Part 2

IT IS CERTAINLY noteworthy that in not a single one of the Gospels does Jesus say a single word against same-sex sexual relationships. I know of one scholar who, when someone pointed that out said she assumed that Jesus figured everyone knew what we now would call gay and Lesbian sex were wrong so he took that for granted. As I recall, I didn't think the scholar was particularly friendly to the Gospel or to Jesus or to Christianity, at least not conventional Christianity,  and would not have wanted something so welcome as acceptance of LGBTQ+ sexuality to a modern, egalitarian audience to have been attributable to Jesus.  As I recall she was "that" style of "historical Jesus" historian.   

If that is going to be your accepted criterion for finding in the Word of Jesus what isn't said explicitly - or any other text, for that matter - what can't you claim he left out because he assumed it was generally assumed?  I will point out that not one of the four canonical Gospel writers attributed such words to Jesus nor those who may have added to them during the process of what became the more or less standardized forms of the Gospels so we can assume they would have, also, assumed that Jesus said nothing about same-sex sexual relationships worth mentioning, either.  And, I will point out, that considering other New Testament commentary seems to assume that Jews under the Roman pagan occupation would have been witness to and, no doubt, tempted by and robustly condemned all manner of, by Jewish Law, illicit sex as much as they would have other illicit pagan practice, such an omission in the recorded Words of Jesus is far better suspected of being an expression of intentionally withholding such ideas than of what that modern scholar presumes.

Nor, I will point out, does Paul specifically attribute any condemnation of same-sex sexual activity to the words of Jesus, which, if that was within the Gospel as he learned it from those who heard Jesus in life, since he specifically goes into that subject, is a notable omission on his part.  What to make of that, it turns out from the context of how he said what he did on the subject, is far from an easy thing.

In the usual layout of the New Testament the first thing you will come to that impinges on same-sex sex is in Romans, what is often considered Paul's magnum opus, in Chapter 1, verses 24 through 32 Paul explicitly condemns, first Women having "unnatural" sex which he doesn't define as having sex with other Women but he is more explicit if still problematically vague* in accusing Males of having sex with other Males.

But that isn't the only thing he's saying is wrong in his condemnation of gentile paganism as you can see if you take in more of the setting of those words.  Just from what was much, much later designated to be the First Chapter you can see the context which I have never heard a queer-basher quote when they extract those words, words in which just about anyone, no matter what sex and what sexual orientation, Jew or gentile, pagan or confessor of Jesus could, if they were honest, find within themselves.  

18For God’s vehemence against all the impiety and injustice of human
beings, who by injustice suppress the truth, is revealed from heaven,
19Because what is known of God is manifest among them; because God made it manifest to them. 20For from the creation of the cosmos his invisible things are clearly descried, understood from the things made: both his everlasting power and his deity; so they are without defense, 21For, knowing God, they did not give him glory and thanks as God, but instead grew inane in their reasoning, and their witless heart was darkened. 22Having pretensions to be wise, they became imbeciles, 23And exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for a likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of
quadrupeds, and of reptiles; 24Hence God handed them over in the desire of their hearts to impurity, the disgracing of their bodies amongst themselves —25They who exchanged God’s truth for a lie, and adored and worshipped the creation rather than the Creator who is blessed unto the ages; amen. 26Thus God delivered them to the passions of disgrace; for even their females exchanged natural use for what is contrary to nature, 27And the males also, in the same way, abandoning natural use with the female, burned in their longing
for one another, males performing shameful acts among males, and receiving in turn within themselves the requital befitting their deviancy. 28And, as they did not deem it worthwhile to acknowledge God, God surrendered them to a reprobate mind, to do indecent things, 29Having been filled with every injustice, wickedness, avarice, vice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, boorishness; whisperers, 30Slanderers, haters of God, licentious, overweening, braggarts, contrivers of evils, defiant of parents; 31Witless, faithless, ruthless, merciless—32Though knowing God’s decree that those who do such things are deserving of death, they not only do them, but give approval to those engaging in these same practices.

Romans 1:18-32 David Bentley Hart translation

I would start by pointing out Paul seems to take a lot for granted in this passage, he assumes that his theological and cosmological framing was generally revealed to gentiles and Jews and that pagan worship of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic idols and gods was a conscious decision to turn away from the God Who is revealed in the Jewish monotheistic conception that Paul (and I, by the way) accept as real instead of misconceived.  

