Philemon lived in the city of Colossæ, in present day Turkey, and was apparently one of the people Paul converted to Christianity there. Philemon had a slave named Onesimus, who ran away and went to Paul, who was by then a prisoner in Rome. Paul converted Onesimus to Christianity and sent him back to Philemon with a short letter, the Epistle to Philemon.
In the letter, Paul's tone is very different from the one he often takes in his letters to entire churches — no denunciations, just affection and persuasion. Basically he tells Philemon that now Onesimus is their brother, and Philemon should treat him as such. He should not punish him for running away, but receive him mercifully and affectionately.
Paul does not tell Philemon to set Onesimus free, but the relationship of slave and master inevitably becomes different when the master considers the slave his equal as a brother in the Lord. I thought of the words of the Christmas hymn "O Holy Night," — "Chains shall he break, for the slave is our brother/ And in his name all oppression shall cease." It took us a long time to fully work through the implications of the fact that the slave is our brother.
As I said in my response to Steve, there is the saying, which I know annoys some people, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner." Unfortunately, we find it all too easy to hate what we think is the sin (and I fully understand that many readers don't think some things I consider sin are sinful at all), but rather than loving the one we consider the sinner, we find it all too easy to hate him as well. Those of us who believe that St. Paul was right about sexual morality, in the way he has traditionally been interpreted, have to set that teaching squarely in the context of Jesus' command to love one another as we love ourselves, even more to love others as he has loved us.
And if many gay people are unhappy that there are churches that oppose same-sex marriage, I really hope that they can recognize that (apart from a few crazies like Phelps) we're on your side when it comes to things like gay-bashing and parental acceptance. Remind us to live up to our professed beliefs, because we still have work to do to get the message out to everybody in our churches.
24 comments:
Naturgesetz-
I didn't get a chance to read this whole post because I am heading out the door. Your blog has been on my to-do list for weeks, but I have been really tied up with school projects.
I hope that you are open to conversation, and you certainly seem to be, and I am very interested in having it with you. So I hope this weekend I can catch up on all of your postings, educate myself in your philosophy, and have a meaningful conversation over some posts. I don't think I have ever met anyone quite like you, and my stock arguments don't quite stand up against your clearly well thought out and impassioned beliefs. I respect that more than I can express.
I try my hardest not to offend people, and I know that I fail in that regard often. Obviously, my beliefs about reality are as clear and obvious to me, as yours are to you, and I appreciate that and respect that (regardless of my tone at times). So I hope that you can excuse any temporal lapse in judgment I make when I am particularly flustered about a point! I am sure that I didn't/won't intend it to be taken personally.
Much Love,
Steve
Thanks, Steve. I know I can get too excited in presenting my opinions, so I *ought* not to take offense at someone who is equally passionate, but I'm afraid I'm only too human..
I agree whole heartedly. The way AJ and Matt were treated were a violation of every Christian principle to love others and want what's best for them.
Following several blogs I've recently discovered, I've noticed that both you and Steve comment regularly. I've indirectly commented on Steve's answer to AJ, in AJ's blog, but have remained intensely interested in the discussion between you and Steve that seemed to begin in the comment section of AJ's post "2 broken ribs." Your blog is a much better forum for that discussion.
My interest in this discussion stems from a lifetime of experience as a person who just happens to be gay; although, my sexuality is nowhere near the top of the list of my defining characteristics. Years ago, I was shocked and saddened to discover gay people who held strong beliefs in organized religion. Shocked because of the apparent contradiction in the two opposing belief systems, and saddened, because I felt that that such people were beyond ignorant, that they must surely face a diminished future handicapped by their stupidity! Lately, however, when I come across such people, I have a much milder reaction, more of an "Oh! Another one of them..." thing, and mentally move on without pause. But, in all these years, I've never understood . . ..
