If We'd Only Recognize The Things That Make for Peace

I think I've seen enough of me and others to know that we often harp loudest about that with which we struggle most. I mean I was raised in a pretty aggressive and violent environment. I was in a lot of fights and often didn't think twice about hurting others. In many ways, violence was the primary language and often a ready solution throughout my upbringing. So I understand that what I see as a spiritual commitment to nonviolence can be attributed to some reactionary motive. Fine, it may be I'm a big peace baby because I'm struggling to overcome my own violent tendencies.

So it's no surprise to me when someone who makes gross efforts to monitor and control the sexual behaviors of others that they are finally outed as doing things that make all their preaching a punchline.

And so I wonder, is that what's going on with THE GAY? I mean think of all the teachings, all the dos and do not dos, all the commands, and moral assumptions that could make up Christian sexual ethics but don't. Think of every potential resource in the Bible and the broad field of possibility in what we call Church History that is left alone because we say it has no bearing on us. Think of all that is passed over, ignored, rationalized and explained away in one way or another. And THE GAY, a concept I don't see in the texts that make up the Bible, remains. What's going on here?

I'm reluctant to universally apply my experience (or reduce to Freudian silliness what I see as a deep commitment), but is this of the same reactive substance as my nonviolence? Are you building walls to keep yourself safe?

I remember reading Robert Gagnon's The Bible and Homosexual Practice and uncharitably saying to myself, "Good Lord, this guy is a closet case." I can charitably say the book's imprecision, imbalance, and, general dependence on what we now call truthiness seem the result of some kind of blinding rage or panic. It's horribly clear that he has decided that homoeroticism and what we broadly call homosexuality is "inherently" awful (whatever inherently does to qualify awful) and so grasps at anything that may fit the bill. But are incest, rape, anal penetration, "uncovering nakedness", consensual intercourse, etc... homosexual practices? Are they homosexual practices any more than they are heterosexual practices? Does either phrase mean anything outside of a sense of the phrase as dehumanizing euphemism?

Really. Help me out here. I guess I'm a Kinseyan 0 so don't find the protection all that necessary. But others of you? Is same-sex attraction more prevalent among men than I can realize? Did I miss out on some haunting but seminal rites of male passage by not joining a fraternity, and now you all are making up for it? Do the belittling jokes and comments about women suggest you prefer the company of men in a deeper way than I first thought? (And I focus on men here because "man" is the status that has currency for these negotiations.)

Or is there something else? Is this confusion and frustration evidence of a larger confusion- a confusion about who and what we might be for? Does y/our need to read Leviticus 18.22 (for example) as having anything to do with homosexuality demonstrate y/our loyalty to an illegitimate power?

You've probably read my allusions to the idea that something like "enhanced interrogation" can only make sense if you're willing to accept and be determined by certain things- things that make a claim on you, things that hold you, things that blind you. That "thing" makes us slaves. Sometimes happy house slaves, but we are slaves nonetheless, and we take whatever mark or brand is necessary to get along and do business with that master. How does homosexuality make sense to us? How does heterosexuality? What has us bound for that to work?

Drag. If only there was something that freed us...

Oh hey! Wait a minute.

Look, your king comes riding on a donkey. Triumphant, but humble on a donkey...

Oh wait no...

I guess that doesn't have anything to do with this.

Thanks, Billy.