.

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ literature, and interpret those things, but I accept it as it stands. The Bible affects lives more dramatically when it is taken as literal truth in a literal interpretation.”

      Many men in the New Hope program grew up hearing sermons that taught homosexuality was the most horrible sin of all. At New Hope and Open Door they interpret scriptures from Genesis, Leviticus, Romans, and First Corinthians to mean that homosexuality is not God's intent, and Pastor Mike would agree. In the sermons, classes, and Bible studies at New Hope, Frank and Pastor Mike argue that the book of Genesis is proof that sex should be tied solely to procreation, that heterosexuality is mandated by God, and that the aim of sexuality is completeness, or the bringing together of the male and female. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah figures prominently in the conservative Christian debate over homosexuality.²¹ Using the New International Version, the New Living translation, or the New American Standard Bibles, conservative Christians traditionally read Leviticus 18:22 as an unambiguous repudiation of homosexual acts. The New International Version states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” New Hope's interpretation of First Corinthians includes the use of the words “sexual perverts” and states, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, not adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” In the “Steps Out” workbook, Frank writes that the Greek words for sexual perverts are malakoi and arsenokoitai. He translates these terms as “soft” or “weak,” and by extension “effeminate,” and concludes that the words connote the passive partner in homosexual intercourse.²² In the Revised Standard and Living Bibles, these terms have been translated respectively as “homosexuals, homosexual perverts and partakers in homosexuality.” Frank acknowledges that the basis for New Hope's belief in homosexuality's sinfulness rests on the translation of a few words. However, rather than viewing these translations as the result of the bias of a particular cultural context or religious tradition, Frank believes the translation is a moot point. To him, the Bible is the word of God and is infallible regardless of human error or interpretation.

      Most of the men at New Hope read these biblical verses as the inspired word of God and refused to acknowledge cultural or historical context. There were exceptions, like Evan, a seminary graduate spending the year at New Hope. I had assumed Evan was an imposter or spy when we initially met, because his Ivy League education, Methodist background, and progressive political ideas were glaring aberrations at New Hope. His serious, lined face showed signs of time in the outdoors, and he rarely smiled or evinced the emotion of other men in the program. He had written sermons as a theology student, and he was equally well versed in biblical interpretation and postmodern theory, speaking of Judith Butler and John Calvin in the same breath. His nuanced discernment of scripture often led to clashes with Hank and disagreements over Frank's teaching style. “Many conservative Christians believe it just fell out of the sky and it's God's word, and he intended everything there to kind of speak to us in our time and place,” he told me. “There's a part of me that holds onto the view that God inspired these texts, that God was active at the moment of their creation and still speaks through them. But I haven't quite figured out how to totally balance that view with the idea that these are historical documents.” Lars, a social worker at an AIDS organization, had left New Hope after several years in the program to live as a gay man. At times, he was bitter about the conservative Christian hypocrisy around homosexuality. “I'm very confused, to be honest. I know what it says at face value. It basically says it's not favorable in God's eyes and is sin, in a nutshell; however, there are other things very conservative Christians don't follow anymore, like women not being allowed to talk or wear head coverings, so I'm left to think, if I can't take everything in the Bible at face value, then everything is up for discussion. They excuse things that are convenient for them.” His interpretation of the Bible had gradually shifted over time: “Honestly, I don't know what the scriptures say. Before I believed that the word of God was absolute and infallible and you had to do things, and I was willing to do that no matter what the cost. Now I'm not so sure.” Unlike Evan and Lars, most men arrive at New Hope believing that when the Bible references homosexuality, it does so in condemnation, and that these isolated verses are part of a larger tapestry of the word of God serving as irrefutable proof that homosexuality is wrong.

      Scholars like John Boswell contend that some conservative Christians have reinterpreted biblical scriptures to reflect the political agenda of Christian organizations and that these scriptures are not irrefutable truths. According to Boswell, the word “homosexual” does not occur in the Bible, and no extant text or manuscript contains such a word.²³ He presents evidence that the preoccupation with homosexuality is a result of contemporary politics rather than long-standing biblical injunctions. One of the most powerful arguments for this viewpoint is the fact that Jesus never mentions homosexuality in any form in the New Testament. As Evan put it, “I think it's significant that it wasn't a big issue for Jesus. Jesus never mentions it.” Other scholars of sexuality have rigorously demonstrated that modern homosexual identity emerged in the West during the past two centuries, and the category “homosexuality” used by conservative Christians is a modern term placed on a different historical and cultural context.²⁴ Many of these debates are simply irrelevant to the men at New Hope because the idea that homosexuality is “not what God has planned and not what God wants,” as Hank puts it, is the bottom line. The scholarly réévaluation of the scriptures means nothing when a person believes that the scriptures are absolute and immutable truth. As Drew bluntly said, “In Genesis God created man and then he made woman. I believe that Christ walked this earth and that he's real [and] that it's not right. I believe it's a choice.”

      Frank and other ex-gay leaders also interpret biblical passages to mean that in addition to condemnation, the Bible also offers the promise of liberation. The ex-gay movement's founding statement includes compassion for those struggling with homosexuality, but the ability to feel compassion does not translate into endorsement. The idea of homosexuality as sin is central to New Hope's view of scripture, and the distinction between sin and sinner translates to the difference between sexual behavior and identity for ex-gays. Nowhere do they read the Bible as a way to understand homosexuality as a positive way to live. Dwight, a man from Scotland in his early forties who worked in the New Hope offices, claimed, “So, how I see it is that basically God doesn't want anybody to use their bodies for sex unless it's within marriage. I guess I tend to focus on that rather than on looking just at homosexuality.” Marvin Ellison, a Christian ethicist, argues that the Christian tradition has never had a constructive ethic of sexuality that truly affirms and honors the rich diversity of human sexualities.²⁵ He asks, “What would a progressive Christian ethic look like that regarded homosexuality as a morally good way to be and ‘do' sexuality? What difference would it make to focus moral concern not on gender and sexual identity, but on the quality of relational intimacy and whether our connections with each other are just and compassionate?”²⁶ The idea of homosexuality as a social and moral good was beyond the conception of Frank or any of the men at New Hope. They had fully assimilated the idea that positive sexuality could exist only for married heterosexuals.

      Many men at New Hope were quite comfortable with accepting and assimilating a view of scriptures predicated on a starkly polarized moral view of the world. The creation of a moral universe devoid of ambiguity was also a defense against and reaction to reproof and censure for joining an ex-gay ministry. Their experience of being ostracized from their primary community, the church, was critical in their decision to join an ex-gay ministry. Many men endured early rejection as members of their congregations, and others heard messages that homosexuality was a sin akin to murder. Growing up as an active member of an Assemblies of God church in Southern California, Brian internalized these messages from an early age, and they were still the linchpin of his identity. He told me, “It was like, this is sin. You've got to stay away from it, and it's a spiritual battle. It's a war. Spirit forces are raging in the heavenly realm—that kind of thing.” Doug, a new arrival at the program, was a heavyset man who had lived in a gay neighborhood in San Francisco for over twenty years before joining New Hope. He remembers sitting next to his high school boyfriend when Jerry Falwell visited as the guest pastor СКАЧАТЬ