Untangling the
Contradictions:
Attitudes Toward
Homophilia in the Early Christian Church
Same-gender sexual
activity has existed since the beginning of time. Many ancient gods and goddesses participated
in homophilic or homoerotic relationships.
They also participated in heterophilic and heteroerotic
relationships. One can surmise,
therefore, that these types of homo- and heteroerotic relationships existed
among humans. Male homoerotic relationships
are well documented among the Greeks, though much of the evidence deals more
with pederasty. Some documentation
exists showing that homoerotic relationships also existed without condemnation
among the Etruscans, Villanovans, and Phoenicians. These four cultures represent the main basis
of Roman citizenry, which was greatly influential to the early Christian Church. A few statements which can lead to a decent
understanding of the Jewish concept of same-gender attraction at the time also
exist. When one takes into account all of
the varying attitudes of these cultures (as well as possibly the attitudes from
North Africa, the Middle East, and areas of Europe not previously mentioned)
one can begin to understand the complexities involved in untangling the
attitudes towards homophilia in the early church.
While such a study
is crucial for a balanced understanding, this paper will focus solely on
understanding the shift in the attitude from acceptance or tolerance of homoromantic
relationships by Christian leaders from the time of Christ’s ministry to the apparent
condemnation or intolerance in the time of Constantine and the adoption of
Christianity as the state religion of the Roman Empire. A careful study of scripture and other early
documents both within Christian writings and within Roman writings, as well as
a look at the variety of early Christian forms of worship, may lead to a better
understanding of how and why this shift took place. By reviewing the documents, and the
misinterpretation of the documents by scholars, one is left with the conclusion
that the early Church (1st, 2nd and possibly 3rd
Century CE) seemed not to be concerned with same-gender romance.
First, one should
understand that some of the contradictions as to what early Christianity held
as true about homosexuality are colored by certain scholars’ beliefs that
homosexuality is a modern concept existing only in the West and unknown to the
ancients. To dispel any
misunderstandings, it may perhaps be helpful to look at other societies. The Berdachs
in Native American cultures are men who can be spouses of other men.[1] Females may take on the roles of men as
well. They are persons who embody
aspects and/or responsibilities of both men and women.[2] The Hijras
of India ,
a group that the ancients would have been in contact with, are similar to Berdachs however they are specifically
transsexuals who are members of the priestly caste.[3] So, it seems that gender boundaries get
blurred in more societies than just the West.
Homosexuality is
cross-cultural and can “be found, in principle at least, in any culture and in
any time.”[4] This is an “essentialist” concept. “What is essential to essentialism is (a)
that they sexually and erotically desire members of the same sex, and (b) that
the desires are intrinsic, objective, and not dependent on a particular
culture.”[5] So homosexuality would have existed even back
at the beginning of the Common Era.
It is likely that
the ancients would have been aware of homosexuality from another source as
well. Homosexuality exists in the animal
kingdom. In addition to recent studies
on bonobo chimpanzees, penguins, doves, seagulls, swans, cetaceans, etc, [6]
ancients would have known of homosexuality within the animal community because
of animal husbandry. Most animal
farmers and shepherds today have seen and are aware of homosexuality within
their herds. The same would likely have
been true of herds 2000 years ago. So it
certainly seems likely that the ancients would have been aware of
homosexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment