HOMOPHOBIA: THE LAST "RESPECTABLE" PREJUDICE
By W. S. Coffin
From “THE HEART IS A
LITTLE TO THE LEFT, published in 1999
I WANT TO CONFRONT
homophobia for two reasons. The first is that the "gay agenda" has
replaced the "communist threat" as the battering ram of reactionary
politics. Instead of a commie behind every bush, there's a gay person sick and
sinful.
The second reason is
that while the church has generally given at least some support to the
oppressed, in the case of homosexuals the church has led in the oppression.
The better to refute the
assertions of contrary-minded Christians, I want to speak as a Christian
preacher who shares Bishop Tutu's sorrowful conclusion: "The Lord of the
Church would not be where his church is in this matter.”
Preachers do best with
texts. Mine this evening comes from the fourth chapter of Luke, when Jesus,
quoting Isaiah, says he is come "to proclaim liberty to the captives and
recovery of sight to the blind." Who are the captives, and what is it
these days that holds them in bondage?
Many of us have a strong
allergic reaction to change--of any kind. And some of us even go so far as to
embrace "The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent" put forth by the
British academic who said, "Nothing should ever be done for the first
time."
The result is an
intolerance for nonconforming ideas that runs like a dark streak through human
history. In religious history this intolerance becomes particularly vicious
when believers divide the world into the godly and the ungodly; for then,
hating the ungodly is not a moral lapse but rather an obligation, part of the
job description of being a true believer.
Think how, for example,
fleeing British persecution, our Puritan forebears sailed to America, only to
become equally intolerant of religious ideas other than their own, which they
enforced as the official faith of the Massachusetts Bay colony. First they
banned that early church dissident, Anne Hutchinson, who, as she exited the
church where the trial was held, said words haunting to this day: "Better
to be cast out of the church than to deny Christ." (Everything churchly is
not Christlike!)
In I660 these Puritans
went farther, hanging Mary Dyer, an early Quaker, for insisting, in effect,
"Truth is my authority, not some authority my truth.”
Three hundred years
later, in the I960s, this same intolerance made many Christians consider Martin
Luther King Jr. more an agitator than a reconciler. And to this day most
churches refuse to ordain not only gays and lesbians but all women, You'd think
that if Mary could carry our Lord and Savior in her body a woman could carry
his message on her lips! As for the argument, repeated frequently by the pope
John Paul, that there were no women among the original twelve disciples-well,
there also were no Gentiles.
Why all this
intolerance! Because while the unknown is the mind's greatest need, uncertainty
is one of the heart's greatest fears. So fearful, in fact, is uncertainty that
many insecure people engage in what psychiatrists call "premature closure,"
They are those who prefer certainty to truth, those in church who put the
purity of dogma ahead of the integrity of love. And what a distortion of the
Gospel it is to have limited sympathies and unlimited certainties, when the
very reverse—to have limited certainties but unlimited sympathies—is not only
more tolerant but far more Christian. For "who has known the mind of
God!" And didn’t Paul also insist that if we fail in love we fail in all
else?
The opposite of love is
not hatred but fear. "Perfect love casts out fear." Nothing scares me
like scared people; for while love seeks the truth, fear seeks safety, the
safety so frequently found in dogmatic certainty, pitiless intolerance.
So I believe the
captives most in need of release, those today whose closet doors most need to
be flung open, are really less the victims than their oppressors – the captives
of conformity--the racists, the sexists, the
heterosexists, all who
live in dark ignorance because their fears have blown out the lamp of reason. So
groundless are these fears that fence them in, I am reminded of the entry for
November 1939 in E. B. White's journal, One
Man's Meat, which he
wrote while living in Maine:
A friend of mine has an
electric fence around a piece of
his land, and he keeps two
cows there. I asked him one day
how he liked his fence
and whether it cost much to operate.
"Doesn't cost a
damn thing:' he replied. "As soon as the
battery ran down I
unhooked it and never put it back. That
strand of fence wire is
as dead as a piece of string, but
cows don’t go within ten
feet of it. They learned their
lesson the first few
days:”
Apparently this state of
affairs is general throughout the
United States. Thousands
of cows are living in fear of a
strand of wire that no
longer has the power to confine
them. Freedom is theirs
for the asking. Rise up, cows! Take
your liberty while
despots snore. And rise up too, all people
in bondage everywhere!
The wire is dead, the trick is exhausted·
Come on out!
Yes, come on out,
fearful people; the pasture is greener where love prevails and discords end and
the joys of unity are proved. Come on out, especially you
Christians, because
"for freedom Christ has set you free.”
Here's what many a
Christian has learned: It is absolutely right to love and learn from the
sixty-six books of the Bible (seventy-one if you're Roman Catholic). But it is
wrong to fear their every word, for everything biblical is not Cbristlike. For
example: "Now go and smite Amalek... do not spare them, but kill both man
and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass ....
Thus says the Lord:”
Besides, we Christians believe in the Word made flesh, not in the Word made
words. And for God's sake let's be done with the hypocrisy of claiming "I
am a biblical literalist" when everyone is a selective literalist,
especially those who swear by the anti-homosexual laws in the book of Leviticus
and then feast on barbecued ribs and delight in Monday night football for it is
toecap, an abomination, not only to eat but merely to touch the skin of a dead
pig.
Homosexuality was not a
big issue for biblical writers. Nowhere in the four Gospels is it even
mentioned. In fact, in all of Scripture only seven verses refer to homosexual
behavior.
Although all these
verses forbid or deplore homosexual behavior, nevertheless, in many discussions
of texts, thinking is woefully slack. Take, for example, the story of Sodom and
Gomorrah. As the cities ready under sentence of doom, the destruction of Sodom
could hardly have been the result of tempted gang rape of the angels. The
prophet Ezekiel makes this abundantly dear: "Behold this was the guilt of
your sister Sodom. She and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and
prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and the needy." (Ez 16:49).
Likewise, Isaiah and Amos compare the Israelites of their day to Sodom only
because "your hands are full of blood:” "the spoil of the poor is in
your houses.” And the prophet Zephaniah claims: "Moab shall become like
Sodom, and the Amorites like Gomorrah" for they have filled their houses
"with violence and fraud."
How ironic it is that
biblical misreading made "sodomy) a crime, while the truer crime,
gluttony, gets off scot-free!
If we make the Levitical
text on homosexual behavior normative--"A man Shall not lie with another
man as with a woman"--what do we do with other prohibitions? I've already
mentioned eating pork; what about wearing garments made of two different
materials and sowing a field with two kinds of seed?
And what about all the
normative behavior in Scripture no longer considered so today! No biblical
literalist I know of publicly advocates slavery or stoning to death an
adulterer; nor do people today believe, as did the ancient Israelites, that a
man could not commit adultery against his wife, but only against another man by
using the other man's wife.
Polygamy too was
regularly practiced, and again it's ironic that Mormon polygamy was outlawed in
America despite Constitutional protection of freedom of religion and despite
the fact that it was a biblical practice nowhere explicitly prohibited in the
Bible.
Prostitution was
considered natural in Old Testament times and celibacy abnormal. Today the
Catholic Church talks of celibacy as a divine calling,
but in the case of gays
it legislates celibacy not by calling but by category.
Saint Paul thought all
men were straight. He knew nothing of sexual orientation. He assumed that all
homosexual activity was done by heterosexuals. This assumption is true as well
of Old Testament writers, which means that all the biblical passages used to
gays and lesbians have really nothing whatsoever to say about constitutionally
gay people in genuinely loving relationships.
In short, it would
appear that everyone reserves the right to pick and choose among sexual mores in
the Bible. Says Waiter Wink, to whose writings I am indebted: "There is no
Biblical sex ethic.... The Bible knows only a love ethic .... This doesn't mean
everything goes. It means that everything is to be critiqued by Jesus'
commandment to love."
When everything biblical
is not Christlike, we Christians need to develop an interpretive theory of
Scripture. I think the love of Jesus is indeed the plumb line by which
everything is to be measured. And while laws may be more rigid, love is more
demanding, for love insists on motivation and goes between, around, and beyond
all laws.
In no way do I wish to
discount the central role of Scripture. The Bible, after all, is the
foundational document for all churches the world around. But if you take the
Bible seriously, you can’t take all of it literally. And you don’t honor the
higher truth you find in the Bible by ignoring truths found elsewhere.
Christians should be impressed by the fact that in 1973 the American
Psychological Association declared homosexuality per se was no sign of illness,
Likewise, they should heed natural scientists who have discovered homosexuality
in mammals, birds, and insects. How, as claimed by Jerry Fawell, could
homosexuality be the result of the Fall when mammals, birds, and insects were
around long before the human species arrived!
Fundamentalists forget
that love demands discernment as well as obedience. Here are two biblical
verses they never quote: "Why do you not judge for yourselves what is
right!" and "Do you not know that we are to judge angels! How much
more matters pertaining to this life!"
Finally, let me say that
I am sure that no word of God is God's last word.
Let's turn now to my
earlier suggestion that the gay agenda has replaced the communist threat as the
battering ram of reactionary politics. Why is this so?
