Though this article discusses homosexuality, I do not intend for it to speak about the rightness or wrongness of such a lifestyle. I am sure my thoughts on whether homosexuality can be reconciled with the Bible hardly need explanation. Instead, today I want to look at one very interesting result, one very interesting development, that has come with the widespread acceptance of homosexuality. I have thought about this a little bit in the past but had my mind drawn to it again this weekend while reading Al Mohler’s book Desire and Deceit: The Real Cost of the New Sexual Tolerance. In this book, like Culture Shift before it, Mohler compiles some of his best blog posts and articles dealing with a common theme. In this case he writes about contemporary issues related to sexuality. And while there is much to glean from the book, one issue in particular give me a lot to think about.
I have sometimes wondered if, when The Lord of the Rings was first published, people looked with a certain suspicion upon the relationship of Sam to Frodo and Frodo to Sam. Here are two characters who loved one another deeply and who had a relationship forged in the fire. It is clear that in these characters, Tolkien was describing friendship as he had seen it in soldiers who had fought in the World Wars. He described a kind of intimate friendship that somehow seems so odd to our modern sensibilities. And in modern times many people have read homosexuality into that relationship, wondering if Tolkien, either deliberately or subconsciously, was creating gay characters.
Similarly, I have wondered if, when people first learned of Abraham Lincoln’s deep friendship with Joshua Speed, they raised their eyebrows. After all, Lincoln and Speed even shared a bed and wrote letters sharing their love and appreciation for one another. Recent historians have offered this relationship as proof that Lincoln was homosexual.
In both cases we’re seeing clear evidence of postmodern thinking. Today we think nothing of imposing our own understanding on historical texts, interpreting them as we see fit. We think little of original meaning and much of contemporary interpretation. Thus there are feminist readings of literature, gay readings of literature, African-American readings of literature, and so on. Every group, every interest, is free to read history and literature as they see fit. In an age with few absolutes, who can tell anyone else that they are wrong? And in both cases I realize that I am showing evidence of the pervasiveness of homosexuality in our culture. The fact that I would even wonder such things reveals that the presence of homosexuality is always just beneath the surface in our culture. I am reasonably certain that I can answer my own questions. No! When people read The Lord of the Rings they did not see homosexuality and when they first heard of Lincoln and Speed they did not even question whether they had been having sex in that bed. And here is an interesting part of the fallout of the widespread acceptance of homosexuality. We see homosexuality everywhere around us, whether it exists there or not. Things that are pure and normal we see as somehow being evidence or potential evidence of homosexual behavior.
In and of itself that may not mean too much. But according to Dr. Mohler, who follows the line of thinking from a Touchstone article written by Anthony Esolen, there is at least one sad consequence: it is marking the end of deep and meaningful friendships between boys. Writing about the scene between Sam and Frodo, Mohler writes “As Esolen suggests, a reader or viewer of this scene is likely to jump to a rather perverse conclusion: ‘What, are they gay?’” This is an “ignorant but inevitable response” to such a situation. It is simply the way our minds work today. “As Esolen understands, the corruption of language has contributed to this confusion. When words like love, friend, male, female, and partner are transformed in a new sexual context, what was once understood to be pure and undefiled is now subject to sniggering and disrespect.” I saw an example of this recently, in reading C.S. Lewis’ The Silver Chair with my children. There Lewis writes “Though [Jill’s] tongue was never still, you could hardly say she talked: she prattled and giggled. She made love to everyone—the grooms, the porters, the housemaids, the ladies-in-waiting, and the elderly giant lords whose hunting days were past. She submitted to being kissed and pawed about by any number of giantesses, many of whom seemed sorry for her and called her ‘a poor little thing’…” “Make love” has obviously been sexualized sometime between 1950’s England and 21st century North America. How might people understand Jill’s actions today?
Here is where it gets even more interesting and important. Says Esolen “Open homosexuality, loudly and defiantly celebrated, changes the language for everyone. …If a man throws his arm around another man’s waist, it is now a sign—whether he is on the political right or the left, whether he believes in biblical proscriptions of homosexuality or not. …If a man cradles the head of his weeping friend, the shadow of suspicion must cross your mind.” Gone is the innocence that would allow us to see a man love another man without assuming that their relationship involved sex or at least the desire for sex. Men and boys, including Christian men and boys, are suffering the fallout. “The sexual revolution has also nearly killed male friendship as devoted to anything beyond drinking and watching sports. …The prominence of male homosexuality changes the language for teenage boys. It is absurd and cruel to say that the boy can ignore it. Even if he would, his classmates will not let him. All boys need to prove that they are not failures. They need to prove that they are on the way to becoming men—that they are not going to relapse into the need to be protected by, and therefore identified with, their mothers.” And so boys feel that they need to prove to their peers that they are not homosexual. They do so by recklessly pursuing sexual experience with girls and by distancing themselves from meaningful friendships with other boys. Those who fail in both accounts are labeled as “fags” and subjected to the torment that follows. Boys have always had a lot to prove, but added to their burden today is proof of their sexual identify.
