There are two social issues that continue to marginalize the lives and histories
of the queer community: heterosexism and homo/transphobia. Heterosexism is the belief
that heterosexuality is the default orientation, that one is heterosexual until proven otherwise.
Homo/transphobia is the fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against people who don’t identify
as heterosexual. There’s institutional phobias, speaking to institutions that are consistently and
systematically biased against sexual and gender minority people, treat them with discrimination,
and blame them in unjust ways. There’s personal phobias, when one shows personal disgust,
discrimination, bias, and unjust blaming; and then there’s Internalized phobia,
a psychological phenomenon present within people who identify as queer as the result
of shame they have experienced by being branded as disgusting, abominable, and unacceptable.
As you saw in this week’s assigned reading, western religion, particularly
the Christian Church is largely to blame for the factors that lead to
America’s heterosexism and homo/transphobia. It’s interesting how much Judeo-Christianity
finds its way into American politics, in spite of our country’s separation of church and state.
This is due largely in part to America’s colonial history adopting European ideals,
including laws that were largely based on the Christian Bible and English Common law.
Good citizenship practically required a profession of Christianity, which led to an atmosphere
in which sin could be viewed as treasonous, or at least politically suspect – in other words,
“Anti-American.” US nationalism is based on the interconnection of America’s need to succeed
as a country and its self-appointed identity as God’s chosen people, a “New Israel.” You see this
particularly during election cycles when certain political parties combine patriotism with a sense
of divine mission. This is largely the platform of the “religious right”, driven by the Evangelical
movement that has played a pivotal role in the American political scene since the 1980s.
To this end, “religious right” coalitions inspired by people like Anita Bryant and the
anti-gay workings of others like Jerry Falwell and Ken Ham aren’t merely due to personal homophobia
but are acts of self-perceived patriotism to both God and country. Same-sex intercourse is basically
viewed in their minds as “anti-American” due to its perceived immorality within Judeo-Christian
tradition. Their genuine fear lies in the belief that God would enact vengeance on a fallen people
(which was God’s course of action throughout the Hebrew Scriptures when even just one person
sinned, a whole community was punished.) You can see this concern earlier this year -- 2020 -- when
we weren’t even a month yet into the disastrous effects of Covid-19 when conservative clerics
began blaming the legalization of gay marriage for inciting God’s wrath upon the entire planet.
(This was only three years after we were also accused of bringing Hurricane Harvey
and any other crisis that befalls on our nation.) In the scriptures, to avoid God’s wrath,
the Jews usually exiled the sinner from the community as a visible sign that they’re not
associating with them and therefore the whole community shouldn’t be blamed or punished. If a
Christian today still seriously believes that this is how God judges a nation for harboring a sinner,
it’s no wonder that anti-lgbt movements exist and that it’s institutionalized within our politics.
It also explains why some a__hole homophobic father is willing to kick his queer child out
of his house. Better to lose one than the whole family, I suppose, right?
Now last week, I established that nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality condemned. So when
exactly does religiously-based homophobia begin? The answer is quite simple -- Philo.
A celebrity in his own right, Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish philosopher and
author of many works that focused on bridging Judaism to Greco-Roman philosophy in an effort
to maintain relevancy within a pagan culture. To do his work Philo relied upon Greek
translations of scripture to form allegorical conclusions that will inevitably lead to
damning effects on the LGBT community. Let’s begin by looking closer at his
interpretation of the story of Sodom in Genesis 19. As we previously discussed,
elsewhere in the Bible and in Jewish tradition the judgment at Sodom dealt with
general wickedness and inhospitality towards the stranger. But Philo shifts the focus
of the story to the act of attempted same-sex rape. In his book “On Abraham” Philo writes...
Wow. Where did he get that from? Because that’s not in my version of Genesis 19 nor
was that the Jewish tradition. All the bible says is that the people of Sodom were wicked, great
sinners against the Lord (Gen 13:13) everything else is the equivalent Philo fan-fiction.
He continues his lousy exegesis by connecting the acts at Sodom to the Levitical prohibition about
lying with another man and Deuteronomy’s ban on cross-dressing and eunuchs,
resulting in the biblical hermeneutic of homo and transphobia we see today.
But he doesn’t stop there. In a second book, Philo writes...
