ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ

I'm afraid to say this is right up there with "Does religion make you fat?".

While I didn't hear the SS episode, I'm afraid to say I might agree with Theophane.

Or on the other hand, it wouldn't surprise me if he was. The argument surrounding homosexuality only seems to be between the openly gay & the latently gay anyway, no one else cares

McFarland is seeing what he wants to see for reasons not hard to understand.

Stafford Carson posted a helpful article by Robert Gagnon over at his blog addressing the issue;

Not sure what you mean Ryan ...

He means those vocally opposed to homosexuality are closet homosexuals. If one is truely heterosexual they'd keep their mouth shut. Not sure how he knows this but who cares about that?

Will, sorry, I hadn't seen your comment before posting # 4. It was in response to Theo's "I'm afraid to say this is right up there with 'Does religion make you fat?' " Hence my saying .. "Or on the other hand... "
As regards the rest- time & again the loudest & most vociferous of anti-gay rhetoric has come from people who are often internally emotionally connected to the topic, who frequestly end up caught in situations with the same sex by the press, or years later admit the 'truth' behind their vitriole. It has nothing to do with "shutting up" as Andrew so elegantly puts it. It's about being neutral enough for it not to be a trigger. It's understandable why someone who's gay wishes to explore an angle when there's evidence pointing that way, but it shouldn't have to matter either way. Luckily I guess attitudes have changed in some parts of the world where people are happy to accept the value of someone without the view of them being 'challenged' or their reputation 'besmirched' by their sexuality.

Andrew,

"McFarland is seeing what he wants to see for reasons not hard to understand"

That is a charge which can be laid at the door of most people of religion.

Without getting into the myriad of differences of interpretation it is very obvious that peoples religious views are in part based on their text of birth and part on their own personalities and other innate characteristics. They then find ways to interpret their birth text to satisfy and close the dichotomies between what is written, interpreted, manipulated and ignored against the reality of the existence they find themselves in.

The fact that you (or Theophane) do not agree with Andrew's interpretation, he is not alone, can you deny him the right to hold those beliefs and to have the same credence put upon them. You have no more proved your case for your interpretation any more than he has - you simply believe what you believe and interpret your texts to support it.

Ryan,

I think I understand what you mean and this survey,



seems to address that. The last paragraph does express some caution as to the results and it is quite possible that for some it is a fear reaction I have not seen research (it may exist) which further explores this anxiety or fear to find out it's source which could well be religious or societal.

However there are no shortage of homophobes which are consistent with your analysis but the George Rekers and Ted Haggards of this world don't empirical evidence make. I am not arguing with your theory, or the fact hat in many cases it is true - just that there may be other co-existent theories which does not classify all rampant homophobes as repressed homosexuals.

Either way homophobia from repressed homosexuality or learned fear is a poison which needs to be addressed for us to become welcoming and inclusive society.

It has nothing to do with "shutting up" as Andrew so elegantly puts it. It's about being neutral enough for it not to be a trigger



Dave

"McFarland is seeing what he wants to see for reasons not hard to understand" That is a charge which can be laid at the door of most people of religion.

Yet, as William has already noted, when it comes to the issue of David and Jonathan there is practically no debate on the issue except from those grinding pink axes.

The fact that you (or Theophane) do not agree with Andrew's interpretation, he is not alone, can you deny him the right to hold those beliefs and to have the same credence put upon them.

Who said anything about denying him his 'right' to believe what he wants?

McFarland is making a public argument that homosexual acts are consistent with the Christian faith. More specifically he is making the argument that David and Jonathan were proto-homosexuals. The credence to be put in these propositions is relative to the quality of his arguments. The same can be said of those arguing the contrary.

It's a sad reflection that you equate disagreement with oppression.

You have no more proved your case for your interpretation any more than he has - you simply believe what you believe and interpret your texts to support it.

Actually I made a reasonably detailed attempt at proving my position several months ago on this blog. Feel free to read it and demonstrate where my motivations invalidate my arguments.

Either way homophobia from repressed homosexuality or learned fear is a poison which needs to be addressed for us to become welcoming and inclusive society.

Since it seems we can just make stuff up now, I was born to disapprove of homosexuality. A particular instance of the wisdom of repugnance.

Andrew,

"McFarland is making a public argument that homosexual acts are consistent with the Christian faith. More specifically he is making the argument that David and Jonathan were proto-homosexuals. "

Andrew, I think you listened to a different edition of Sunday Sequence than I did.

