[Marxism] Christianity and homosexuality

[Brian Shannon <brian_shannon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Not being knowledgeable in this area, I have to trust the author.  
However, it strikes me as a useful statement that might be introduced  
or referred to. It is in full here because it is a one-time shot in a  
local paper, The Berkshire Eagle for June 19, 2006.

Brian Shannon

=============================
Letter from London
Handel and religion
By Jenny Kingsley

Monday, June 19
LONDON

IN LONDON we worship at what is famously known as Handel's church,  
St. George's, centrally situated in elegant Mayfair; the composer was  
a devoted parish member. Handel's House, nearby, is now an enchanting  
museum. At Easter time we host the Handel Music Festival. The poet  
Shelley and writer George Eliot were married at St. George's, as were  
Benjamin Disraeli, the Italian inventor Marconi and our own Teddy  
Roosevelt!

But enough glamor — it merely helps to set the scene and steer you  
towards a recent sermon given by a visiting priest about the apparent  
conflict between Christianity and homosexuality.

Father John Cullen's view struck me as admirably enlightening. If  
people would adopt his perspective, the issue — and what an issue! —  
would hopefully no longer be an issue. Indeed, the priest's  
reflections show how other conflicts could be addressed.

I should add that Father John is revered in the London Anglican  
community for his prudent and balanced approach to Christian faith  
and practice. Dr. Cullen was not attempting to say how we should feel  
about homosexuality. Rather, he was addressing the controversy by  
placing it in its proper religious context.

First, it's helpful to understand what the Bible says about  
homosexuality. Dr. Cullen has studied the Bible in Hebrew and Greek;  
he speaks with confidence.

There are only five passages in the Bible where what we might  
understand as "homosexuality'' today is referred to directly. In all  
of these, homosexual practice, he suggests, is condemned because in  
the biblical period there was no understanding of homosexual  
orientation, so what's condemned is the fact that the acts are being  
carried out by those who were believed to be "naturally"  
heterosexual. Therefore what they were doing "was against their  
perceived nature," so by definition such behavior was deemed  
"unnatural." To apply these words — or rather this biblical  
interpretation — to those who are by orientation homosexual, and in  
stable, faithful relationships, is not comparing like for like.

Furthermore, the only time when the Bible refers explicitly to a same  
sex relationship it does so with approval. Dr. Cullen recalls the  
story of David, the King of Israel. In his youth David joined the  
household of Saul, then king of the Israelites, and formed a close  
relationship with Saul's son, Jonathan. When Jonathan is killed in  
battle, David expresses his grief: "I am greatly distressed for you,  
my brother Jonathan. Greatly beloved were you to me, your love to me  
was wonderful, passing the love of a woman." (2 Samuel, 1.26)

Finally, Dr. Cullen emphasizes that there's no biblical reference to  
Jesus making any mention of homosexuality. What Jesus urged his  
followers to concern themselves with were justice, poverty, the  
marginalized, encouraging peace. Is there any sound argument against  
this wisdom?

Indeed, on the basis of Father Cullen's reflections, the teachings of  
Christ should be a guiding light for promoting dialogue with those  
with whom we disagree, rather than dismissing them and their  
opinions. This doesn't suggest "watering down" Christian beliefs;  
rather it clarifies what Christian faiths teaches and doesn't.  
Indeed, the guiding light is not a lone beam; teachings of other  
faiths admirably echo Christ's instruction.

Much of the strife among and between peoples practicing different  
religions is in reality an expression of cultural differences rather  
than religious prescription. (Arranged marriages, certain codes of  
dress, not allowing women the right to drive or vote, for example.)  
We should distinguish carefully between cultural behavior and basic  
principles of faith.

The fact that people have alternative ways of explaining the creation  
and the world order doesn't mean we cannot share common values  
enabling us to live in peace. In the same light, being an agnostic or  
atheist doesn't mean one is adverse to a code of ethics encouraging  
compassion.

So why do people claim that homosexuality is in itself abhorrent, and  
enlist Christianity in the cause? Why if we are "religious'' do we  
allow this indulgence? Admittedly, religion throughout history has  
been used as a political bulldozer. But in the case of homosexuality,  
maybe because we feel uncomfortable about it we look for some  
"respectable" authorization for our misgivings. Also, people may fear  
homosexuality because they're unsure about their own sexuality; by  
marginalizing what they fear, they feel it's less likely to seep into  
their lives.

It's understandable that instinctively we resist change, the "alien."  
Change threatens the rhythm of the every day. Shun it, and it's less  
likely to intrude. "Official" sanctified reasons make the case all  
the more robust.

However, if we accept diversity, diversity becomes a fact of life  
rather than a no-go area. Imagine how poor our musical tradition  
would be if we'd shunned the foreign, unfamiliar and unmarried Handel  
at the gate. Amen.



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism