Box Turtle Bulletin

Is this parable really something gay Christians should take pride in? You could say the Roman soldier was gay and that his servant was gay, and Jesus blessing a gay man is a leap forward. But really the story is saying that the gay Centurion was preoccupied with sex and that the gay slave was a just as preoccupied with sex, as he was a prostitute. If I were a Christian, I wouldn’t want to claim this supposedly “queer-positive” story to my cause.

Timothy Kincaid

Emily,

I don’t claim that the Centurian or his servant were gay. I really don’t know.

But I think your changing the servant into a prostitute is not present in my above discussion. If you wish a better understanding of the story and its relevance to Christianity, click the link above.

Emily K

If you mean this link, http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com/biblical_evidence/gay_couple.html, They’re saying the Centurion/Slave was actually a gay couple. I don’t understand how calling a centurion with a sex-slave a “gay couple” is a step forward.

Erica B.

Y’know, I never liked extremely literal, word-by-word readings of the Bible. I might have to change that. Go Jesus! :D

Timothy Kincaid

I think you need to consider context, Emily. To get bogged down in the “sex slave” aspect of this is like reading Hosea and never getting beyond the fact that Gomer was a prostitute. There’s a bigger story here.

To a Christian, the question is not whether both halves of the relationship were free men. Indeed, there were probably no relationships of equal partners; women were to a great extent the property of their husbands.

(In fact, Christians are instructed not to place importance on whether someone was free or a slave.)

The question, rather, is what was Jesus’ reaction to this couple (assuming they could be categorized as such). The scripture makes clear that the Centurian greatly prized the pais and the scripture makes clear that Christ did not condemn either the Centurian or his pais but instead praised him for his faith.

If it were to be accepted that this was a same-sex couple, this would be evidence of Christ’s implicit blessing of a same-sex couple which could revolutionize the way that Christains view gay couples.

Frankly, I don’t know if that interpretation is correct. But I do know that Gagnon has to leap in circles to avoid that interpretation.

Evan

Well, Emily, it’s a bit more complex than that. In that passage, as with so many Biblical studies, there are words used that don’t quite translate the way we hear them today. One of these is the particular relationship between Centurion and “slave.” Timothy is right to suggest that, culturally, we have to get beyond the idea of slave and free, because, in fact, this sort of relationship could actually be quite tender. This also explains why the Centurion was so emotionally distraught…doesn’t sound like a “slave-owner,” as we conceive of the term. A relevant verse might be when Paul writes that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor “male and female.” I put that in quotes for a reason: usually that part of the verse is mistranslated in the same grammatical way as the first two combinations, but the original text contains a grammatical idiosyncracy, which is usually overlooked. What’s interesting, though, is that the terms together “male and female” echo back to Genesis where it says that God created them “male and female.” This is interesting, as it relates to Gagnon, since the bulk of his beliefs are founded on these very verses in Genesis that, he claims, make homosexuality one of the greatest sins because it supposedly interferes with God’s natural order of “male and female.” But yet we find, if we stay true to the text, that, in Christ there IS NO “male and female.” He didn’t differentiate like Mr. Gagnon does.

Sidenote: Timothy, doesn’t Teh Peter always run around claiming that “homosexualist activists are afraid to even debate Rob Gagnon” or something?

I always thought that sounded like more of Peter’s crap.

And Erica, extremely literal readings of the Bible are FASCINATING, but you have to be willing to really dive into context and culture with eyes wide open. It’s extremely surprising the things that show up in there.

Patrick

For future reference, do you have the citation for where Gagnon argues the Roman Centurion was really a Jew? I don’t recall that in his “The Bible and Homosexual Practice”, but perhaps I just missed it. Thanks.

homer

This is why I am not religious.

Timothy Kincaid

Patrick,

The link (also above) is here.

(b) The petitioner was originally a Jew. In addition, my own reconstruction of the earliest recoverable version of the story suggests that the meeting involved a non-descript Capernaum official who was probably neither a military officer nor a Gentile but a Galilean Jew in the employ of Herod Antipas.

Patrick

Thanks Timothy – my apologies for not noting the link the first time.