At no point does Andrew make the point that homosexual acts are consistent with christianity, he makes the point that David and Jonathan were in a same sex relationship, I did not hear a claim that there was a consistency argument just a reflection of a relationship (without judgement). I think he left it open to as to what that means for christianity. I am sure he has his views of that impact - thats a matter for your internal squabbles.

As for "proto-homosexuals" he actually makes the point that homosexuality is not a modern thing and indicates that this is an early recording of it, not the first or a proto, but simply a recording of it in the bible.

No one said you could be born to disapprove of homosexuality - but you can be indoctrinated or taught to either disapprove of it or to hide it by acting against those who are. In fact if you are not born to disapprove - how else does the prejudice fester.

As for making things up (unless you think homophobia is a good thing), given the source of your pronouncements I think glass houses and stones come to mind.

Do we know the ages of David and Jonathan at the time they first encountered each other?

Not sure newlach, but in the story David had already killed Goliath and Jonathan had been in several battles. Not sure what that indicates in ages. Not sure why you are asking. Not sure why I am answering.

David

I once heard a ebophile convicted of sex crimes talking about how he was now looking for an "age appropriate" relationship. I'm simply curious.

Thanks for the link Dave. I guess my feeling is why should sexuality make a difference to reputation. Why is it tied up in some people's perception of competence & ability, or whether they can be respected. I would have thought unless they're a prostitute, value isn't placed on who they sleep with or on their lovemaking skills. Being able to get a woman pregnant doesn't make you any more of a man. The human race is hardly understocked & in Christianity we have its central figure- Inception to him is through ideas, teaching us to love everyone equally. And within catholicism, we have a clerical class where the measure of a man (to join that single-sex class) isn't based on the ability to reproduce.

Re Andrew on the wisdom of repugnance. You encapsulate it so beautifully. Of course N.I society has a reputation to upkeep, we can't let Somalia take all the honours.

Newlach,


Best info I can find is that David was 18 to 23 and Jonathan was 10 to 11 years older. It would also seem that David was the dominant (action hero) in the relationship.

What that means in relation to your question I am not sure.

Having said that given the maturity of the pair and the lower age at which people married at that time I don't think there is a call to inappropriateness or an ebophillia.

Whatever their relationship, it appears to be between consenting adults even in our terms of age appropriateness.

Ryan,

I agree with you, my only caution was to repressed homosexuality being the only root of homophobia.

Having said that I think the cause of repressed homosexuality and of learned fear of homosexuality have the same source - religion and societal pressure. If homophobes were not born with it where else did they get it from.

Dave said:

Andrew, I think you listened to a different edition of Sunday Sequence than I did.

At no point does Andrew make the point that homosexual acts are consistent with christianity, he makes the point that David and Jonathan were in a same sex relationship, I did not hear a claim that there was a consistency argument just a reflection of a relationship (without judgement).

I actually took the time to read McFarland's website;

Faith and Pride is an organisation with one simple point: you can be Christian and gay. It is run by a group of gay Christians, who have accumulated experience as Anglicans, Catholics, Christadelphians, Methodists, Non-Subscribing Presbyterians, and Presbyterians.

We’re not about arguing or putting down someone else’s view. We’re putting forward an alternative view.

– Andrew McFarland

Andrew,

Now who is bringing in other texts to defend a position - what happened to solo scriptura. As I said he might have a view on the issue of consistency but that was not the subject of the broadcast or mentioned in it - it was left open to discuss.

I have no interest in your differences of interpretation, but you misrepresented the broadcast on both the issue of consistency with christianity and on the issue of "proto-homosexual" which you will note is what I have commented on.

Is there still not a question mark in some historical critical circles in relation to David's existence? I know there has been in relation to Jonathan for the same reasons that Elijah and Elisha are highly suspect. Jonathan can be removed from the narratives with virtually no interruption. Assuming there was an historical David, and that the biblical texts accurately reflect his life and conduct (which is problematic if you compare Kings with Chronicles), David is characterised to be Frank as very fond of the ladies (Bethsheba ring any bells). So if this was a homosexual relationship with Jonathan, given all the other relationships alluded to surely he could at best only be described as bi-sexual?

"Was Eve - Steve? The evidence is compelling etc etc."

Dave

Now who is bringing in other texts to defend a position - what happened to solo scriptura.

Not only this is generally idiotic it's also factually inaccurate.

