(This is the third post in a series emphasizing resources on LGBTQ issues)

Here are the books I think are essential for the non-specialist. Certainly others could be added. These have shown themselves to be especially helpful to me.

What Is Homosexuality?

Calhoun, John B. “Population Density and Social Pathology.” Scientific American 206:139-148, 1962.
Definitive study of effects of overpopulation that produce homosexuality in animals.

Greenberg, David.  The Construction of Homosexuality.  The University of Chicago Press, 1988.
The definitive work attempting to show that homosexuality is socially constructed as opposed to essentialist (inherent within the individual). Scholarly, yet accessible.

Minor, Robert N.  Scared Straight: Why It's So Hard to Accept Gay people and Why It's so Hard to Be Human. Humanity Works!, 2001.
A thorough-going constructionist approach to gender issues.  Clearly shows how gender and sexual roles are created and reinforced and why deviance is punished.  Offers a way out of heterosexism into healthy sexuality for everyone.

Mondimore, Francis Mark.  A Natural History of Homosexuality.  The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1996.
Essential! Provides a comprehensive yet highly accessible overview of all aspects of current scholarship on homosexuality (except biblical).  Eminently readable. This book is a must have, but you will have to get lucky with a used book seller.

Interpreting the Bible

Borg, Marcus J.  Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally.  HarperCollins, 2001.
An easy, yet powerful introduction to biblical interpretation that takes modern science, other faith traditions and biblical critiques seriously.  Helps the reader understand how to separate the words of the Bible from the Word of God.

Boswell, John.  Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century. The University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Easily the most extensive and comprehensive study of the questions central to Christianity and homosexuality.  His work in exegeting scripture is groundbreaking. Everybody must deal with Boswell, and he=s not easily contradicted.  Although he is considered an "essentialist", he is sympathetic to the constructionists.

Brawley, Robert. L., Editor.  Biblical Ethics and Homosexuality: Listening to Scripture. Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Noted biblical scholars deal with such issues in the sexuality debate as how to make ancient scripture accessible to modern readers, what scriptures to listen to and not to listen to, background information on the ancient Near East, and not all are written from the same point of view.  Fills in many of the holes left by others.

Countryman, L. William.  Dirt, Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics in the New Testament and Their Implications for Today.  Revised Edition,  Fortress Press, 2007.
Perhaps the finest exegesis of biblical passages relevant to homosexuality.  Although it is often heavy going, the payoff is well worth the effort. He presents a convincing case that Romans 1 has nothing to do with sin, along with a couple of hundred other compelling observations.

Furnish, Victor Paul.  The Moral Teachings of Paul.  Abingdon Press, 1985.
Provides good background material that sets the New Testament "clobber passages" in their social settings.  Undermines the common mistranslations and misinterpretations that lead to homophobic reading of the Bible.

Helminiak, Daniel A.  What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality (Millennium Edition). Alamo Square Press, 2000.
This is the book to begin with! (Since Mondimore did not cover the biblical material.) He explains in clear and readable fashion the latest scholarly research on the so-called "clobber passages" of the Bible.  Very useful as a refresher to the "Beyond the Bible and Homosexuality" seminar.

Jordan, Mark D.  The Invention of Sodomy in Christian Theology.  University of Chicago, 1997.
A scholarly investigation that explores the historical development of the "sin of Sodomy". Traces how the church in the Middle Ages invented a sin that did not exist prior to its invention, and shows its long-standing effects on same-sex relationships.  This is not easy reading, but very rewarding.

Nissinen, Marti.  Homoeroticism in the Biblical World.  Fortress Press, 1998
Surveys the ancient Near Eastern literature contemporaneous with the Bible and sheds light on how to understand biblical concepts of sexuality.  Demonstrates the erroneous procedure of confusing biblical and ancient concepts of sexuality with modern concepts.

Scroggs, Robin.  The New Testament and Homosexuality. Fortress Press, 1983.
A core volume that treats all the relevant New Testament texts in a scholarly but readable fashion.  Some say it's the best resource of its kind.

Biblical Theology

Alexander, Marilyn Bennett and James Preston.  We Were Baptized Too: Claiming God's Grace for Lesbians and Gays.  Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.
Challenges the church to take seriously its understanding of baptism and communion as means of grace, justice, and liberation. Charges the church with abandoning gays and lesbians who they baptized with the promise to accept, love, forgive and nurture, and calls the church to repentance.

