It's all Greek to me! And it's scary!!! Part 1. of my review of 06/24/07's BET's "Meet the Faith" program.


"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us it is the power of God." I Corinthians 1:18 KJV

"But if our gospel be hid, it is hid from them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." 2 Corinthians 4:3-4 KJV

"But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." I Corinthians 1:23-24


I watched BET's "Meet the Faith" hosted by Dr. Ian Smith. The topic "Black Homophobia". The topic dealt with the issues of the treatments of black gay people inside the black community specifically the black church. The panelists were acclaimed actress/singer Sheryl Lee Ralph, social commentator and author Keith Boykin, and pastor and author Bishop Bernard Jordan. I must say that I was deeply grieved in my spirit watching this "debate". Smith asked if homosexuality is a sin. Bishop Jordan, taking the conservative position on homosexuality, was not match for Boykin and Ralph's sharp rebuttals from the liberal side . When dealing with this topic, Boykin and Ralph invoked "support" from the Bible: the silence of Jesus on the issue (if one believes he was really silent of the issue), the history of treatment of the blacks in America: how religion specifically the Bible was used to oppress Blacks, not permitting them to marry because they were considered subhuman therefore not U.S. citizens; the "cursed race" descending from the biblical figure Ham. Using quick rhetorical wit, Boykin and Ralph won the debate!

I must say as I watched this debate, I was deeply saddened. Saddened because as a Christian, what was said can cost someone an eternity because death and life are in the power of the tongue according to Proverbs 18:22. This post will be the first part of my take on Keith Boykin's theological arguments for the acceptance of homosexuality as a variant norm of God's creation. I must preface by stating that I am not a trained scholar of the bible (yet), theology(yet), religion(maybe), sociology, history, psychology, sexology, cultural studies, law, and ethics, nor politics. I am just an observer. These are just my postings on what very little knowledge I have accumulated in my short 21 years of living on the Father's earth.

Theological and Philosophical Assumptions of (Homo)Sexuality

Keith Boykin, from what I observed, believes that as a [progressive/liberal] Christian, God made some people ontologically gay/lesbian/bisexual. His argument can be summed up by in the following: God could not have made a law against persons of the same sex/gender from engaging in sexual acts if they by nature have emotional, affectional, romantic, physical and/or erotic attractions for others of the same sex. If he did, he would not be a just, loving God because "same-gender loving" people are made to love one another in such a manner. If God calls gays to celibacy, he calls them to a life of sadness, denying a fixed, immutable part of the being thust ultimately denying their humanity "being who they are." (This is the essentialist philosophy). Science says that homosexuality can be found in the natural world i.e. in animals. So homosexuality is perfectly natural just as heterosexuality and any sanction against it is coming from pre-scientific (primitive) minds, ignorance and fear of the unknown i.e. homophobia.

To any thinking person, this may sound like a legitimate reasonable, coherent argument. One can easily can accept this argument for people being "who they are". I must find that his argument is valid... within a pagan Greek philosophical understanding of humanity. Western Christianity and Western culture in general are heavily influenced by Greek philosophy. When one reads the Bible through these Greek glasses, one can and most likely will interpret the Scriptures through this prism. The concept of nature maybe be generally assumed to be agreed upon but it's not. Nature, especially human nature from a Greek influenced post-Enlightenment/modernist view is drastically different from the view from the Scriptures which were written within a heavily Judean/Semitic culture spanning over 1500 years.

Side note: Granted, many conservatives generally use as argument from the Scriptures for women's restricted roles in the church and the home. But truth be told, virtually all traditional theological anthropology in Christendom is heavily influenced by Greek philosophical assumptions of humanity. Early church theologians were trained in Greek philosophy before converting to Christianity i.e. Justin Martyr. I am not saying that some didn't see the error in a lot of Greek philosophical and religious thought however humans are generally subject to culture and cannot be unscathed by their surrounding traditions. Many argue for the subordination of women in the home and the church and appeal to some ontological quality of a woman that makes in natural for her to be submissive in the home and the church. But many don't realize that this assumption is more pagan than Scriptural. Many evangelical complementarians would not agree with many of early church theologians view's of women's ontology but have modified their arguments for the restrictions of women in church leadership and equal partnerships with their husbands in Christian homes. The Holy Scriptures are God's Word revealed in human cultures foreign to our 21st Western sensibilities. Scriptural exegesis should engage literary, cultural, historical context as well as languages. Language cannot be separated from culture.


Many take the existentialist view on sexual orientation, meaning one is not born or chooses to be gay/straight/bisexual/lesbian, but one becomes gay/straight/lesbian/bisexual. Being or Dasein is always in the process of becoming in the world. So is Boykin's view of gay people biblical? Is gay a ontological category (who) according to the Scriptures? Let's see:

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness... So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."

So the answer is ... no. Here's a thought. According this Scripture; straight is not an ontological category neither. This might stump people. A conservative Christian may ask "Didn't God intend for us to be heterosexual?" This might help answering that question; here's a spirit-quickening quotes from Conservative Jewish philosopher and theologian Rabbi Joel Beasley:

As far as the Jewish religion goes, there are no homosexuals in the world, nor have there ever been. There are no Jewish heterosexuals either. Both terms are pejorative. They imply that the essence of [human] existence lies somehow within the crass and the carnal. Human beings are reduced to their most primal function, as if the point of life was to contemplate the smörgåsbord of sexual possibilities in the world.
From the Jewish perspective, identifying as a homosexual or a heterosexual is as irrelevant as identifying as ptyallizer(a person who whose saliva flows excessively). The words may describe predilections or behavior, but hardly capture the essence of the person. The Torah (law of Moses) labels people not by their primal urges, but by their obligations to God. (Jewish Spectator, Winter 1998, pg. 27)

Here's another stunning statement fromRabbi Barry Freundel:

It seems clear from this that halacha (literally "the path" aka Jewish law) never viewed the homosexual as a member of a unique category or as different from the non-homosexual. He has no greater or lesser rights or obligations... In fact the term "homosexual" is an essentially inappropriate description for him. We should, rather, refer to this individual as a person engaged in homosexual activity. "Homosexual" is therefore not a noun that identifies and categorizes the individual but an adjective that describes his activity. (Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society, Volume XI, 1986)

Christians generally would agree with this reasoning. Of course, we would to this New Testament theology revealing the law of Moses is perfect and no one can completely keep the law, and what Christ did for us is free us from the curse of the law, dead. Certainly the law applies to Christians because we believe that we fulfill the law by walking in the Spirit. With these quotes in mind one can understand the evangelical Christian cliche "Hate the sin, love the sinner", but if one gives this Christianese sound-byte to the average gay person, he or she will be highly offended because for them being gay is an essential part of who they are. So this debate is not really about homosexuality per se, it's about worldviews that clash.

What did Jesus say?

Boykin said that when he read his Bible Jesus never said anything on the homosexuality. Quite frankly that he's right. One can read the Gospels and find no record of Jesus discussing anything explicitly relating to homosexual activity. However, Boykin engages in a logical fallacy. Just because Jesus did not discuss the subject of homosexuality in the Gospels does not implicate his acceptance or disapproval of homosexuality. As a man of reason (Boykin's a trained lawyer) he should know that is not logically sound. I bet he does. As Christians, our faith is based not on what Jesus didn't say but what he said. Isn't Paul who said faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God? When discussing the Law in the Beatitudes, Jesus said that he didn't come to abolish it or the prophets (Tanakh), he came to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). He also said that the Law will remain until heaven and earth will pass away and that one who relaxes the least of the commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called the least in the kingdom of heaven (v.18-19). "For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and the Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20 ESV)

Jesus preaching extensively on the hypocrisy of the Pharisees using the Scriptures. They who were zealous for keeping the Law disobeyed the Law in secret and covered it up with oral traditions to exempt from the penalty for breaking the Law, death by stoning. Many in today's world don't obey God's Word because of many hypocrites within churches. Though that isn't really a valid of obeying God, I can understand. Boykin pointed the religious hypocrisy in many churches in America. However, he can't use this as an opportunity to revision the Scriptures. Jesus also spoke to the Pharisees concerning marriage in divorce in Matthew 19 appealing to the creation account in Genesis chapters 1 and 2. It was unfortunate that Bishop Jordan didn't point this out to Boykin or Ralph. I guess he's not a trained bible scholar and a trained rhetorician thought he's a preacher. Little must be said in an half-hour program.

Conclusion
This issues is important to us who have family members who are gay. It seems that members in the Black Church tradition have a special obligation to point out injustice in our society being historic victims of systemic oppression. But as believers in Christ, when do we draw the line to using our experience as a prism to interpret Scripture as a justification to support an activity, a desire, an ideology that may be sinful? I will write more on this in a later post.