I'd been working on this comment for over an hour now, and realized that I got all wound up and had only scratched the surface of what I want to say. Chastizing myself for getting into yet another situation where I pound my forehead against a brick wall, I deleted all I'd written and started over. Mainly, I wonder if you'll respond without quoting and preaching...
Just for curiousity's sake, how would you act and react if the Church produced an encyclical stating that (a) women are unequivocally equal to men, with equal rights and opportunities in all society, both religious and secular, and, (b) all consensual sexual activity is outside the purview of the Church?
First thing I'd do is figure out where it stands on the "to be believed" scale, because, frankly, I couldn't believe the second part. There are degrees of certitude attaching to various types of pronouncements. If they said this was one which absolutely, positively, had to be believed or you're not a Catholic, and it could not be proved that the person who issued it was an impostor, I'd join an Eastern Orthodox Church, because it would prove that the Catholic Church had abandoned the truth and was no longer an authentic teacher of God's revelation.
All moral questions are within the purview of the Church.
But, of course, I'm confident that no such document will ever be issued. And since it ain't gonna happen, I'm not going to become Orthodox.
See, the Church can't just arbitrarily decide what it's going to teach. It is teaching what it has received from God, and that "deposit" of revelation does not change. Insight can deepen, but the truth does not change. So if what has been taught for 2000 years (that there is a sexual morality which is part of revealed truth) is suddenly declared false, then the Church must have gone off the rails.
Again, there are degrees of certitude, depending on who is saying something and how insistent they are, and how precise they are. So, for example, at one time, it was taken for granted that slavery was okay. Nobody came out and issued a solemn pronouncement to that effect. So there was no solid official teaching which had to be reversed when finally people began to see that slavery was contrary to human dignity.
But from the commandments against adultery and lust to the verses on homosexual conduct through all that has been said interpreting the scriptures, there is such a basis for saying that the Church can teach in that area, that to abdicate would be incredible.
BTW, in matters like this, in all questions of any sort of morality, the Church does not understand itself to be making rules (which would mean it could repeal the rules) but declaring what God has established.
To clarify something for anonymous, just because an "organized religion" is, does not mean that it categorically prohibits homosexual behaviour. It just so happens that the two or three major faiths WE tend to know about in the US do. I can assure you that is not the case outside the country (or even within it).
At any rate, there are many laws and rules to regulate my behavior, by the government, by society, by the Church, etc. It seems odd to me that someone would expect sexuality to be completely exempt from any guidelines.
As a further pull for myself, I'd like to state that I don't know how someone lives WITHOUT faith in a God and participation in an organization of like-minded people. Btu that's a statement whose justification exceeds a reasonable post length. :P
I'll reply to James first, since that's easier...
I'm an unrepentant perfectionist, and, as such, tried to be extremely precise as I wrote on an easily misunderstood topic; however, as you've pointed out, I missed a few things. To clarify my original post, I meant:
1. organized religion, for the purposes of this discussion, to be Western religions such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I know Eastern and alternative religions are organized and practiced in the US, but those do not factor significantly in our society.
2. 'consensual sexual activity' meant exactly that, any physical behavior willingly engaged in by any human being that could be construed as "sexual" - note that this definition does not include things not physical, nor does it include any consequences, positive, negative or neutral, of the activity
3. While I didn't 'qualify' myself by stating my religious affiliation or lack thereof, I do most certainly believe that there is something much larger than me, a higher power, one that I call god (not God) for lack of a better word. I just have never found god in any formal church setting.
Hope that helps.
Anon —
I'm glad you decided to answer James first, because it gives me a chance to backtrack. I'm not really sure what I'd do.
On the one hand, for the reasons I gave, it would be extremely hard for me to believe that the Catholic Church was continuing to teach the same doctrine, if such an encyclical were issued and it were claimed to be "infallible." But there is the contrary point that I believe that the Catholic Church is the most complete expression of what Jesus is talking about when scripture quotes him as saying"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." So I'd have a real conflict of principles to be resolved.
