Last year the LoveWon Out traveling conference came to Boston to reassure anti-gay Bostonians that homosexuals could reorient to heterosexuality and that their efforts to deny their gay neighbor the same privileges they enjoy are morally justified.
Many gay Bostonians, and others who do not subscribe to a dogma of castigation, objected outside. Loudly.
Sam Gloyd took another approach. He went inside and listened. And what he heard was a “hateful message that’s masked in love”. He found it traumatizing.
So Gloyd organized an alternative. Last weekend a couple of hundred people came together for a Bible-based conference which was affirming of gay people. The forum was moderated by Jeff Miner and John Tyler Connoley, a former ex-gay, who jointly wrote the book The Children are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships.
Most of the forum was devoted to passages that the authors say treat homosexuals and heterosexuals equally. In the Old Testament, claim the authors, Ruth’s covenant with Naomi, which includes the memorable phrase, “Wherever you go, I will go; wherever you live, I will live,” actually refers to a committed same-sex relationship. They also offered a different interpretation of a story that appears in both Matthew and Luke, in which a centurion asks Jesus to heal a man who is typically identified — misidentified, says Miner — as the centurion’s servant.
“That story’s often preached about in straight churches,” said Miner, but “nobody bothers to mention that the Greek word used to describe the sick man is the word used in the ancient world to describe your same-sex partner.”
Another forum is planned next year.
And which Greek word would that be?
The word is Pais(I think I spelled it right.)
The Greek word for servant in the Matthew 8:8 passage is indeed pais (Strong’s 3816). Considering the context, I think the book’s assertion of a same-sex relationship is an incredible reach. I’m not currently as certain about the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, but it’s hardly a slam dunk in my opinion.
I would encourage re-examination of text which may have been translated in the past with a bias towards obscuring such relationships. However, considering the obsession for accuracy among the translators throughout the ages (most out of devotion to God, some under penalty of death), we should be more than a little skeptical in our acceptance of these claims.
That story’s often preached about in straight churches… [emphasis mine]
While I think I understand what they meant, that statement bothers me.
“pais” would be a good english rendering of the greek found in Matt 8:5-13 and Lk 7:1-10 and means “boy” or “young” or “servant”. Horner (1978 I believe) argued that it also could mean a sexual slave. The problem is that there is nothing in the surrounding text to indicate that the latter (and far less common in the first cent AD) reading is the correct one. It’s essentially an argument from silence based on assuming the hermeneutic when no exterior evidence is available in the passages.
The same goes for Ruth and Naomi. There is NO sense in the text that there is a same-sex relationship – if there is I would love to know. This is once again an argument from silence. The language of Ruth towards Naomi is not similar to any other Hebrew text that conotates same-sex relationships (not that many of those texts exist in any case).
There are much, much better arguments in favour of same-sex relationships when you look at the Pauline passages. These other texts aren’t helpful at all.
The word “pais” meant “slave” or “boy”: and also, therefore, the boy in a pederastic relationship. But just because a word has more than one sense does not mean all the senses are operative at the same time. In the South they used to call black people “boy”. But no one ever interpreted “Come here, boy” as “Come here, boi.”
I’m not sold on the arguments made by Miner and Connoley. Nonetheless, it’s interesting that LWO sparked this response.
Personally, I don’t think the Ruth and Naomi story is a same-sex relationship in the sense that Miner and Connoley do. I also don’t get why it is used in marriage ceremonies. To me, that’s just odd.
However, I have difficulty seeing the David and Jonathan story as anything other than a same-sex relationship – at least on Jonathan’s part. Perhaps I’m being a victim of my cultural context, but the language is so erotically laden; love ballads and getting naked together.
Perhaps the stongest support for the notion is that David compares Jonathan’s love (favorably) to that of a woman. Some might say that this was a friendship type of love and Jonathan was a closer friend than any woman – except that we have no record of David having any female friends. In this context it would have been expected to say that Jonathan was closer than a brother, yet that isn’t what David used.
I’ve not done a great study on this but at first glance their relationship seems to be a love relationship – whether on not it was ever sexual.
Timothy said:
Perhaps I’m being a victim of my cultural context, but the language is so erotically laden; love ballads and getting naked together.
I think some are guilty of applying a modern context to passages of scripture in an attempt to imply a homosexual relationship where there isn’t one. But then others are also guilty of the reverse. I think the problem is in finding enough scholars that are actually neutral and dedicated enough to determine the truth. I would be very interested in such an effort.
Pais is a male servant, possibly a sex slave, perhaps today’s definition of a houseboy would somehow fit. But I’m not convinced. In context, the story does not show that the Centurion and the pais were in fact lovers. And I agree that Ruth and Naomi were most likely platonic. The problem is that in searching for gay affirming verses in the Bible, one needs to stretch, because from what I’ve read, they don’t exist. The reason they don’t exist is because in biblical times, it was a non-issue. All men and women were mandated to marry and concieve offspring. These marriages were for property and finance, not love. If one needed love he would take a lover, be it male or female, and such unions were not societally condemned. Only in this day and age are such love unions condemned by folks misinterpreting the bible and the historical context into which the bible was written. But I must agree with Timothy on the greatest love story ever; the story of Jonathan and David. This story was told, not to affirm homosexual relations, but to tell the entire life of David. David was a man of great strength, cunning, passion, and love. His love for Jonathan was complete and all encompassing; and tragic. I’ve read the whole thing in it’s entirety, not just the MCC version. It’s a beautiful love story.
I think the problem is that so many fundementalist christians have hi-jacked the bible for their own political means. Gay Christians have tried to retrieve it by attempting to find gay affirming stories to show that we are indeed relevant. We don’t need to slant those verses so far in the opposite direction. We need only see what we are inside to know that we are relevant; not an abomination.
I’ll step off my soap box now.
Is “pais” also lover? Why else would a well off Roman ask Jesus to heal a dying person who is otherwise an employee or a slave? Remember that replacing a good slave is probably more expensive than hiring somebody, but neither prospect would quite justify going so far out on a limb in a largely foriegn culture.
Yes, Jonathan. But it could also mean, son. Or one as dear as a son. In context, however, in this particular story, I see no indication of the Centurian and the pais being lovers. If you can decifer some other moral, please let me know.