The proof that Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed did not have a homosexual relationship is in the very fact that they unashamedly wrote about their love and regard for one another. In a more innocent age they had nothing to prove and nothing to hide. They were able to be friends—close, loving, intimate friends—without bearing the burden of perverse assumptions. Their heterosexuality, their normalcy, was assumed. We make no such assumption today.
My mother has often remarked that men, and Christian men in particular, go through life lonely—forsaken by other men who should be their friends. And I think she is right. I wonder if we, too, bear the burden of perverse assumptions. Maybe we, too, from our early days feel the need to prove that we are not homosexual. And we do this by fleeing emotional or spiritual intimacy with other men, assuming that such relationships are unworthy of men—real men.
The societal prevalence of homosexuality is not going to lessen anytime soon. While Christians must continue to insist that homosexuality cannot be reconciled with Scripture (and you may like to read Dr. Mohler’s book to learn more about why this is the case) we must also not allow it to usurp friendship and to reframe the way we, as Christians, and Christian men, view and understand friendship. We have far too much to lose.
Comments (37) »
1. Jody
October 6, 2008
10:25 AM
Thought-provoking. What a sad commentary not only of the world but of our evangelical churches. I know I’m guilty of thinking is he gay? Men need intimate friendship just as much as women do.
2. Joseph Radosevich
October 6, 2008
10:31 AM
One of my college professors challenged us to “never sexualize intimacy.” I think that is the problem that you are describing here. Thanks for bringing this problem to light.
3. Alex Philip
October 6, 2008
10:52 AM
This trend, which you describe, has infected the goodness and strength of male friendships to the point that it is now common to hear the allegation that David and Jonathan were homosexual; even that Jesus and John (the disciple whom Jesus loved) were homosexual. It is terribly sad that these exemplars of friendship have been incorrectly and unnecessarily sexualized.
My recommendation for the men who are reading this is to call a good friend today and tell them that you love them. In doing so, perhaps, the church can be the one oasis from a hyper-sexualized world - a place where men can not only be men but be free to be friends with men.
4. Brother Eugene
October 6, 2008
11:12 AM
I have experienced the feeling numerous times of wondering what others might think of me when I have spent many hours simply hanging out alone with a male friend, or even doing something so ‘manly’ as going camping.
That perverse thought is always there and at the very least causes an uneasiness and a barrier of some sort in the friendship, as both men try to make sure that nothing is said or done that could give others a foothold to think that the friendship was ‘more than it seemed’.
In China, however, where I live most of the year, things are much more innocent. Homosexuality is still very rare and is not very well accepted by the culture at large. It is still common to see men who are simply good friends walking hand in hand down the street, or with their arms around each others’ shoulders.
Even though the vast majority of those relationships among men in China are completely innocent, even I have a hard time not wondering about their sexual orientation when I see them doing these things. I hate the fact that my American cultural upbringing has done that to me.
5. New England Girl
October 6, 2008
11:32 AM
Thanks for writing this, Tim. And without denigrating the rest of your post in the least, your mom’s comment about Christian men being lonely was most striking to me. (Wise lady.)
Another side effect of the prevalence of homosexuality in our culture is the influence it has on men in the arts. High school age boys are discouraged from orchestra, art classes, writing poetry, acting, and other activities that are deemed effeminate. Young men who are interested in these things often wrestle with their own sexuality, especially when they undergo taunting for their interests.
I think one solution that I don’t hear enough about in Christian circles is single-sex education. Having some familiarity with an excellent Christian boys’ high school (the only one I’ve ever heard of), I can say that the boys there are much freer to be affectionate with one another and to pursue interests in the arts than their counterparts in co-ed schools. Especially as boys in the US (where I live) and elsewhere in the developed world fall farther and farther behind girls educationally, single-sex education seems like an option that should be discussed more.
6. Eric S. Mueller
October 6, 2008
11:54 AM
Tim, interesting perspective. I had always thought that the problem with forming close relationships with other men had more to do with the fact that we’re all just too darn busy for anything outside of our own schedules. I spend much more time with the guys I work with (especially on travel) than with any man at my church. Nobody at my church seems to have time for anything at all.