Good, because here's all I'd prepared til now:
Now for the more difficult response to Naturegesetz:
I said, gently and sincerely, “I wonder if you'll respond without quoting and preaching...” and you did, in only the first paragraph of the first responsive post. Even there, you avoided what was clearly the intent of my request, to see if you would be willing to publicly examine your beliefs in light of a few significant, but obviously hypothetical changes in the doctrine that is the foundation of those beliefs. The remainder of your responses were, unfortunately, what I wished to avoid, and, I think, quite beneath you.
That came out really harsh, my "Good" you really need to . . .
What would you think about, feel, examine, and maybe even conclude about my questions as a HUMAN BEING? Not as a Jesuit priest? Not as if what you write here will be part of St. Peter's evaluation of your right to a place in Heaven?
I'm being serious and sincere here, it's just that black letters on a white background cannot accurately all that, and I also know that when I'm trying to be real careful about how I present myself, it often comes across as cold and arrogant.
I'm sorry. I thought I was telling you what I believe that led me to the conclusion in that first paragraph. And then I thought I was telling you what I believe that makes me less than absolutely sure what I would do.
And I suppose I thought that an insight into what I believe might be as relevant as a speculative answer about what I'd do in a hypothetical situation.
Sometimes I get the feeling that hypotheticals are set-ups for a "gotcha," so I do tend to be wary of them.
Let me put it this way, your hypothesis sets up a situation that I find so inconceivable that it is virtually impossible to deal with even on a hypothetical basis.
I'm trying to think of an analogy. So far the best I can come up with is, "What would you drink if there were no water?" Well, water is the principal component of everything I drink. So how do I answer?
OK. Let's make it easier for you to talk with me:
Your first words in response were about the "believability" of my hypothetical Papal encyclical. You indicated that you'd decide that issue based on the Truth as you currently understand it. The Truth, as you define it, is the Bible and the cumulative doctrine that is the Catholic Church.
Suppose, hypothetically, that I applied the "believability" test to the Bible and to all my experiences, to date, with organized religion. Suppose further that none passed the test. I'm obviously left right where I started, not able to comfortably fit my personal beliefs within the teachings of a Western organized religion. Leaving the question I asked originally still open.
How do gay people with strong religious beliefs explain themselves to one who sees this as an impossible contradiction?
So, if I understand, the question is
//How do gay people with strong religious beliefs explain themselves to one who sees this as an impossible contradiction?//
And I take it the contradiction in question is between the strong religious beliefs and being gay.
It'll take me a while to answer this, because I always want to write a book, and I will have other things to do this evening. So I'll compose an answer off line and post it when it's done.
But for starters, it seems to me that there are three different things in play here. There is my orientation. There are my beliefs. And there is my conduct. I think that my beliefs are dependent on faith, which in turn I consider a gift from God. In other words, it is not something that is demonstrable in the way a mathematical proposition or a logical syllogism is. It is possible to say that I find none of it absolutely self-contradictory, and that a lot of it seems to me to make sense. But I have no illusion (as I once did) that I can *prove* it in such a way that any honest person would be compelled to accept that everything I believe is true.
So it's about faith, and you've got it or you don't.
More to follow, if I'm not going off in an unresponsive direction. Next I think I need to say how it seems to me that my faith deals with my orientation.
It just occurs to me that if I am trying to answer the question you were asking, and what I've said so far looks as if it might somehow be on point, it deserves a fresh post, rather than being buried in the comments section. So I'll plan to edit my preceding response and post it under a fresh title, with maybe a bit more content.
Probably it will take more than one post for me to give what I consider an adequate response to the question.
I think a different part (b) to the proposed encylical would be a much better analogy:
Use of the left hand for any activity normally performed by the right is an abomination.
From what I understand, this actually used to be part of Catholic doctrine as there are many negative references to the left throughout scripture.
Given that we accept that being left-handed is not a choice but a result of brain chemistry, to declare left-handness as a "sinful lifestyle" would be both cruel and nonsensical.