Since reading his first book I’ve been a fan of Gagnon’s consistent circular reasoning and logical fallacies. He does it again in brilliant fashion:

1) Because sex with male servants was not a universal phenomenon, this one obviously did not do it.

2) Because rape was sometimes involved in master-slave relationships, we must assume that was the case here, even though the text said the Centurion dearly loved his servant.

3) Gagnon argues that Jesus’ silence should not be interpreted as condoning. But Gagnon has argued that Jesus’ silence should be interpreted as condemning – even if he interacted with homosexuals and remained silent.

4) Gagnon argues the Jewish leaders would not have supported the Centurion, even though he was generous to their cause, because they were supposedly fully aware of what he did behind closed doors.

And so on.

Gagnon is nothing if not consistent in his logical fallacies.

Evan

All of these anti-gays seem to have logical fallacy and circular reasoning in common, actually.

I don’t know whether it speaks to their own mental acuity or the low regard they have for their intended audiences.

Jonathan Justice

June 26th, 2008

A little context: We are talking about this because the PCUSA General Assembly is meeting in San Jose this week. The relevant Committee has already indicated that it would prefer that the GA go with authentic witness to what the Heidelberg Confession said in 1563. That Gagnon’s name was not on the list of 32 seminary faculty supporting that stance was not a surprise.

Steve Skeete

I hold no brief for Robert Gagnon.

In fact I came across the name on the net only recently as I was reading
responses to the
Newsweek cover story “Mutual Joy”.

You refer to Mr. Gagnon as “an anti-gay hero” since, as you put it, “he is the leading theologian in the camp of those who believe that homosexuality is the worst of all possible sins”.

I don’t know about you, but I think someone ought to be free to disagree with the wording of a catechism if he/she believes that the wording is inaccurate; and calling that person wrong don’t necessarily make them so, while calling them names do not help at all.

It is etremely difficult to have a discussion with someone who insists on calling you names when all that needs to be done is to come forward with the facts and prove them wrong. Like someone said “facts are stubborn things”.

I have read the story of the healing of the Centurion’s servant countless times, and must say that I count myself among those who have not, yet, questioned the authenticity of the story or “read much else into it”.

But then, if I knew who these “some scholars” were and where I could find their writing, I would certainly do some digging on my own, something I enjoy doing, all in the interest of truth and accuracy.

I have learned a number of things in my time concering truth and fact, among these are: never believe everything you hear or read, always try to find as neutral and unbiased a source as possible, and that often, self discovey is the best discovery.

Whe I read Mr. Gagnon’s response to the Newsweek article, I thought, that beyond the fact that he does not endorse homosexuality, which I believe is his right, he did a fair job of pointing out some of the fallacies and flaws in the author’s reasoning and research.

So please help me locate these two statement which you made, the first concerning him:

1. That he believes that “Homosexuality is the worst of all possible sins”.(Did he actually say that, or did you just infer that from something else he said(or did)?

2. That there is within the message of Christ “an extravagant welcome that includes gay and lesbian Christians”. Can you direct me to chapter and verse of this “extravagant welcome”?

Please understand that I am not against anyone. As I said previusly I believe in seeking truth, since as someone rightly said “all truth is God’s truth”.

Timothy Kincaid

Gagnon Rants On And On
My Very Favorite Gagnonism
Robert Gagnon and the Grand Box Turtle Whirl of Immorality
Gagnon Revisited
Clarifying Robert Gagnon’s Tortured Logic
Gagnon Employs Tortured Logic
Robert Gagnonâ€™s Unorthodox Approach to Doctrine

Steve,

Perhaps the following can give you some perspective before you start making accusations about calling names:

Incidentally, Dr. Gagnon prefaces his response to my criticism by:

The mean-spirited homosexualist website, boxturtlebulletin.com, is aptly named, for the box turtle is easily confused and frightened by reality (though I don’t attribute meanness to the poor box turtle). A main writer for the site, Timothy Kincaid, underscores his own difficulties with logic, truth, and civil discourse in his multiple caustic postings regarding me…

Patrick

I read his response to the Newsweek article. I lost count on how many times Gagnon used the pseudo-word “homosexualist”. Me thinks the man doth protest too much.

Timothy Kincaid