Countryman, L. William and M. R. Ritley.  Gifted by Otherness: Gay and Lesbian Christians in the Church.  Moorehouse Publishing, 2001.
This proactive and self-affirming book provides new hope for the lesbigay community, their families, and their communities, confidently appropriating and re-telling the biblical story of this unique and gifted minority's spiritual journey.  In short, it's about being gay and Christian from the inside while not repudiating the larger church.

Johnson, William Stacy.  A Time to Embrace: Same-Gender Relationships in Religion, Law, and Politics.
William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2006
Straight lawyer-theologian ties gay affirmation to biblical theology by using the categories of creation, reconciliation in Christ, and redemption.  Also offers excellent reasons for gay marriage.

McNeill, John J.  Taking a Chance on God.  Beacon Press, 1996.
A former Roman Catholic priest speaks directly to gay and lesbian Christians about why it makes sense not to abandon the faith.  His writings reflect the anguish and despair many gays and lesbians feel and offers life-giving options that all can embrace and be made whole.

Scanzoni, Letha Dawson and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.  Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? A Positive Response.  Harper & Row, 1994.
Groundbreaking work in 1978 that looks at homosexuality from scientific, psychological, and biblical perspectives. Completely revised in 1994.  A wide-ranging synthesis of a lot of material found throughout this bibliography.  If you only read one book on the subject, this is it!

Homophobia and Its Consequences

Blumenfeld, Warren J.  Homophobia: How We All Pay the Price.  Beacon Press, 1992.
Points out the hidden costs of homophobia in family relationships, religious institutions, social policy, and many other aspects of our lives.  Offers concrete suggestions for transforming attitudes, behaviors, and institutions.

Fone, Byrne.  Homophobia: A History.  Metropolitan Books, 2000.
Chronicles the evolution of homophobia through the centuries. Deals well with biblical texts, particularly on Sodom and Gomorrah.  Especially good at describing the sexual understandings of antiquity.

Jung, Patricia Beattie and Ralph F. Smith. Heterosexism: An Ethical Challenge.  State University of New York Press, 1993
Takes apart the sociological underpinnings of heterosexism and exposes their harmful effects on us all.  Particularly good at helping gays and straights alike see how we are all imprisoned in certain false assumptions about reality that we need to be freed from in order to be truly human.  Particularly useful in helping the church to understand the larger issues and offers a way to reform the church and society.

Gay Life in America

Bawer, Bruce.  A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society. Touchstone, 1993.
Refutes the arguments used by antigay activists to stir groundless fears and hostility, and also offers a frank critique of an unrepresentative gay subculture that falsely equates homosexuality with promiscuity, hedonism, and political correctness. Great book to share with your friends who believe homosexuality is only sex, sex, and more sex.

White, Mell.  Stranger at the Gate: To Be Gay and Christian in America. Simon and Schuster, 1994.
The founder of Soulforce and former ghost writer for Jerry Falwell, Pat Roberston and Billy Graham, shares his struggle to be gay and Christian.  The single best first-person look at how a God-fearing man tried every conceivable means to rid himself of his "abominating affliction" only to discover that God loves and accepts him just as he is.  More than any other book, this one is convincing evidence that the center of the homosexual life is truly no different than that of the heterosexual.

History of the Gay Rights Movement

Clendinen, Dudley and Adam Nagourney.  Out for Good: The Struggle to Build a Gay Rights Movement in America.  Simon and Schuster, 1999.
The best single volume of the history of the gay rights struggle in America. It answers some nagging questions such as why the movement is so diverse politically, why gays and lesbians originally couldn't get along, and why the movement can't settle on a unified vision.

In Defense of the Traditional Interpretations

Balch, David L., Editor.  Homosexuality, Science, and the "Plain Sense" of Scripture. William B. Eerdmnas Publishing Company, 2000.
Ten scholars, progressive and conservative square off in debating the issues.  Gives a good overview of the different ways of doing biblical interpretation.

Gagnon, Robert A. J.  The Bible and Homosexual Practice.  Abingdon Press, 2001.
The most current defense of the traditional understanding of homosexuality and the Bible. Most traditionalists view this as the best defense to date.

Hays, Richard B.  The Moral Vision of the New Testament.  HarperSanFarncisco, 1996.
Chapter 16, on Homosexuality, offers a highly nuanced interpretation of the relevant passages in the New Testament.  Some consider this superior to Gagnon's.

Schmidt, Thomas E.  Straight & Narrow? InterVarsity Press, 1995.
Attempts to answer the nontraditional arguments for acceptance of homosexuals. Offers scriptural exegesis, deals with whether or not people are born with homosexual orientations, and takes on John Boswell.  Wants to "hate the sin but love the sinner".  Fails.

Reparative Therapy

Besen, Wayne R.  Anything But Straight: Unmasking the Scandals and Lies Behind the Ex-Gay Myth.  Harrington Park Press, 2003
An expose' of the ex-gay and reparative therapy movements from the inside.  Shows the connections between them and the radical right, and the damage they do.

Same-sex Marriage

See: http://clergyunited.blogspot.com/2013/02/series-essential-resources-for-struggle.html

Bibles

Peterson, Eugene H.  The Message: The Bible in Contemporary Language. NavPress, 2002.
This is the only Bible that even comes close to dealing with the "clobber passages" with integrity.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible. Third Edition. Michael Coogan, Editor. Oxford University Press, 2001.
The notes in this Bible deal well with the "clobber passages."

MONDAY: 
What to say to your friends about the Bible and homosexuality

The Ex-Gay Proof-text: "And Such Were Some of You!" 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Ex-Gays: The Big Hoax

Herman Goebbels was right: tell a lie often enough and soon it will be thought to be the truth. Such a lie has been circulating for a few decades now, but is finally being held up to the light of truth, scientific truth to be exact.  It is the lie that gays can be made straight through proper counseling and prayer.  It’s been stylized as “Pray away the gay,” in many conservative Christian churches and movements.  Last January, no less an authority than Exodus International president Alan Chambers completely reversed his longstanding view that gays can be made straight. Here's the full quote: “The majority of [gay] people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them, have not experienced a change in their orientation.”    (Interestingly, that would likely include himself, who has for years claimed an orientation change.)  Exodus International is the leading organization contending that gays can change.

I have on a CD, a speech from a former member of EI's board of directors suggesting that, since a preponderance of gays don't change, EI should change its motto to "Come suffer with us."

There has been only one “scientific” study that has held that gays do change.  It was conducted by none other than the psychologist who led the American Psychological Association to remove homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in 1973, Dr. Robert Spitzer.  It was his presumed objectivity that gave the study its prestige.  Recently, Dr. Spitzer retracted his study with an apology to the gay community for the harm he had caused.

So, what drives the conservative Christian movement to applaud such studies and accept this lie at face value?  Very simply, it’s all about one short paragraph in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

This verse straightforwardly states that some in the congregation were once sodomites, but are no longer.  Sodomites, of course, are understood to be today’s homosexuals.  Many gay Christians took this verse to heart and subjected themselves to every conceivable treatment to rid themselves of this condition because they believed what they read.  (Mel White estimates he paid nearly $500,000 in efforts to change his orientation, including shock treatments.) However, this verse does not actually say anything of the kind.  The translation, sodomites, was not coined until 1000 years after the Bible was written, so its use here is anachronistic.  Therefore, a more suitable translation is required, and one is at hand: users of temple prostitutes. Male prostitutes were temple prostitutes in Corinth and they had customers/users.  These are the people under consideration in this paragraph, and no wonder Paul could claim you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…. But to expect the same for nonheterosexuals is not warranted or even possible, and NOT under consideration in this paragraph.

Here's a sampling of what experts in the field have to say about the impossibility of changing sexual orientation and the harm it causes:

American Academy of Pediatrics (1993)
“Therapy directed specifically at changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

American Medical Association (2003)
“Our AMA opposes the use of ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy that is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that the patient should change his/her homosexual orientation.”

American Psychoanalytic Association (2000)
“Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful efforts to ‘convert’ or ‘repair’ an individual’s sexual orientation. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized homophobic attitudes.”

American Psychiatric Association (1998)
“The American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as reparative or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.” The APA removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1973.

American Psychological Association (1997)
“No scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of any of the conversion therapies that try to change sexual orientation.” The association removed homosexuality from its list of disorders in 1975.

National Association of Social Workers (2000)
“People seek mental health services for many reasons. Accordingly, it is fair to assert that lesbians and gay men seek therapy for the same reasons that heterosexual people do. However, the increase in media campaigns, often coupled with coercive messages from family and community members, has created an environment in which lesbians and gay men often are pressured to seek reparative or conversion therapies, which cannot and will not change sexual orientation. Aligned with the American Psychological Association’s (1997) position, NCLGB believes that such treatment potentially can lead to severe emotional damage. Specifically, transformational ministries are fueled by stigmatization of lesbians and gay men, which in turn produces the social climate that pressures some people to seek change in sexual orientation. No data demonstrate that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and in fact they may be harmful.

Gays can’t change their orientation any more than straights can.  Since God made each of us in our own special way, why would we want to?

