Customer Reviews

Homosexuality and the Western Christian Tradition

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This work is probably the major secondary source used more recent authors on this subject. Bailey himself, cites no specialists other than Rattray Taylor (who was quite fashionable in the 1950's) and Havelock Ellis and his ilk. Rather, most of his observations come from critical analysis of the source material. Bailey does have an agenda. He wants the church to make a distinction between inverts--who cannot express their sexuality except in a homoerotic or lesbian fashion, and perverts, who are just dissolute heterosexuals. God does not punish the invert, only the pervert.

Bailey decisively quashes the Sodom and Gomorrah justification for bashing homosexuals. Not only does he analyze the relevant OT texts closely to demonstrate that the sins of Sodom that led to fire and brimstone had more to do with problems in hospitality than buggery, but also carefully searches out in the corpus of ancient literature how homoerotic sex became the besetting sin. Such interpretations were fairly late and came mostly from Jewish pseudo-epigraphical works such as the Book of Jubilees, Testament of the 12 Patriarchs, The Secrets of Enoch, and Testament of Naphtali. These homosexual interpretations were picked up by Philo, Josephus, and to a lesser degree by the Rabbinical schools after 70 CE. The fathers of the Church may have picked up on these interpretation, and firmly believed that the sin of Sodom was sodomy, and through them we have the common tradition that God destroyed the cities of the plain for their sexual proclivities.

But then there is Leviticus. 28:22, and 20:13 prescribe death for those who would lie with men as they did with women. This is pretty straightforward. Based on contextual analysis, Bailey suggests that these laws were intended to prevent Israelites from adopting the customs of the Canaanites and Egyptians, just as other laws forbade marriage with "strange women". But he goes on to argue that as far as the Egyptians were concerned, sodomy was used as a means of humiliating a defeated enemy--treating them as if they were women (and this is not only an ancient practice). Generally throughout the mid-eastern civilizations there were instances of unnatural sexual practices, but these cannot be shown as being widespread. So it's possible that the strictures of Leviticus reflect xenophobia more than homophobia, and reflect the view that Israelites must renounce any thought of religious and cultural syncretism lest they fall into idol worship, which it is assumed, also involves abominable sexual practices.

Three passages in the New Testament directly address homosexual practices. Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 6: 9-20, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10. These passages reflect that homosexual vice was common in the society of the time. Bailey again points out that homosexual behavior was associated with the worship of idols. No Christian can partake in such practices without denying Christ in favor of the pagan gods. Further, the animus of the early church was directed principally against male perverts--pederasts and catamites. Since there was no knowledge at that time of inversion, Bailey argues that it cannot be said that the church was against "homosexuals" only against homosexual acts committed by perverts.

Bailey then goes on to discuss Roman law, arguing that it protected children (of the ruling class) against sexual exploitation more than condemning all homosexual activity. The later Christian emperors did take the Sodom and Gomorrah seriously enough to enact laws that would punish those vices that called down God's wrath, but there was no great secular crusade against homosexual practices. Justinian, for example, would only apply the law against those who flagrantly abused it repeatedly. For although the fathers of the church, synods and councils, and penitential books condemned such behavior, there was no evidence that it was widespread and ruthlessly stamped out. The church of the middle ages exercised general jurisdiction over homosexual offenders in its court, assigning punishments proportionate to the perceived gravity of the particular offense. The secular government was entitled to take independent action, but generally collapsed all offenses into that of sodomy--a felony punishable by death. It was not until the 16th century that all homosexual acts became the exclusive domain of the secular courts.

Bailey does not, however, provide a clear idea of why, if homosexual practices were generally no big deal in antiquity, and indeed into the middle ages, why the ferocious homophobia of modern times? (we must remember that Bailey was writing about 55 years ago). He really has no answer, other than tut-tutting about how carelessly laws were written in the 19th century. Nor does he have an answer to the question why lesbian behavior was generally ignored, and certainly not persecuted with the fervor of homosexual acts. It's odd that Boswell, writing several score years later also has no answers.

Pioneering book that gives the "inhospitality" argument for Sodom (1955), Boswell uses this argument (1980). He (Bailey) could be called the father of pro-gay biblical revisionists. An important book on the subject.

Chapters:
Introduction
1. Sodom and Gomorrah
2. The bible and homosexual practice
3. Roman law to the time of Justinian
4. Legislation, teaching, and opinion in the church
5. The mediaeval situation
6. The law in England
7. Conclusion