Since it is generally agreed by most scientists and mental health professionals that homosexuality is not a choice and is likely set in stone before birth, calling it a sin also seems cruel and nonsensical.
The only direct OT admonitions against sex between men (but not between women) are in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Other scriptures people use to condemn homosexuality in the OT, like the destruction of Sodom, are not about homosexuality at all.
In the NT, the only admonitions come from Paul rather than Jesus and there is disagreement among scholars as to what the two passages are actually referring in 1 Corinthians and Romans.
On the other hand, Jesus himself makes two very important statements regarding OT law:
1. He essentially calls the people fools for following dietary restrictions set in Leviticus. If the people are fools for following The Law, then what is the purpose of The Law? Furthermore, has God changed his mind about The Law, since he chastises its followers?
2. He makes it clear that God is not the author of all OT law when he tells the Pharisees that Moses added the laws for divorce. If Moses added those, what else was his word rather than God's?
Putting these two together, along with the notion that we are no longer bound by The Law but are under grace, calls OT law in general into question.
OT law that is followed to this day all involves, to the best of my knowledge, harm done by one person or persons to others. With the exception of the commandments to not worship other Gods.
A sexual relationship between two people causes no one any harm. Further, if we think about the context of the times, women were simply baby incubators and men supplied the necessary sperm. If Onan spilled his seed and was struck dead for it, then two men each spilling seed would be a double loss of baby paste in the eyes of the people of the time.
Two women having sexual relations, on the other hand, need not involve any visual evidence of loss of baby materials. There is no mention in OT law of f/f sex for precisely this reason, I think.
Two men = waste of sperm
Two women = nothing wasted
If we add the puritannical attitudes toward sexuality in the Judeo/Christian tradition, we also see that two men making love is an act of pure love and pleasure rather than a pleasurable act that will bring forth new Israelites.
One more thing to add, from one of your other posts:
But if God loves me, am I not as much entitled to the joy and the pleasure of sexual activity as any heterosexual person? In a word, no. . . . all of us have to put up with some elements of pain, suffering, and sorrow in our lives. Some people get dread diseases, some people lose loved ones to death at times or in circumstances that are especially painful, some people are homosexual.
There is a big difference between disease and death and homosexuality. God does not cause people to have diseases and then deny them the right to seek a cure. God does not give people an option to come back from the dead but declare it a sin to do so.
God giving a person a homosexual orientation then denying love and happiness because of it is an act of sheer cruelty, in my eyes. It's akin to offering a starving person with a deadly peanut allergy a peanut butter sandwich. He can eat it and die immediately or not eat it and die slowly and painfully.
As humans, we are hardwired with a need for love, companionship and intimacy. To give a person all of these but then throw in the "gotcha" of being attracted to the wrong gender is inhumane, though the answer I usually hear to this is God is not human so there is no concept of humane in his actions.
None of what I've written is an attack on you, Naturgesetz, mind you. It's more of an offering of another way of looking at the issues at hand as I feel deeply saddened by your self-imposed celibacy. I respect your choice, though; none of us has the right to impose our personal choices on others.
As I said, this is in no way an attack. You may well have thought through all of what I have written already and long ago.
Forgot something I should've included!
As any male who has been (willingly) penetrated can tell you, the male body seems nothing if not deliberately designed for anal sex, given that the prostate gland, or male "G" spot, is located internally and most easily stimulated via anal sex. Plus, the anal region is jam-packed with pleasure-sensing nerve endings that enjoy a vigorous rub.
If God is truly against men having sex with one another, why give us the desire and design for it? That's entrapment.
:-)
mr. hci —
Thanks for commenting.
Just an aside about Sodom. Lot was a fairly new arrival, so his offer of his daughters would have amounted to as much a violation of hospitality by the people of Sodom, although he would have been doing his personal duty as host. One could read it as suggesting that raping women is less bad than raping men. But I'm willing to leave it aside apart from saying that it is a place where homosexual activity of some sort is not mentioned with approbation.
