lord it over the rest of us. That is welcome news exactly because it does help to set the people at liberty. Text arguments here, even when they do get past proof-texting, are not going to do much about the changes in his mind.
Hear, hear. The bottom line is that the Bishop has signalled that as gays and lesbians we have a place at the table. That is worth much when many in the Anglican communion (as per today’s article) are spreading hateful myths about us, and doing all they can to deny us our rights and our dignity.
So, what about Ruth and Naomi, just to start something a bit different…?
Any Hebrew scholars want to comment on the relationship between Ruth and Naomi?
I’m not a Hebrew scholar, and I don’t want this to end up going Off Topic.. but I’ll briefly point out that there are two peculiar things with that story: One is the use of the word that translates to “cleave,” as in, “Ruth cleaved unto Naomi.” This word is also used to describe Eve’s relationship with Adam – the quintessential Biblical couple. This definition remains ambiguous in Ruth’s case, however. But the second peculiarity is the fact that Ruth 1:16-17 is often recited at weddings from one spouse to the other as a declaration of eternal love. I’m sure not every engaged or married couple knows that it was Ruth declaring her love to Naomi in these verses.
David said:
Perhaps he didn’t, but this isn’t the “choose a critique” hour. I posted a critique of something. If Alan disagreed, he should have said why, so I could respond. The best he could do was reminisce about a root canal, and throw out a general request to translate and explain, and presumably, (since he wasn’t specific), take into account every pro-gay interpretation, despite not knowing Hebrew well enough to translate.
Maybe, but nowhere near as condescending as you and Timothy were to me. Nonetheless, Alan (and anyone else), if I was condescending, I’m sorry.