His brush with which he paints that picture of depravity is incredibly broad and the general picture of depravity he paints, including, certainly, huge swipes of dirt which are shared in, fully, not only by pagans whose sexual desires and practice is strictly hetero-sexual but by those who maintain themselves in chastity.  I fully accept that many of the figures in Christian history who vowed themselves to not have sex were faithful to that vow (to which they felt themselves called, as Paul more or less confesses he was) but whose likenesses are rather well caught by Paul's colorful categories of degeneracy and sinfulness.  "Impiety, injustice, adoring aspects of creation instead of the Creator, refusing to give glory to God, inane in their reasoning (looking for excuses to do what they want, no doubt the foremost reason for that), a pretension to be wise, (and a full bore shell of buckshot) filled with every injustice, wickedness, avarice, vice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, boorishness; whisperers, slanderers, haters of God, licentious, overweening, braggarts, contrivers of evils, defiant of parents; witless, faithless, ruthless, merciless

Despite what I've heard Republican-fascist TV hallelujah peddlers misrepresent as Paul's call for the death penalty for people who engage in same-sex sex (before they shake down the suckers for donations) Paul was pretty much giving such an inclusive list of those who "deserve death" that no one in his audience could possibly have escaped.  In his famous declaration that Jesus was like us in all things EXCEPT IN SIN, if you take that as something he really believed then he was pretty much saying that everyone except Jesus was "deserving of death."

I will accuse Paul of the sin of bearing false witness in that there are certainly People who engage in same-sex sex, especially those who do so only in a framework of egalitarian love and justice and faithfulness, who he slanders when he attributes those things to them, though Paul was clearly ignorant of the possibility of that kind of same-sex sexual life.  He certainly would have known he could just as well have attributed all of those things to those who professed a belief in Jesus and who were strictly monogamous within a hetero-sexual marriage (to use the anachronistic term for what Paul could have known).  In so far as Paul did not do practice even-handedness in calling out such vices universally, attributing them only in association with same-sex, sex, he is in serious danger of inconsistency.  

I will point out that he never claimed to be infallible, nor that he was sinless. Nor that in reading him you can't find typical and flawed thinking. I have mentioned before that Timothy Luke Johnson, someone who David Bentley Hart acknowledged was a deep scholar of Paul even as he disagreed with his attribution of two or three of the disputed letters to Paul, pointed out that Paul had a really hard time whenever he broached the model of patriarchal familial relationships, in which those who had an exclusive orientation for same-sex sex could not fit though those who had sex with women, who married a woman who was their acknowledged wife but who had sex with, for example slaves, both female and male, with prostitutes (pagan temple or otherwise) children of both sexes (especially those who were enslaved) etc. things which a typical later Western Christian may not have any conception of but which were so common as to constitute the ambient gentile milieu in which those Paul addressed in his letters would find a constant temptation to slide back into was what Paul would have been addressing.  His lack of specificity in his letter is certainly a shorthand, perhaps choosing something which a presumed hetero-sexually oriented majority of those in receipt of it would find distasteful or strange as a means of reinforcing the list. If that's the case, he made his general point far more ineffective as the typical use of that passage to exclusively condemn same-sex sex proves.  I have never, once, seen it applied more generally when it is cited, if it has been used more generally to a general audience, I'd love to know the percentages of that general use as compared to the limited use of it to condemn same-sex sex, especially among those for whom few of the other items in Paul's list of evils apply. Especially among those whose commitment to one other person is a contradiction of his depiction of us.

I have read or heard a straight student of scripture who points out that when you expand this passage even farther, into what was designated in the early medieval period as "Chapter Two" that Paul seems to be making a far wider point about the sinfulness of us all, gentile pagans, gentiles believers in Jesus, Jewish believers in Jesus, Jews who didn't accept the status of Jesus. That Paul is consciously making a comparison to what he and his audience might consider "pagan gentile" sin with the sin of believers in Jewish monotheism, even those who rigorously observe The Law (which, famously or infamously, comes in for harsh treatment, or, rather, the arrogance that those who profess The Law).  Exactly after that passage quoted above, with its extensive list of evils that Paul adjudicates as "deserving of death," he proved that something far more complex is his what he is really talking about:

Chapter 2

1So you are without defense, O man—everyone who judges—for in that
you judge another you condemn yourself; because you who judge engage in the same practices.

Which, considering what Paul just said should make you think "Whooah! look who's talking!"  But he continues in something far more complex than the typical queer-bashing dogma and doctrine two-step:

2But we know that God’s judgment on those doing such things is in accord with truth. 3And do you, O man—you who judge those doing such things while also doing them—reckon that you will escape God’s judgment? 4Or do you disdain the abundance of his kindness and forbearance and magnanimity, ignorant that God’s kindness leads you to the heart’s transformation? 5Yet you store up indignation for yourself—in accord with your obduracy and impenitent heart—on a day of indignation and of a revelation of the just judgment of God, 6Who will requite everyone according to his deeds: 7To those who by perseverance in good work seek after glory and honor and incorruption—the life of the Age;d 8But to those of selfish ambition, who are also defiant of truth and yet compliant with injustice—indignation and vehemence. 9Distress and anguish upon the soul of everyone applying himself to what is evil—Judaean first, then Greek; 10But glory and honor and peace to everyone applying himself to what is good—Judaean first, then Greek. 11For with God there is no respecting of persons. 12For as many as have sinned without the Law will perish without the Law; and as many as have sinned within the Law will be judged by the Law; 13For those who hear the Law are not upright before God; rather doers of the Law will be proved upright. 14For, whenever gentiles who do not have a law do the things of the Law by nature, they who do not have Law are a Law to themselves: 15They who exhibit the work of the Law inscribed in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness with them, and the thoughts between one another making accusation or even offering defense 16On the day that, according to my good tidings, God judges men’s secrets through the Anointed One Jesus. 17But if you bear the name of Judaean and rely on Law and boast in God, 18And know what is willed, and attempt exceptional things, having received instruction from the Law, 19And having also persuaded yourself to be a guide to the blind, a light to those in darkness, 20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, having in the Law the very shape of knowledge and of the truth . . .