Similarly, even if we say that the specific prohibitions of Leviticus and Deuteronomy are not binding as such on a Christian, we have two more instances where homosexual conduct is mentioned but not approved.
When we come to the New Testament, I don't think we can set aside what St. Paul says. It is as much scripture as the Gospels. Whatever the nuances some scholars may wish to propose, it seems pretty clear to me that St. Paul is unaware of any homosexual behavior which he finds moral; all homosexual behavior he talks about is wrong, he says.
I'm not 100% sure you are right about all OT law with continuing validity being either about God or about activity which harms another — and in fact the prohibition of coveting would seem to apply to behavior which does no actual harm. But when we come to Jesus, the standard is clearly not one which permits anything that does no harm. One may not blow a trumpet when giving alms or pray on the street corner. One may not despise others by thanking God that one is better than them. One must forgive. One must turn the other cheek. One must be vigilant awaiting the master's return. One must love one's neighbor as oneself and do god to the least brothers and sisters. One may not be angry. One may not lust.
It's an interesting take you have on the point that male homosexuality gets to OT prohibitions, not female. But in Paul, we find that women engaging in unnatural practices is as much a sign of depravity as men being consumed with passion for men.
I do not consider homosexuality God's decision for anybody any more than I consider anything else that happens in nature (I mean stuff that isn't a miracle) God's decision. God has created nature, and the way it works is, in a sense, his will. But IMO he does not actively will that a hurricane kill the specific individuals it kills. It is not, IMO, his active will that people get cancer, or die in accidents, or have a homosexual orientation. He permits these things; and it is not a sin to try to prevent or overcome them. What you say about other things in that regard I would say about homosexuality: one need not simply accept it as God's will.
I just don't see it as denying a person love when they are told not to have sex. Everybody is entitled to love. Everybody ought to be loved. Everybody is entitled to express love. Everybody is entitled to experience love. But those expressions and experiences are not necessarily a matter of having sex. I think it is possible to have love, companionship, and intimacy in a relationship which does not include sexual activity. It can be very difficult for many people to keep such a friendship non-sexual, but I think it is what we're called to.
No doubt, anal penetration is as pleasurable as you indicate because of the way the male body is constructed. As I understand it, anal intercourse also carries the highest risk of transmitting disease of any form of commonly practiced sexual activity. I don't think the level of pleasure associated with an activity has much to do with its morality.
I won't repeat here what I wrote in "Image and Likeness of God" and "Belief and Orientation" about sexual intercourse as bodily the image of God's love. But I think there is an argument beyond Sodom, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Paul, an argument in which there is not a simple, possibly arbitrary prohibition, but a positive meaning and value of sex which homosexual conduct fails to attain.
Thanks again for commenting so thoughtfully.
A few quick responses:
Homosexuality is generally considered these days to be primarily, if not entirely, biological.
If we accept that we are God's creations, we must accept that genetics and biology are his design.
If we accept that they are his design, we must accept that he designed them to produce certain traits.
If we accept this, we must accept that homosexuality is a trait that God, being omniscient, knew would occur in five to ten percent of the population.
If we accept that God would deliberately through his design create homosexuals, then we must ask why he would prohibit homosexuals from physically expressing their love as heterosexuals do.
This leads us to two possible scenarios, in my view:
1. God f'ed up
2. Scripture condeming homosexuality was either inserted by man, who did not fully understand the physical and psychological workings of sex, or was inspired by God yet misinterpreted and/or mistranslated by men.
If we accept that God is omniscient, omnipresent and all powerful, option 1 is absurd. That leaves us with option 2.
----
Nowhere, that I am aware, in The Bible are oral and anal sex prohibited between a husband and wife. These are both non-procreative acts and are by no means uncommon in the heterosexual world. In addition, the only passage against contraception, as far as I am aware, is that of Onan and that one is a special case as Onan was avoiding impregnating his brother's wife.