Wait a minute, didn’t I just read something similar this year – oh yeah, earlier this year,
May 3, 2020, there was an interview with Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI who said: “A century ago,
anyone would have thought it absurd to talk about homosexual marriage. Today those who oppose it are
excommunicated from society”. I sense a Philo-fan boy! Ooooh it used to be such a disgrace,
but now it’s accepted. Boohoo. They used to say the same thing about women in the workforce.
Anyhow… Philo goes on to criticize men who adorn their hair, put on make-up, and wear perfume,
explaining: “These persons are rightly judged worthy of death by those who obey the law [of
Moses], which ordains that the man-woman who debases the sterling coin of nature should
perish unavenged, suffered not to live for a day or even an hour, as a disgrace to himself,
his house, his native land, and the whole human race.”
Wrongfully reinforcing that Mosaic Law is akin to Natural Law, Philo argued that it’s the duty
of the state and its citizens to execute anyone who practices homoerotic relations.
For the first time in Judeo-Christian history, there’s an attitude shift from passive societal
tolerance of queer relations to a brutal demand for death without due process.
Fortunately, that didn’t happen – well, at least not during Philo’s lifetime.
What was Philo’s motivation? It was probably more personal and political than it was theological.
Philo’s career was built on harmonizing Judaism with Greco-Roman philosophy. In a society
that was leaning more towards stoicism, Philo sought common ground. It is apparent that Philo
was personally disgusted by same-sex behavior, which in his environment would’ve included men
lying with other men or even young boys, temple prostitution, cross-dressing, and self-castration.
He felt that these men were “morally loose” due to their engagement in what he perceived as “sexual
excessiveness.” To be masculine -- we talked about this last week -- according to Stoicism
is to be restrained. Philo added that practicing restraint meant reserving sex
only for procreative purposes, which was not a biblical idea (but more on that in a future
lesson). Same-sex behavior in his mind is thus a violation of natural law that will lead to the
downfall of society and therefore must be stopped! (Now do you see my Anita Bryant parallel?)
We see some of Philo’s way of thinking among his contemporary St. Paul in his letter to the Romans.
As we looked at last week, in that Book’s first chapter, Paul talks about men and women exchanging
what is natural sex for unnatural and then calls for a penalty of death. But then quickly changes
course by acknowledging that all people are sinners in their own right and that life,
not death is the answer. Paul’s words here reflect the idealistic life-centered spirituality that was
prevalent in this era of early Christianity. Jesus died so that we don’t have to!
But Philo wasn’t a Christian and never recanted his deadly homophobic views.
Now before moving on, it must be pointed out that despite his wealth and celebrity, similar to the
fate of Anita Bryant by the entertainment industry, Philo was ultimately disowned,
rejected by his own community. He made no lasting contribution to Rabbinic Judaism
and is criticized for 1) his dependency on the Greek translation of Scripture
rather than using the original Hebrew, 2) his reliance on Greek Philosophy in arguing truth,
3) his allegorical rather than literal approach to God’s word,
and probably most essential, 4) his disregard for Jewish oral tradition. He was dismissed
by his own, but eventually taken in by a new group that hailed him as a hero – Christianity!
Although the first-century apocryphal book The “Epistle of Barnabas” expresses a negative
attitude towards sexual exploitation of boys and connects it with some very strange mythical
beliefs associated with animals -- making it probably the earliest reference to the homophobic
remark of ‘first gay-marriage, what’s next, marrying your animals?” -- early Christianity
didn’t seem to stand out as particularly disapproving towards queer relationships. But as
the Church entered the Greco-Roman world, it came under the profound influence of the Stoic culture,
which by this point evolved into a rejection of erotic sexual expressions of all kinds,
including married sex. This anti-erotic tradition developed in the context of a
presumed tension between body and soul in which the soul was considered imprisoned by the body
and its desires. As Christianity evolved in the second century, it started to embrace a
spirituality of asceticism -- one that denied the body the natural comforts of food and erotic
sexual intimacy (think Puritan culture). Clement of Alexandria established what is called the
“Alexandrian Rule” that stated, “pleasure sought for its own sake, even within the marriage bonds,
is a sin and contrary both to law and to reason.” Two hundred years later, as Christianity
inched its way towards becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire,
like Judaism of the first century it sought ways to bridge the faith with secular society.