Quoting materials from Mr. McFarland's website is appropriate when trying to accurately recreate his position. It has nothing to do with the Christian rule of faith

Also, Solo Scriptura and Sola Scriptura are distinct concepts. I reject the former but accept the latter. For more on the difference try Keith Mathison's book 'The shape of Sola Scriptura'.

I have no interest in your differences of interpretation, but you misrepresented the broadcast on both the issue of consistency with christianity and on the issue of "proto-homosexual" which you will note is what I have commented on.

Hardly, I never mentioned the broadcast. And I was responding to your botched response to me, and I never mentioned the broadcast.

As for 'proto-homosexual', there is a modern concept of homosexuality which would be anachronistic if applied to David and Jonathan, even granting they had a sexual relationship.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ok I'll try again

Theo- "Was Eve - Steve? The evidence is compelling etc etc". Do you mean the biblical evidence that God created Eve (it's just a name after all) out of a man; Adam, by using Adam's rib? Man said "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man". If you hold the premise that affirms this as a reality, then this is an interesting quote from the Coptic Gospel of Philip: "When Eve was still in Adam death did not exist. When she was separated from him death came into being. If he enters again and attains his former self, death will be no more." "If the woman had not separated from the man, she should not die with the man. His separation became the beginning of death. Because of this Christ came to repair the separation which was from the beginning and again unite the two, and to give life to those who died as a result of the separation and unite them".

In nature, we would class the biblical creation of Eve as cloning; as an asexual method of reproduction.
If within the context of Christianity, procreation became a requirement after the Fall as a reply to death- a punishment, along with the pain of childbirth for the Fall, then the issue seems to be whether a sexual relationship between 2 people (David & Jonathan in this case)- where procreation in the physical sense isn't the objective can be regarded as procreation in a metaphysical sense; as an abstract creation- the intimacy of 2 people communicating & creating a bond. Whether or not this is acceptable seems to be tied up in an idea of machismo, virulity & reproductive prowess, although as SiLee mentions with David's seduction of Bethsheba- & Andrew points out with our modern concept of homosexuality, it can't so easily be retrospectively applied- he's more likely best described as bi-sexual from a historical viewpoint. Whether this is accurate to the man or not or as SiLee points out, whether he even existed, can only ever be subjective.

As an aside, although Eve translates into Hebrew as αΈ€awwāh and into Arabic as Hawwa' (meaning "living one" or "source of life"), "Hawwah" is also the translation for Asherah into Aramaic. Asherah being a Semitic mother goddess. To quote- "The Hebrew Bible uses the term asherah in two senses, as a cult object and as a divine name. As a cult object, the asherah can be "made", "cut down", and "burnt", and Deuteronomy 16:21 prohibits the planting of trees as asherah, implying that a stylised tree or lopped trunk is intended. At other verses a goddess is clearly intended, as, for example, 2 Kings 23:4–7, where items are being made "for Baal and Asherah". The references to asherah in Isaiah 17:8 and 2:8 suggest that there was no distinction in ancient thought between the object and the goddess".

Its just another age old debate to allow some leverage to those who wish to say that the Bible encourages and promotes homosexuality.

King Davids life has to be studied in as much detail as provided and there is more than enough said to suggest that his relationship was at most brotherly love and that is all.

Sorry to disappoint the wishful thinkers.

SiLee (@ 20) -

Is there still not a question mark in some historical critical circles in relation to David's existence? I know there has been in relation to Jonathan for the same reasons that Elijah and Elisha are highly suspect. Jonathan can be removed from the narratives with virtually no interruption.

It has been said that the two certainties in life are death and taxes.

I would like to add a third certainty:

The phenomenon of media savvy scholars indulging in gratuitous questioning of every historical and authorship claim of the Bible. (Note the word 'gratuitous')

If there is a letter in the Bible which says clearly that it is from Paul, then that means, of course, that it could not have been written by Paul. If the Bible says that such and such a person existed, then, of course, we are duty bound to doubt it!

And so it goes on, ad nauseam.

Of course, the same analysis is not applied consistently to all other ancient literature, is it? If David, Jonathan, Elijah and Elisha did not exist, then I think it is fair to say that we can know nothing about anyone else within the ancient world. If the historical record of the Jews is to be doubted, then on what basis are we to believe the historical record of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks or Romans?

I am not advocating a refusal to study the biblical texts critically; I am asking why such criticism is not applied consistently over all ancient literature. (I think I know the answer to this!)

Andrew,

The programme (and the talk) discussed the evidence for proposing whether the bible supports a view of the relationship between David and Jonathan as a same sex or homosexual relationship. What Andrews view of what that means for christianity was not the topic. As Will said above

"...it wouldn't follow from this that the text is lending moral support to that relationship"

bounds the discussion on textual interpretation and not an extrapolation into whether it challenges christian doctrine. If his website had said he does not believe it offers an alternative view of christianity would that have changed any part of the debate on interpretation.

your attempt at 'well he would say that anyway' does not engage on whether he might be right or not. I could dismiss everything you say as 'you would say that anyway' but it would end up not debating the actual core issue.

As for proto-homosexual - it is a nonsense term. We have in recent history provided a word in our vocabulary which describes our understanding of sexuality but you seem to be inferring that homosexuality is a modern thing - it is not, we just have a new word to describe it. It is not anachronistic to describe a relationship as homosexual just because it was before we first used that word. We have many modern words to describe things from the past and it is not anachronistic to use them. What is anachronistic is to use old words to describe things that we understand and can describe in a better way now.

This whole thing could be dismissed as a faintly risible example of what happens when the "Green beans and street theatre brigade" try their hand at Biblical exegesis, were it not for Andrew's uncovering of the ulterior agenda;

"Faith and Pride is an organisation with one simple point: you can be Christian and [actively, i assume] gay."

Theophane,

The "ulterior aganda" has nothing to do with the validity or not of the claims.

The fact that you dismiss it out of hand, find it risible and your attempts to discredit the source add credence and interest to the interpretation.

Maybe the "Green beans and street theatre brigade" might just have fresh eyes on a subject that others are to blinkered to question.

Don't some theologians think that Paul's "thorn in the flesh" might possibly have been homosexuality ?

Peter,

An idea for next years talk perhaps.

It's not new Dave. I've heard that one bandied about way back in the 80's.

Paul's thorn in the flesh and whether or not it was homosexuality he was struggling with would be a good subject though !

Peter,

I will pass it on when I next see Andrew (McFarland).

Dave

The programme (and the talk) discussed the evidence for proposing whether the bible supports a view of the relationship between David and Jonathan as a same sex or homosexual relationship. What Andrews view of what that means for christianity was not the topic...bounds the discussion on textual interpretation and not an extrapolation into whether it challenges christian doctrine.

I'm afraid it doesn't bound the discussion. Interesting though that I'm the only one who you've pointed at for posting out of bounds.

If his website had said he does not believe it offers an alternative view of christianity would that have changed any part of the debate on interpretation.

According to you, yes:

#8 "You have no more proved your case for your interpretation any more than he has - you simply believe what you believe and interpret your texts to support it"

Says you; If McFarland didn't believe that homosexual acts were consistent with the Christian faith he wouldn't be interpreting David/Jonathan as he does.

your attempt at 'well he would say that anyway' does not engage on whether he might be right or not.

He isn't right and I provided a link to an article giving reasons why he isn't right.

As for proto-homosexual - it is a nonsense term. We have in recent history provided a word in our vocabulary which describes our understanding of sexuality but you seem to be inferring that homosexuality is a modern thing - it is not, we just have a new word to describe it.

Homosexuality as both orientation and identity is a fairly modern thing. A person being homosexual in an ontological sense would not have occurred to an Israelite during the reign of Saul. In biblical sexual ethics homosexual acts are always considered a perversion of the created and natural order. If you want to say David and Jonathan could have been homosexual in the same sense as you consider yourself homosexual, that just won't fit. McFarland, as far as I'm aware, doesn't make this mistake, which is why I drew a distinction when restating his position.

It is not anachronistic to describe a relationship as homosexual just because it was before we first used that word.

I didn't say that it would be anachronistic to describe a relationship as homosexual. I said it would be anachronistic to apply the modern notion of homosexuality to David and Jonathan.

Peter

The only one I have come across who makes the argument, or at least one similar, is John Shelby Spong.

'N' 'o' - no.

Can't understand why a religion that is so hostile to homosexuality in general would openly discuss a gay relationship between two of its major characters.

If it was as clear as Andrew McFarland suggests, then why do the books of the New Testament so radically condemn homosexual behaviour?

The stories about David and Jonathan were available to those authors also; so why did they not see a problem with homosexuality, if it is endorsed, or at least tolerated, in the OT?

I suspect that the familiarity between David and Jonathan was not unusual in the context of near-eastern cultures at the time. Males still greet one another openly with a kiss. This should not be confused with homosexuality.