If it was not Paul's intention to note the equality in sin of hetero-sexuals and LGBTQ+ people - I doubt such a thing would have occurred to him, he almost certainly couldn't understand the issue in terms that are far more obvious to us- that is certainly a legitimate interpretation of what he said.  If the things he attributed to gay men and Lesbians are the things, the deeds that expose their personalities as sinful, then those are amply present in the monogamous, married hetero-sexual population and those who, like Paul, forego having sex.

21Do you who teach another not therefore teach yourself? You who preach not to steal, do you steal? 22You who say not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery?  You who abominate idols, do you rob temples? 23Do you who boast in the Law dishonor God by transgressing the Law? 24For “God’s name is blasphemed among the gentiles because of you,” as has been written. 25For circumcision does indeed have value if you happen to practice the Law; but if you happen to be a transgressor of the Law your circumcision has become a foreskin. 26If, therefore, “Foreskin” keeps the just requirements of the Law, will not his foreskin be reckoned as circumcision? 27And “Foreskin” (physically speaking), fulfilling the Law, will adjudge you—on account of scripture and circumcision—the transgressor of Law. 28For he is not a Judaean who appears to be so, neither is circumcision something apparent in the flesh —29Rather, the Judaean is one in secret, and circumcision is of the heart—in spirit, not letter—whose praise is not from human beings but from God.

I don't think it's possible to pluck a few sentences out of the incredible complex of argument and reason that Paul's letter to the Romans is to do it justice.  I think Paul did, in fact, think that men having sex with men and women having sex with women was wrong. It's as clear that his understanding of both kinds of sex was extremely limited, extremely one-side, extremely negative and in no way was it what I have advocated for either same-sex sex or hetero-sexual sex to avoid the status of sinfulness, that it is egalitarian, that it is a product of full, free and informed adult consent, that it is faithful and committed, that it is not done in a way that risks harm conscientiously considered.  I see no evidence that such a form of same-sex sex was imaginable by Paul or by any of the other authors of the infamous fewer than ten texts in Scripture that have been responsible for the violent, murderous, harmful and so evil oppression of LGBTQ+ People WHEN THOSE PASSAGES ARE DIRECTLY IMPLICATED IN THAT OPPRESSION.

I have been a victim of both actual violence against me as a gay man and as someone who was suspect of being gay and of intimidation on the off chance that someone may have thought it was possible I was gay. And that isn't to mention the general oppression and evil that comes from the general atmosphere of anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry and legalized discrimination such as Alito and Thomas, among other wish to return us to so soon after that was allegedly ended as "unconstitutional" by Supreme Court fiat.  

Even more than I know anything that Paul said is true, I know personally and experientially that inequality, of queer-bashers doing to others what they would never want done to them (as even Paul notes in this letter is rampant in the human population) is the fruit of such a perhaps ill considered passage written in a letter which later became called "the word of the Lord," a level of authority which Paul does not claim for his letter.  I claim the right to judge its validity on the basis of the Words of Jesus, of both his condensation of The Law and the Prophets and his own stated standard for judging the truth of religious claims made by others.  That would certainly include the never claimed to be infallible teachings of someone even as great as Paul.  Just as Paul's unfortunate phrasing in Phileomon was used to justify doing to slaves what the slave drivers and owners and others would never want the slaves to do to them, an evil of untold dimensions that Paul certainly never intended, so I will judge this passage not on Paul's unknowable intentions but by its consequence.

* Considering his description of what males having sex with other males are deviating from,  "abandoning natural use with the female, burned in their longing for one another, males performing shameful acts among males," his condemnation could be restricted to an imitation of hetero-sexual penetration, presumably, anal sex.  If that's the case, you have to wonder if he were not aware of hetero-sexual anal sex which was certainly not unknown to his contemporary pagans and Jews.  I don't know what the contemporary Jewish teachings about hetero-sexual anal sex were but I have read that even some of the most restrictive later Jewish teachings on in-marriage sex was that if the husband wanted anal sex he could engage in it without sin.  I don't know if how the wife felt about that mattered to the, no doubt all-male experts on the law felt about it.  I would certainly like someone who might be aware of such scholarship on that subject to steer me to it because it would certainly be relevant to understanding Paul's possible conception of sexual practices he professes he didn't participate in which I am fully prepared to believe him on.  I do know that there are contemporary Rabbis who say that the Law prohibits male-male anal sex but that other sexual practices are permitted between men, which, considering the dangers of infection and injury, isn't an unreasonable conclusion to come to though that is far, far short of demanding that the civil law allow violence and discrimination against men who engage in anal sex.