Contents
 back to Letters |
 previous story
|
next story 
|
Gene Robinson interviewed: the debate continues
From the Revd Richard Chown DICK CHOWN 3 Coniston Court Weybridge KT13 9YR From the Revd Henry Mayor Sir, — Mike Whiting (Letters, 9 May) points to Matthew 19.4-6 as part of “the real scripture issue” concerning sexuality. He should read on in that chapter. In the following verses, Jesus not only says that marriage after divorce is adultery and the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to children: in between come verses 10-16, which may contain a direct reference to gay men. They should be read in one of the more literal English translations (e.g. AV, RSV, NIV) where the word “eunuch” is used. Jesus speaks of eunuchs — born, man-made, and self-made. A eunuch — in Greek eunoukhos, in Hebrew saris — is a man trusted by a powerful man to look after his womenfolk without sexual interference. I had assumed that this meant a man who had been castrated. But the Babylonian Talmud, a rabbinical treatise on Jewish law written about the third century AD, but drawing on much earlier tradition, speaks of “born saris” and of their rights and responsibilities under Jewish law; it also describes how to recognise a “born saris”, a description very similar to our contemporary stereotypes of gay men. (It also describes female “born saris”.) So “born saris” in the Talmud appears to refer to people who are homosexual by nature — and so could “born eunuchs” in Matthew 19. But we don’t need an obscure rabbinical treatise to tell us that saris could mean “gay man”, when a small imaginative exercise could tell us the same thing. If I were a powerful man wanting a safe guardian for my harem, which would be easier to choose — a man who had been cruelly mutilated, or a whole man known to be sexually interested only in men? Suppose, then, that when Jesus said in Matthew 19.12, “Some eunuchs are born that way,” he was referring to gay men. He could have condemned them, as he condemned the remarrying divorced man in verse 9. He could also have condemned the men mutilated by other men, since the Jewish law banned them from Temple worship. Instead, he simply states their existence as a fact. There is not a hint of condemnation. But there is a hint of acceptance, in that he links them with another group, those who have opted for the status of eunuch “for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven”. I agree with those who say that homosexuality is a scripture issue. I believe this passage in Matthew is part of the case that scripture provides evidence of God’s welcome acceptance of gay people and their relationships. That case is put in a small book, The Children are Free, by Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley (available from Jesus Metropolitan Community Church, Indianapolis, www.jesusmcc.org). It is written by two men deeply schooled in the conservative Evangelical tradition, and its footnotes give full references to all writers quoted. It deals not only with the passages usually quoted to condemn homosexual behaviour, but with several others in Old and New Testaments in which gay people or gay relationships are described without a hint of condemnation.HENRY MAYOR 57 Hill Street, Withington Manchester M20 3FY From Canon John Goodchild Sir, — It would be good to have more attention paid to scripture in the gay debate (Letters, 9 May), but your correspondents are not reliable guides. Genesis 2.24 and Matthew 19.4-6 refer to faithfulness in marriage. They are not about same-sex relationships. Matthew 19 alters Mark’s version of Christ’s words in 10.11 where Christ pointed to the ideal of life-long marriage and said that all divorce was adultery — a sinful breakdown of a sacred relationship. In some cases, however, divorce may be right as the lesser of two evils. Matthew gave a pastoral ruling that divorce after unchastity was acceptable, just as Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, both reports Christ’s unequivocal condemnation of divorce (v. 11) and allows it when an unbelieving spouse demands it (v. 15). Besides faithfulness, forgiveness and new creation are part of the gospel. While the Thirty-Nine Articles speak of civil precepts and moral commandments, scripture does not recognise such distinctions. Why should mixed yarn not be a moral matter and same-sex partnerships a civil one? We ourselves, like the biblical writers, are culturally conditioned. Leviticus may condemn some types of incest, but it does not condemn polygamy. While much incest is an exploitation of one person, there may be instances where there is no blood relationship and each partner is a freely consenting adult. The Bible is not a comprehensive and infallible rule book: rather, it is our prime source for the character of God revealed in Christ. It is this character that should illumine human reason and experience in working out what is right and wrong. We need the mind of the risen and contemporary Christ as well as the words of the earthly Christ. That requires, among other things, a very prayerful and careful study of scripture. J. GOODCHILD 39 St Michael’s Road Liverpool L17 7AN |
| back to Letters |
 back to top |
previous story
|
next story
|
%231%23.gif "Wordl Vision Sponsor a child Nov to Dec campaign © site")