7. Tim Irvin
October 6, 2008
12:41 PM
Wow….. In all of my 51 years and all of my reading I have never, I repeat, NEVER, heard it even implied that Sam and Frodo were gay. This is the first time I’ve ever heard it and I would never come to that conclusion myself.
I’ve never heard of Lincoln and Sneed….. ever.
My oldest son has been best friends with another guy since the second grade. They are both in their third year of college and they rent and apartment together. They are closer than brothers. However, his friend is engaged, to a girl, and my son is dating. I’ve never even entertained the thought that these boys are gay.
I think it’s a sick and deceived mind that finds a devil in every closet and raises perverse suspicions about the deep friendships between two men.
I think it’s a disgrace to even discuss what these perverts contemplate in the darkness of their own wicked imaginations and I wouldn’t give them the time it takes to put pen to paper in analyzing it or contemplating it. The very suggestion that close friends might be gay is an insult to what is right and decent. I would think that Dr. Mohler would have better things to write about.
Perhaps I need to invite him to come spend a week with us at the deer camp.
8. Deb
October 6, 2008
1:12 PM
Perfect love drives out fear.
I ‘d also have to ask whether a similar dynamic has also been occuring between male elders/pastors and their women congregants. Because of society’s hypersexualization of relationships, do male leaders feel especially pressured to keep the women in their churches at a safe arm’s distance?
Tim Irvin: praise God that you’ve never had the kind of experience that Dr. Mohler is talking about, but I’m thinking that he is mostly talking about people who’s worldview and judgement has primarily been informed by cultural definitions and not on deep biblical roots, like yours. So again I’d praise God that this isn’t true for you and your family!
9. Brendt Waters
October 6, 2008
1:25 PM
Tim C: … it is marking the end of deep and meaningful friendships between boys.
You raise an important point with that statement.
Two males engage in a particular activity, and it is assumed by many in our culture that they must be gay. Two females engage in the same activity, and no one thinks they are lesbians. Yet those who embrace homosexuality and make the afore-mentioned assumption about the males are often the same people who tell us that there is no difference between the genders.
Alex: … perhaps, the church can be the one oasis from a hyper-sexualized world - a place where men can not only be men but be free to be friends with men.
And, to paraphrase Wayne Campbell, “perhaps monkeys will fly out of my rear-end”. While there are exceptions (and I’m happy to say that I think that my church is such an oasis), most of Western Christianity has over-stigmatized homosexuality. Which is understandable — it’s easy to decry the sins with which you are not tempted. Not right, but understandable.
The word gets bandied about, over-used, and mis-applied all the time. But I have to wonder if it’s accurate in this case. I really think that a large part of Western Christianity is homophobic.
Tim I: In all of my 51 years and all of my reading I have never, I repeat, NEVER, heard it even implied that Sam and Frodo were gay.
Tim, please consider yourself blessed. Also, consider the fact that Tim C is almost 20 years your junior, and is probably exposed to more dreck than you. (That’s not a slam on either of you; I pretty much split the difference in your ages. :-) )
10. Truth Unites... and Divides
October 6, 2008
1:38 PM
When I go to the movies with another guy, I always make sure there’s a seat between us. And we both understand the reason why we do it. We don’t want people to think we’re gay.
That’s how badly the culture of homosexuality has poisoned friendships.
11. Elizabeth Esther
October 6, 2008
5:29 PM
When I was in college, a professor taught me that Huck Finn & Jim were lovers. I mean, wasn’t this obvious? Who goes on a rafting trip, alone, on a river, an older man & younger boy. Right? Right? Of course, there was no possible way my profs could prove this from the text—just a lot of ridiculous wink-wink, nudge-nudge, we-all-know-what’s-REALLY-going on. And to think I paid for that little bit of insight.
Yeah, I heard about Frodo & Sam, too. This is par for the course in most college English Literature courses today. Jane Eyre was taught by my lesbian professor and she taught it from the feminist/lesbian perspective to such an extent that I began to wonder if we were even reading the same book.
I did have some rare, wonderful professors who actually taught the text—-in context.
Not all is lost. But much has been.
12. Jeri
October 6, 2008
6:24 PM
What a great post, Tim. These are observations that have nagged around the edges of my thinking but never fully formed; you have articulated this very well. It is indeed a sad thing. All bear the burden related to this particular perverse assumption. I really like the exhortation you left us with at the end of your article. Blessings.