Here's Justin Lee's take on it:

Romans 1, Part 3 "Passion Fruit, the Aphrodisiac of Idolaters"

(Please read Parts 1&2 to make the most of this post if you haven't already.)

In an earlier post I mentioned that one of the most egregious errors people make in trying to understand the Bible is to think that what they are reading is as understandable as today's newspaper.  This view which I call the "face value" way of reading situates the ancient text in the modern era.  So one expects that what words meant then (two to three thousand years ago) are what words mean today.  (Or what we mean today is what was meant back then.) Ever try to cross a three thousand year old bridge?  Be very, very careful!  It could collapse on you at any moment.  Such is the danger of trying to access meaning across cultures separated by millennia.

This couldn't be truer than with interpreting Romans 1.  

The history of interpreting this chapter has taken a turn in recent scholarship.  One of the most important insights came from asking a simple question: If what we know as sexual orientation (that is, heterosexuality, homosexuality and the like) is a product of modern psychological study, and are foreign concepts in biblical days, have we misread the Bible? Another way of putting the question is, Have we assumed that Paul has these modern categories in mind in Romans 1?  If we do not, and I believe we should not or we are invoking anachronisms, then a whole new outcome is revealed, one that can no longer support the view that Paul is denouncing gays and lesbians.  How can this be?  

Not only did Paul not work the the unknown categories of sexual orientation, he did not even think in terms of homosexual behavior, either.  Sex for him and his Greco-Roman contemporaries was either ethical or unethical, appropriate or inappropriate.  Worst of all was sex that was driven by passion. (For those of you who want to dig deeper into this, a good starting place is an article by New Testament scholar, David E. Fredrickson, found here: http://books.google.com/booksid=6pCEjNJexFYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&f=false
and in the book, Homosexuality, Science, and the Plain Sense of Scripture, by David L. Balch)

A revealing notion from Dio Chrysostem (a contemporary of Paul) is that he assumed that the same lust that drove men to women prostitutes would lead the same men to male prostitutes.  Lust, or passion, was considered the most harmful of the influences on one's life.  The ideal man (sic) is the one who is virtually passionless, who is always in full control of one's emotions.

This is easily seen in the way that Luke (the author of this Gospel is a classically trained Greek) excises the emotions from Mark's depictions of Jesus.  Here are just a couple of examples.  

Mark 4:20  And these are the ones sown on the good soil; they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.  Luke adds the description of the ideal person. Luke 8:15  But as for that in the good soil, these are the ones who, when they hear the word, hold it fast in an honest and good heart, and bear fruit with patient endurance. 

Mark 3:5  He looked around at them with anger; he was grieved at their hardness of heart and said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.”  Luke omits the emotions altogether.  Luke 6:10  After looking around at all of them, he said to him, “Stretch out your hand.”  Take out your concordance and see for yourself how many times Luke disregards Mark's emotional Jesus.  His Jesus is the Hellenistic perfect man, virtually devoid of emotion.

With this in mind let's take a closer look at 1:26-27 (NRSV) 

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

If we don't immediately assume lesbianism at work here in Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, it is not necessary to import it.  It's open to a variety of meanings. And the expression in the same way also the men means that passion invaded their bodies just like it invaded the women's bodies.  So the due penalty for their error was indeed received in their own persons, that is, in their own bodies, that despicable source of all evil, passion. 

Interestingly, Paul did not say the devil made them do it.  Indeed, according to Paul, this behavior is the direct work of an offended God.  It's God who allows the passion fruit to be eaten and wreak its vengeance. 

When we delve deeply into the prevailing context of the biblical era, we discover an almost impenetrable distance.  So different, in fact, that we end up comparing apples with oranges, or in this case, modern sexual orientation with a Stoic distaste of emotions, and think they are the same thing.  They are not.  The notion that two people of the same sex could love each other and be as committed to one another as any heterosexual couple was as foreign to him as his idolatry/passion related explanation is to us.Surely we can not be so stubborn as to say that our present day LGBTs fit this description.  We must look elsewhere for the source of their orientations and remove Romans 1 from the index of charges against them. Yes, idolatry has its casualties; let's not add LGBTs to that list.

MONDAY:  The Ex-Gay Proof-text: "And Such Were Some of You!"  1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Romans 1, Part 2 "The Nastiest People in the World"

We can "cut to the chase" very quickly by beginning at the end.  To see where Paul is headed is to see what concerns him.  And it should concern us, too.

Whoever it is that Paul is castigating here surely are among humanity's most despicable people.  Here's how the NRSV puts it:

They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them. 

No one of wholesome spirit would want to be associated in any way with such as these. These are the dregs of the earth, for sure.  This is character shaped by idolatry, or, shaped by other than God. 