Enter the return of Philo 300 years after his death! Christians gravitated towards Philo’s
use of reason and allegory in explaining the faith. Philosophy, believe it or not,
was a form of entertainment and an effective argument garnished status and respectability.
With Christianity poised to become the official religion of the Roman Empire,
it was necessary to speak the imperial language of “reason”! Philo’s writings became so influential
during this time that many people mistook him for being not only a Christian but a Bishop also!
(I guess this Anita Bryant found his “religious right” in the form of the Christian church).
By this point in its development, the Christian religion was used to making
concessions in order to assimilate to a pagan world. They most noticeably
did this by diminishing the role of women in leadership positions. During the first century,
when Paul taught there that is neither male or female, we witnessed women assuming roles of
religious leadership -- deacons and even priests. Yet, they are clearly absent by the fourth century
as the Christian church conformed to the patriarchy and misogyny of Roman culture.
Now in the Church’s defense, Christians were already being persecuted by the empire
on all sorts of accusations — incest, orgies, drunkenness, cannibalism, atheism – so in their
minds, women leadership just wasn’t a battle worth having. And why not? Because an empire rooted and
defined by its military might would really have a difficult time taking this Church seriously
if women were in charge….. a mentality that sadly some still possess today in the United States.
It is exactly in the 4th century, as Christianity moved to a position of
power as the official religion of the Roman Empire that the animosity against homoerotic
relationships started to take on serious fervor. First, a ban on same-sex marriage is signed into
law in the year 342. One of the co-sponsors of this decree was Emperor Constans who
had a reputation for scandalous behavior, including engaging in same-sex relations.
It is likely that Constans promulgated the legislation under pressure from the growing
band of Christian leaders in an attempt to placate public outrage at his own perceived indecencies.
(A hypocrisy that we still see today play out in American politics. Let's be real, come on!)
In the Eastern half of Christianity, the Archbishop of Constantinople and former desert
monk, Chrysostom preaches a series of fiery sermons that include topics on anti-Semitism,
the anti-elite, as well as Philo’s claims that homo-erotic behavior was the sin of Sodom and
that the death sentence should be warranted for anyone participating in homoerotic relationships.
He was also the first person to associate women in Romans 1 with what we’d call
today “lesbianism.” So, he pretty much sucks. And then in the West, there’s my old buddy, St.
Augustine of Hippo, who you have all experienced his influence if you’ve not read any of his works.
Ever hear of Original Sin? That was Augustine. Ever hear that babies who die without being
baptized go straight to hell? Again, Augustine. Augustine is the reason why we saw a dramatic
shift from baptisms taking place on one’s deathbed to infancy. In short, Augustine made
people believe that their newborn darling was contaminated by original sin, prone to evil and
therefore had to get baptized immediately. He had that same influence when it came to sexual
morality and is considered largely responsible for that anti-sex attitude that runs through much of
church history….. but more on that in a few weeks. Also a former monastic, Augustine reinforces
Philo’s teaching of the “homosexual wickedness” of Sodom and also calls for the death penalty
for queers. What’s interesting to note is that he never backs his condemnation of same-sex behavior
with any of those “clobber verses” from the New Testament. And believe me, if he considered that
St. Paul could be used to push an anti-gay agenda, he would’ve taken that opportunity to do so. Which
tells us, that he didn’t interpret Romans or 1 Timothy or 1 Corinthians
in the way many homophobes do today. Also, as a side-note, his famous work “The City of God”
seemingly defends intersex people. Claiming the problem is not in the true lives of the intersex
person, but in the environment that misunderstands and fears sharing the world with them.
But nevertheless, once the church had Augustine and Chrysostom's “anti-gay” endorsements,
it took no time for Christian Emperor Theodosius to finally satisfy the long
church campaign to enact the death penalty for anyone engaging in same-sex behaviors.
Claiming that “such acts would denigrate men and women” his law goes into effect in the year 390.
So again, let me be clear, nowhere in the Bible is homosexuality as we know it today
condemned. The religiously-led persecutions that LGBTQ people endure began not because the Bible
says so, but because of a coalition of people and their interpretation of what they believe
was best for their society said so. It’s not the Bible that is the problem, it’s the Coalition.
So with that in mind, in the spirit of Anita Bryant and coalitions, I made
a few protest signs of my own. Check em out!
Do you have any that you'd like to make? If so send me one or two based off of today's lesson
and you'll earn some extra credit.