13. Andrew K
October 6, 2008
7:04 PM
I find it odd that Christian men are concerned with being labeled. Maybe I come from a truly unique congregation, but I’ve never gotten the impression from other men I attend church with that close male relationships should suffer for fear of being labeled homosexual. Perhaps this is because I come from a more liberal congregation that isn’t afraid of homosexuality. To me (a straight young man who has attended church for his entire life), this article stinks of homophobia. As if somehow it’s an insidious movement among colleges, universities, and the media to turn our history gay.
First of all, having studied gender in America, I can tell you that these people aren’t trying to “turn people gay.” They don’t believe that people can be turned; that they are instead born that way (an issue that can be debated in and of itself). Instead, if you interview and talk to people of the homosexual community, they simply want to be treated like equals (and many point to another dark spot in our history when Leviticus was also used to support slavery).
Second, an attentive student of English courses in college (although I cannot speak for all professors, I felt as though I had responsible ones at my public university) understands that interpretations like Gender Theory, Feminism, and GLTB, are just that….interpretations. We need to understand that any text can be interpreted in any number of ways: “Language is fluid and ambiguous. (Stanley Fish)” This authors belief in “Original Meaning” is irrelevant because we cannot possible know what the author intended to include or allude to. “Original Meaning” can only mean what came to be accepted as the meaning of the story when it was initially published and read. It is important to know, however, that these works are not written or read in a vacuum. Society fills in much of the context for interpretation, thus the “Original Meaning” would be just as subject to biased interpretation as it would be today.
If we are to believe in Christian Doctrine, we must remember that we are not of this world. We must be citizens of New Jerusalem, not Fallen Babylon. So when I read about “Christians” who are worried about how others interpret their male relationships, so much so that several of you would write a lengthy response affirming the concern, I worry that you all are focused on the wrong things. I think it’s time for Christians to show the good they want to see in the world. Let’s stop focusing on what people might think of close male relationships and tackle something that matters. My first inclination would be to follow the words of Christ and take care of the least of these. If we take an objective look at history, we’ll find that some of our darkest days are behind us. It’s time we make a better future and be the shining example many of you miss in the world.
14. Brian in BC
October 6, 2008
7:36 PM
Interesting article…one more place in which the hypersexualization of our society is really damaging men is in relation to children. I have two boys (2 and 4) and they are so much fun to watch, as a parent I also get a kick out of seeing other people’s kids at the store or the park doing similar things and parents having similar frustrating moments etc. I find that it is nearly impossible for me to engage in discussion or comment on someone’s child without clearly identifying “that I have kids too” if they aren’t with me. I’m terrified that someone would mistake my smile or interest in their kids as anything untoward. There is so much “fear” drilled into everyone’s heads about child molesters etc. that it completely taints any intergenerational interaction from men to kids in greater society.
If I think about it…I have never had a single male that I did not know comment in public to me about my kids…I’ve had women comment and laugh at them but never a man.
At our church, all parents take turns volunteering with the various preschool and toddler programs that their kids attend and I have to admit that there is a real discomfort for myself and the other men in dealing with the young kids…not that we don’t want to and enjoy it, but just that we are all terrified of someone taking something the wrong way.
I totally agree that the “internal dialogue” has shifted entirely from one of automatic innocence to one of “how does this look/what could someone misinterpret this as.” I believe it’s completely warped the very important relationship between generations as men basically have nothing to do with any kids who aren’t their own…what is this going to do to society?
15. Brendt Waters
October 6, 2008
7:44 PM
Me: The word gets bandied about, over-used, and mis-applied all the time.
Andrew: …this article stinks of homophobia.
And there’s a perfect example. I knew using that word would come back to bite me.
It is important to know, however, that these works are not written … in a vacuum.
You go on and on about how society defines what the meaning of a text is, and then you acknowledge that the author is part of that society, and therefore has society’s influences on him as he writes. If he does, then he doesn’t need society’s “help” to interpret what he really meant. In short, you just defeated your entire argument.
16. Tim Irvin
October 6, 2008
8:16 PM
I would like to address the issue that some are “Born Gay”. I believe Christians take the wrong stance when they insist that Homosexuality is a choice. I have no problem with the notion that some are “Born Gay”. However, this doesn’t give it a stamp of approval.
The Bible says that we all go astray, as soon as we are born, speaking lies. We are all born with the disposition to lie. Does this give a stamp of approval on lying? Does this somehow make lying OK because we were born that way? I don’t think so.
The choices we make deal with recognizing the depravity of our natures and choosing to walk in the ways that are pleasing to the Lord. We can blame God or presume that He is pleased with our behavior or character because we were born a certain way.