Pride is not
accidentally but essentially competitive. I can go up only if someone else or
some other group of people goes down. It is for that reason that there is much
conscious or unthinking social subordination in life. And some people can’t
live without enemies; they need them to tell them who they are. Anticommunists
for years needed communists and vice versa.
Gays are natural enemies
because of the personal revulsion many straights feel about gay sexual
behavior. Sex, let's face it, is dynamite, and we should recognize the power of
involuntary revulsion just as we do the power of involuntary attraction.
No one is to be blamed
for feeling revulsion. How can you help it in a homophobic society? What's essential
is to recognize the cultural source of this revulsion and not to act in ways
that hurt others.
What I hold against the
religious right is its cruelty. It's cruel because it's ignorant; and as its
ignorance stems from self-righteousness and complacency, it is an ethical, not
an intellectual default.
Of course, it may be
that instead of an irrational prejudice, homophobia represents a completely
rational fear of sexuality divorced from reproduction, justified by pleasure
alone. If true, heterosexuals are caught between longing for more freedom and
fear of losing a more orderly and virtuous, if more repressed, world. Were that
the case, then straight people opposed to
what they perceive as
gay promiscuity should be supporting same-sex unions.
In any event, in a
Washington cemetery, on the gravestone of a Vietnam veteran, it is written:
"When I was in the military, they gave me a medal for killing two men and
a discharge for loving one.”
Although the academic
community is more tolerant than the religious right, it is also more passive,
and tolerance and passivity are a lethal combination. It's easy to forget how
frequently compassion demands confrontation.
Confrontation is
necessary to shake up the complacent, the "good people" who are
indeed "good" but within the limits of their inherited prejudices and
traditions. Someone has to play Hamlet to their Horatio. "There are more
things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy:”
Someone has to recall to them Jeremiah: "Woe to those who say ‘peace, peace'
where there is no
peace"; and Jesus too -- "I came not to bring peace but a sword.”
Surely, he was referring to the sword of truth, the only sword that heals the
wounds it inflicts.
Now comes the really
hard part, the part only gays and lesbians can play. The feminist movement in
Norway has a slogan, "Not to do to them what they did to us." In
other words, if you are gay and people are screaming at you that you are a
moral pervert, can you so speak and act as to rob their position of any moral
cogency? Gandhi and Martin Luther King have shown that it is the temper and
spirit with which a movement conducts itself rather than a particular action
that makes the greatest difference, Divested of moral pretensions, a prejudiced
person becomes as Samson with his locks shorn, Nonviolence does not mean
turning yourself into a doormat so that people can walk all you. But it does
mean returning evil with good, with nonviolence, hatred with a love that is
obliged to increase upon pain of diminishing.
Because all this he
understood so profoundly, the great agitator of the 60s won the Nobel Peace
Prize, and most of America now celebrates a national holiday in his honor.
Because they too, in Christlike fashion, returned evil with good, both Anne
Hutchinson and Mary Dyer have statues m their honor in the center of the very
city where the one was banned and hanged.
The good tidings are
that we live in a moral universe. “God
is not mocked.” The former foreign minister of Israel, Abba Eban, once remarked,
"Human beings really do the right thing, but only after exhausting all
alternatives.” Already there
are signs of progress--the movie Philadelphia, the sitcom Ellen, the 232 United Church of
Christ congregations who have declared themselves "open and
affirming" to gays, the 150 Methodist churches who have done the same.
Some 10 percent of all Unitarian ministers are openly gay.
Other
signs of progress are the gradual de-ghettoization and de-urbanization of gays.
More gays are living openly in smaller and smaller towns. And gay-straight
alliances are forming in high schools supported in Massachusetts by the
Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth.
Without doubt, such
progress as has been made is due primarily to the determination of the gay
community. Despite the AIDS epidemic, so poignantly described in the Psalmist's
phrase, "the destruction that wastes at noonday," despite "the
band playing on," the legal setbacks in Colorado and Maine, the violence
against them that goes on all over the country, the gay communities of America
have continued the fight, not for "special rights" but for the equal
rights long overdue them. And the fight has been hard, for as every liberation
movement has learned, those who benefit from injustice are less able to
understand its true character than those who suffer from it.
Just as African
Americans have proved that that the problem all along was one of white racism;
and woman, that the problem all along was one of male chauvinism, gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals are proving that God’s creation is far more pluralistic
than the eyes of many straights have wished to perceive.
So here's to the gay
community and to all it's doing for all of us. And praise the Lord who brings
liberty to the captives of conformity and recovery of sight to the blindly
prejudiced.