Gay Christianity Part 1- Introduction and Who Was John Boswell?

Introduction

I did not ever consider that I would be writing a blog about homosexuality. I have always considered it to be clear cut in the Scriptures. The Bible speaks quite clearly that homosexuality is contrary to nature, to God’s design, and is a violation of his commandments. I expected that those who would indulge in homosexuality, or be supportive of those who do, would simply be honest with the Church and themselves and declare that they reject what the Bible says on the subject. That would be an honest response. Instead we are finding that there are those who would not only be supportive of the homosexual lifestyle, but would also make the audacious claim that the Bible in fact does NOT condemn homosexuality.

It is only because a family member has admitted to me that he agrees with those who support the concept of a “homosexual Christian” that I am even addressing the topic. He has quoted John Boswell and an article from the Christian Bible Reference Site­ that speaks in support of this position. Therefore, it has become necessary for me to respond to the arguments that have been made.

I do not claim to be a scholar of note, nor have I published any works in scholarly journals that makes me an expert. However, I do hold earned degrees in Biblical languages, Bible, and theology. This does put me in a better position to evaluate scholarly articles published by experts in those fields than the layman. This response will cover several blogs as there are several points that need to be responded to. I propose the following outline:

1. Who was John Boswell? How has his work been received?

2. How SHOULD we interpret the Bible?

3. What does the Bible say about the nature of human sexual relationships?

4. What does the Bible say about homosexuality in Genesis 19:5 and Judges 19:22?

5. What does the Bible say about homosexuality in Leviticus?

6. What does the Bible say about homosexuality in Romans 1?

7. What does the Bible say about homosexuality in I Corinthians 6?

8. What does the Bible say about homosexuality in I Timothy 1?

9. The Nature vs. Nurture question.

10. How should the Church respond to homosexuals?

 For those who may be concerned, rest assured that I am NOT a "homophobe" nor do I subscribe to the views held by Westboro Baptist Church. I believe that the Church should respond in a loving manner towards those who experience a same-sex attraction. I also believe that the Church must base its views on same-sex attraction and homosexual activity upon the Bible and should not be looking for compromise with the culture.

Who was John Boswell? How has his work been received?

Nearly all of the pro-homosexual arguments can be traced back to the work of Yale professor John Boswell and his book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality published in 1980. Homosexual activists and those sympathetic to its cause have considered this to be the defining work on the subject. In fact Richard John Neuhaus has stated that Boswell’s work is “a kind of sacred text for those who want to morally legitimate the homosexual movement.” In fact, Neuhaus has observed that when Biblical texts are quoted to support the Christian tradition on the subject of same-sex relationships the refrain from the activists is, “Yes, but Boswell says…”

John Boswell was a history professor at Yale University. He was himself both a homosexual and gay activist. His field of study was history, including religious history. While he did have familiarity with both Hebrew and Ancient Greek, he was not a Biblical scholar. He later died of AIDS in 1994.

Boswell’s thesis was that homosexuality was not prohibited in the Bible, and proceeded to reinterpret all of the verses associated with the traditional Christian position on same sex copulation. He claims that the intolerance of the Church to homosexuality actually has its roots in the high middle ages as the Roman Church sought to assert greater control over the personal lives of its communicants.

While Boswell’s work received some very early praise from media outlets and actually won the American Book Award for History, it was not so well received among his fellow historians. The process of peer review in academic journals usually takes about 2-3 years. By that time, Boswell’s work had circulated widely and received wide acclaim from those who were sympathetic to the homosexual movement. His work was quoted in several other pro-gay publications and filtered down into the clergy of the more liberal denominations (I point this out to say that the more liberal denominations that have embraced Boswell’s work have already made severe compromises on the issues of the inerrancy of the Bible, the authority of the Bible, the Deity of Christ, the Virgin Birth of Christ, and many of the other core doctrines of the Christian faith defended by both the Catholic Church and the Reformers. The fact that many of these denominations have embraced Boswell’s interpretations does not in any way legitimate his interpretation. The text must speak for itself within its own context).

When Boswell’s work was in fact reviewed by his peers it was panned widely. They found his scholarship to be nothing more than historical revisionism for the sole purpose of promoting a personal political agenda. Dr Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School (hardly a bastion of conservative evangelicalism) states that Boswell’s interpretation “has no support in the text and is a textbook case of reading into the text what one wants to find there.” (Journal of Religious Ethics No 14. 1986). Dr. Dave Wright of the University of Edinburgh in the respected Encyclopedia of Early Christianity in the article on homosexuality describes Boswell’s book to be “influential but highly misleading.” In fact, Wright says of Boswell, “The conclusion must be that for all the interest and stimulus Boswell’s book provides in the end of the day not one piece of evidence that the teaching mind of the early Church countenanced homosexual activity.”  Dr. Robert L. Wilkin of the University of Virginia (again, not bastion of conservative evangelicalism) describes Boswell’s book as “advocacy scholarship” by which is meant “historical learning linked to a cause, scholarship in the service of a social and political agenda.” Wilkin further states that “In some cases, Boswell simply inverts the evidence to suit his argument.” (Neuhaus, “In the Case of John Boswell”, The Public Square, March 1994)

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic scholar, notes that Boswell’s reading of Church history also finds what he wants to find.

 “Christianity is a multifarious affair, and it does not take much sniffing around to discover frequent instances of what is best described as hanky panky. The discovery process is facilitated if one goes through history with what is aptly described as a narrow eyed prurience, interpreting every expression of intense affection between men as proof that they were ‘gay’…Probably at all times in Christian history one can find instances of homosexual behavior. And it is probably true that some times more than others such behavior was viewed with ‘tolerance’ in that it was treated with a wink and a nudge. …The Church has always been composed of sinners and some times are more lax than others.”  (Ibid)

Neuhaus concludes “Despite his assiduous efforts, what Boswell’s historical scavenger hunt does not produce is any evidence whatever that authoritative Christian teaching ever departed from the recognition that homosexual acts are morally wrong.” (Ibid)

Boswell’s method of Biblical interpretation (known as hermeneutics) is pure eisegesis, a process where the interpreter reads into the text what he wants it to say, rather than the proper method of exegesis, discovering what the text really means. The next few blog entries will discuss proper methods and techniques for interpreting the Bible and reviewing the specific passages in the Bible that are relevant to this topic.

Boswell’s long since discredited work is often cited by those with an agenda. They have already started with the conclusion that homosexuality is normal and that they are “born that way” (That is of course not an excuse. See my previous blog “Born That Way”) In their mind, since they are naturally gay, they have already concluded that the Bible must not condemn it. Therefore, in an effort to justify their position they have held fast onto Boswell’s work, not because it is good scholarship, but rather because it supports their presupposed conclusion. They are grasping at straws trying desperately to find some justification somewhere to provide support, but they are holding fast to an illusion.

As has been demonstrated, Boswell’s thesis failed to stand up to the scrutiny of his peers. His work has been panned by BOTH liberal and conservative scholars in the fields of history, theology, and Biblical languages. He started with a conclusion and engaged in a historical scavenger hunt to proof-text his thesis. He failed miserably. We shall examine his arguments in the Biblical text and demonstrate his gross errors in interpretation.

TO BE CONTINUED