We begin here because I want you to consider something in your own experience.  Do you know any Christian LGBTs who fit this description?   Of course you don't.  They fit, instead, another of Paul's lists of characteristics, the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness.  If this is not your experience, you don't know enough gay Christians!  Therefore, we can say with assurance that whomever Paul has in mind, it is not gay Christians!

It must also be said that this does not fit even the vast majority of LGTB people at all. The prejudicial depiction of the stereotypical gay is a product of projecting a minority of gay pride parade participants as typical of the whole.  Even in a pride parade, the exhibitionists are in the minority. 

To say that all gays are like that is to say that all straights are like the party animals at the Mardi Gras.  A woman in one of my seminars wanted to say that all gays are promiscuous, "just like in the parades."  To which I replied, "So, if I threw you a necklace of glass beads, you would show me your breasts.  Right?"  She got the point.  I hope you do, too.  The fact is that most gays are indistinguishable from straights. The proof is that hundreds of them live in proximity to anyone of us and we don't even know it!

I know hundreds of LGBT Christians, many of whom make my witness look puny.  I also know many non-Christian gays who have been driven from our churches by behavior more typical of the strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, slanderers, insolent, haughty, boastful behavior that Paul decries, than that of the Spirit.  

So then, just who or what is Paul referring to with such language as God gave them up and they were filled with every kind of wickedness?  This we will turn to tomorrow.

TOMORROW:  Romans 1, Part 3 "Passion Fruit, the Aphrodisiac of Idolaters" 

Romans 1, Naturally (Part One)

Let's clear some of the debris out of the way, in Part 1, before we get into the specifics of this most vitriolic of rants by Paul, Romans 1:18-32. 

The first observation is that there is no word or combination of words that can be translated "homosexual," or its synonyms, in Greek (or Hebrew, for that matter). Linguists know what sociologists prove, that without a word there is no concept. So to believe that what we know as homosexuality today existed in the same form 2000 years ago is quite wrong. To use the word homosexual (sodomite,etc.) in an English translation is to put words in apostles' mouths (or in their pens, as it were).

Some translations that use the "Dynamic Equivalent" mode of translation think they found the equivalent in either homosexual or Sodomite, but there is no equivalent extant today. Even the NRSV, a non-DE translation, mistranslated the word and has no excuse. So the people who can quote their translation thinking they are quoting the Bible, are only misquoting the original. 

So, point number one is that whatever it is that Paul is talking about here, it is decidedly not homosexuality as we know it today. The Bible cannot condemn that which it does not know.

The Greek word for nature, physis (φύσις), as used by Paul, is not at all what conservative interpreters want it to mean, that is, equivalent to Natural Law, or the way God made things. Quite to the contrary, as seen in Paul's use of the word in 1 Corinthians 11:14, Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him.  One is entitled to ask,  in what way does nature teach this?  Well, it doesn't.  Paul came to his belief about the length of hair by way of his culture's teachings which are received as the way things are (or should be!).  My mother was roundly condemned by her mother when she "bobbed" her hair (cut it short) as a young woman in the Roaring Twenties.  Grandmother was simply put off because she and her peers were taught that short hair on a woman meant she was "loose."  Today, short hair is considered inconsequential.  Nature has nothing to do with it.

Troy W. Martin, a medical historian, in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 123/1 (2004) tells us how Paul and his contemporaries came to this conclusion about hair.  Since the time of Hippocrates to well beyond Paul's day, hair was considered to be a sexual object.  The words for hair and testes are the same.  That's why women were to cover their hair.  Hair also had a procreative function.  It was thought to be hollow and therefore created a vacuum.  This was thought to pull the sperm into the womb.  Women who were not able to conceive had pungent suppositories placed in their vaginas and told to return the next day.  If the physician could smell the odor in the woman's mouth, she was thought able to conceive; if not, she was impotent.  

Naturally (if you'll forgive the pun), it worked the same way in the male.  Long hair pulled the man's sperm away from the source making procreation more difficult, if not impossible. Therefore, long hair would be deemed unnatural and degrading to a man.  Short hair on a woman  was, likewise, degrading (why it was often punishment).  Both were rejecting their "natural" roles as procreators.  

So, my second point is that we need to be very careful when we follow Paul's lead when he appeals to "nature."  He is certainly reflecting the notions of his (Hellenic/Jewish) culture and not giving us truth fallen from heaven.  That doesn't mean he's wrong; only that his information is only as good as his culture can make it.

TOMORROW: Part Two, The Nastiest People on Earth!