these traditions and even answerable to them.
Strategies of “Gay Reading”
In the work that lies ahead, we must distinguish distinct strategies of reading that together make up a gay-affirmative rereading of biblical texts.
The first level of a gay-affirmative reading is one that has been pursued with considerable force over the last half century: contesting the presumed basis in Scripture for cultural and social denigration of and even legislation against persons who engage in same-gender sexual activity. The current result of this strategy is that several of the texts formerly read as referring to this behavior may no longer be so employed; they are the result of mistranslation. Another result is that any counterhomosexual texts can be applied, if at all, to behavior rather than to orientation.
These results may be regarded as important but insufficient. Therefore alternative strategies must be employed.
In the first place, a strategy may be employed that exposes homophobic readings as engaged in an obfuscation of the text—that is, as entailing a fundamental distortion of the biblical message. Here one must assert that a reading of these texts (for example, the narrative concerning Sodom) which uses them to license opposition to persons who engage in same-sex sexual relations actually blatantly distorts the texts. The distortion entailed is a measure of homophobia—that is, of a fear of homosexuality that brings the institutionally approved reading into irrationality.
While it is a positive animus against homosexuality, homophobia is also complemented by what may be called a heterosexist reading. This reading is so preoccupied with the model of heterosexual marriage and family values that it reads into the text its own presuppositions. This strategy does not necessarily entail a hatred or fear of homosexuality but rather a bias toward finding confirmation of the marriage and family values of heterosexual culture in the biblical texts. A reading that counters heterosexism then moves to a wider arena: not just delegitimating homophobic readings but contesting the reading that suggests the privileging of heterosexual institutions. Contesting heterosexism entails contesting the view that heterosexual institutions in fact are supported in the biblical texts. Note that while homophobic readings also appeal to heterosexist readings the reverse is not necessarily the case.2
A third level of reading is one that is “pro-gay.” This kind of reading is anticipated by those who read the story of Jonathan and David or of Ruth and Naomi as gay-positive. This approach is analogous to, for example, feminist readings that demonstrate the presence of strong female characters or of feminine attributes of the divine, or of readings like those of Cain Hope Felder that demonstrate the hidden presence of African people in the biblical texts. We are concerned then with the hidden presence of relationships that may be construed as gay in some sense.
To these strategies of reading we may add a fourth: reading the texts from the perspective of a contemporary gay or queer sensibility. Here the aim is to discover how the text appears when it is read from a standpoint affirmative of gay or queer reality—that is, what the text means now, when viewed from this perspective. While dependent upon the other strategies I have suggested, this reading goes beyond them by taking seriously the point of view of contemporary readers, as when the Bible is read from the standpoint of the impoverished of Latin America or women in North America.
The task of a gay reading thus entails a multiple strategy of interconnected readings of texts. By attending to the distinction between and relations among these strategies, we become better acquainted with the biblical text itself as well as with the varied aspects of liberationist readings generally. In the material that follows, we cannot hope to accomplish more than to provide examples of the kinds of readings that may be employed. But the results of these readings may be useful not only to people who are concerned with the question of homosexuality, but also people who seek to understand the Bible in a fresh way and to liberate the tradition not only from homophobia and heterosexism but also to open the way to a non-erotophobic understanding of faith.
This Project
In this book, my intention is to break with the defensive strategy of dealing primarily with passages that are alleged to support homophobia and gay bashing. This strategy gives greater plausibility than is deserved to the traditional (mis)reading of the Bible. Instead I focus on examining what is, in fact, the preponderance of the evidence: that which includes and affirms homoerotic desire and relationships.
Most scholars today accept the drastic reduction of biblical texts that have been used to justify the condemnation of same-sex relationships and practice to a couple of verses of Leviticus together with a couple of verses of Paul. Even so, this approach has not generally led to the abandonment of the homophobic expropriation of the Bible. Instead the fallback position has been something like, “No matter how often or seldom the Bible speaks of same-sex activity (or homosexuality), it always condemns this practice.” Thus the slenderness of the evidence supportive of homophobia is compensated for by an alleged unanimity. No one seems to be embarrassed that one could make the same case (with a far greater number of texts) for, say, the institution of slavery.
But I will seek to show that this alleged unanimity is a product of willful blindness to the Bible itself. In fact, the preponderance of biblical texts relevant to the discussion affirm and even celebrate same-sex relationships and practice.
In order to make this case as clearly as possible, I focus this study on an investigation of the traditions about Jesus that are passed down through the Gospels. Legend holds that a book was published entitled Everything Jesus Said about Homosexuality. When opened, the book consisted of nothing but blank pages. The point is well made but is also misleading. I contend that the Jesus tradition contains a good deal that is relevant to the discussion of same-sex erotic relationships, and that all of it is positive.
In order that this conclusion be seen as sharply as possible, I have taken the risk of beginning with the question: “Was Jesus gay?” I admit at the outset that the question, as thus posed, does not lend itself to a simple yes or no answer. First, the contemporary idea of gayness, like the modern idea of homosexuality, does not fit well with first-century ideas and perspectives. Ideas associated with talk of homosexuality or gayness today—ideas like the classification of persons according to supposed sexual orientation, the alleged dissimilarity between homosexual and heterosexual (or between gay and straight), the supposition that relations between persons of the same sex are also relationships between persons of the same age and status, the notion of a particular lifestyle or culture associated with sexual practice, and so on—would have been puzzling, even absurd, to people of antiquity (as they are to people of many cultures in the world today) and perhaps especially to those who engaged in and celebrated erotic relationships among persons of the same sex.
Not only do modern categories not fit well on ancient evidence, but any evidence we may have about the “personal” lives of historical persons from so long ago is generally suggestive and inferential rather than explicit and definitive, whether we think of Socrates or Plato, Alexander or Julius Caesar, Athanasius or Augustine. But such uncertainly is all the more true of Jesus, whose life, teachings, and deeds are filtered through a process of reflection and reconstruction that eventuates in the production of the primary documents, the Gospels, upon which we must rely for evidence.
Despite these difficulties the question, “was Jesus gay?” has important benefits as a way of directing and organizing our investigation of biblical texts.
First, as I indicated, this question provides a way of definitively breaking with the defensive hermeneutical strategy that has accomplished much, but which has the unfortunate appearance of pleading for some special exemption for or