If the potential for procreation is the yardstick by which sexual conduct is measured, as you appear to be asserting, that puts homosexual acts on the exact same level as all sexual acts between consenting individuals of age, with the exception of unprotected intercourse between a man and a woman and that is hardly the norm or we would be absolutely overrun with babies.
---------
Yes, anal sex can spread disease. That is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals, however. The distinction is promiscuity and I fully believe that a large part of the reason for the promiscuity in gay culture has to do with thousands of years of condemnation. Until not that long ago, two people of the same sex sharing a life held the potential for loss of family, loss of friends, loss of employment, loss of freedom, loss of life.
Gay men, like all humans, have a need for sexual intimacy. The spectre of total loss was enough to drive gay sex underground where encounters were, and sadly still are, brief and anonymous and held far less risk. I am not condoning this behavior, just making an attempt to understand it.
Long story short: monogamy is the best protection against STDs, whether the couple be m/f, m/m or f/f. By denying monogamy to two of those three combinations, greater risk of STDs is inevitable.
-------
Again, I want to stress that I am not attacking you, just engaging in debate, for once, with someone who knows what it's like to be on my side of the fence.
Mr. HCI —
Thanks for your further comments.
As for God's will —
Of course, God knew homosexuality would occur, but that doesn't mean that it is a good thing. There is, as I've said, a lot of stuff that happens — including, for example, genetic diseases — that make trouble for us. Why God allows any of it is one of those mysteries that will always be with us. "Who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counsellor?" But I would attribute it to his permissive will rather than his active will.
And, again I don't see it as God saying, "Okay, I'm creating a world in which there will be homosexuals. Shall I let them have sex or not? — Nah." I see it as God saying, "I'm creating a world in which there will be this wonderful way for people to share in my work of creation by procreating children. When they do what can lead to procreation, they will experience a joy which gives them a little taste of heaven. I hope they will use this gift as I intend it to be used."
So I propose Option 3: in a sinless world, there would not be a problem, but fallen humanity, with its lusts and appetites, misuses God's gift.
As for various activity between men and women —
Basically, you've got my position right: there can be foreplay, but the semen goes into the vagina or we've got a problem. And they've got to be married and not contracepting. So it isn't just about homosexuals. But that's the focus in this corner of the blogosphere.
As for promiscuity being a result of intolerance —
That's an interesting thought, and there may be something to it. OTOH at least recently there have been lots of cases of guys living together. And I believe that in past eras, if two guys were reasonably straight acting, they could be roommates without people assuming that the relationship was sexual. In the 19th century, the phenomenon of two women sharing living quarters long term was common enough in these parts that the term "Boston marriage" was coined to describe the situation.
I don't deny that homosexuals are entitled to intimacy in their lives, if they can find someone suitable. But I'm not convinced that the love has to be expressed sexually. Some of the testimonies at the Courage website, as well as College Jay,at "Adventures …" (linked on my blog) tell me that non-sexual intimacy can satisfy. It may require some effort, especially for those who have tasted the "pleasures of the flesh," but it seems that it is not impossible. If it is the right thing to do, then it is worth the effort.
Thanks again for commenting, and I realize your comments are not a personal attack. Same is true of my responses.
God bless.
Mr. HCI —
What it comes down to, I think, is whether you see homosexuality as part of God's perfect plan or whether you read Genesis 1-3 as indicating that God's plan as being heterosexuality, implying that homosexuality is one of those things we find in nature and humanity which are in some way made possible by, or consequences of, the fall.
Never understood why people hated that phrase--except if they hate the concept/idea that they could be sinning in the first place.
That's the only reason I can think of.
I think that's a good point. Maybe not everybody who feels that way, but in many instances, that's probably a good part of it.
Unfortunately, there are also some people who say "hate the sin but love the sinner" but they really don't love the sinner.
Post a Comment