I do not believe in the Universal Fatherhood of God or the Universal Brotherhood of man and use that as an excuse to treat all men as equals and brothers simply because they want to name the name of Christ. If they name the name of Christ then they must give evidence that they are attempting to put off the deeds of the old man.
This topic touched a nerve with me because my best friend of 35 years has just been given less than six months to live. I love him dearly and if I were able I would fall on his neck and kiss his cheek. He has been a brother in need and a brother in deed. The idea that someone might suggest or imply that either of us were gay because of our love and respect for each other enrages me.
I’ve been reading Tim Challies blog, and commenting here, for as long as I can remember. I have nothing but respect and admiration for him and I look forward to one day meeting him. My comments have nothing to do with his perspective or opinion.
I’m simply sick of the homosexual agenda in our country.
17. Rachael
October 6, 2008
11:08 PM
Andrew K -
The enormous flaws of the classic post-modern approach to literary criticism, and the serious consequences of those flaws, are clearly and brilliantly displayed in the way you completely miss Tim’s point, and many of God’s.
It would be helpful to know which university you attended so that those of us with children interested in pursuing serious education can be steered far, far away.
18. Andrew K
October 6, 2008
11:27 PM
I see where you’re coming from Brendt, but that does not, in short, defeat the argument. The author is a part of society and is influenced by society, but authorial intent, short of divine inspiration, is unimportant to the text. Not only is impossible to get inside the head of the author to experience the words in the same fashion, if you’ve read a wide variety of the masters, you’ll find that many authors intentionally make the meaning ambiguous: able to be supported by a variety of interpretations.
What I’m getting at is that there is a lot of concern with literature and culture in this article. People are worried about how others are reading into their personal relationship:. worried that other people might read “homosexual” into their homogenous groupings. It seems that, somehow, reading homosexuality into literature has freaked out a number of people that others might read homosexual into their relationships. I, for one, have never worried that someone might “suspect” me of being gay because I have close relationships with members of the same sex. For this reason, I have a lot of close friends of both sexes, and I’ve got male friends, with whom, I am comfortable sitting in the next seat of a movie theater instead of “mak[ing] sure there’s a seat between us.” Self-censorship is the most invasive. I see a lot of people who are afraid to get close because of what other people fear. Since when is this a Christian virtue? If fellowship is still a Christian virtue and we’re afraid to love our neighbor, when will we be afraid enough to be worried about loving a King? I’m worried about Western Christian Theology if one of our greatest concerns is being labeled “homosexual” for exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit. If you believe, rise above and transcend the cultural stigma like the examples we’ve been given. Let’s not blame our problems with closeness on roughly 10% of the population.
19. Andrew K
October 6, 2008
11:54 PM
Rachael -
We can argue all day, and you can attempt to belittle me in whatever fashion you see fit, but I still have a problem with Christians altering their behavior because they are afraid of what others might think (see above). Also, if you hold onto antiquated beliefs that we can find authorial intent, then go ahead. If you think post-modernism is dead, consider the argument for “The Death of the Novel” and how that is still a strong trend in book sales in the US.
Also, if you intend to keep your kids away from a premier university; one that has helped me to love people of all kinds, then e-mail me and I’ll tell you where not to send your kids. Before I attended a university that challenged my beliefs, they were not as solid as they are now. I believe more in God now than I did when I entered. Also, I have a terrific role model, my father who is a minster and has been nearly 30 years. He has been a shining example of how men can relate to each other, sometimes pushing family members out of their comfort zone to do so. I’ve learned to love people without worrying what society thinks. I know some people think society is pushing these notions down our throats, but I think it’s simply pushing society to be more accepting, understanding other peoples’ point of view so that we might appreciate their experience. Maybe people in agreement with this article would prefer that homosexuals wear a Scarlet Letter so that they might enjoy close male relationships without people wondering too much.
20. Nathan
October 7, 2008
3:29 AM
Leaving an empty seat between two guys at a movie theater to avoid becoming gay suspects is utterly pathetic. Since when do Christians allow society to define sin? Homosexuality is having sex with someone of the same sex. Period.
Anyway, what difference does it make if they think you’re gay? Are they going to throw popcorn at you? Spray-paint some garbage on your car? Tie you to a fence up in the mountains and leave you for dead? Those things can and do happen, and that is why tolerance is needed.
Arguing that tolerance of homosexuality is ruining pure male-male heterosexual relationships is a ridiculous attempt to find pervasive evils of homosexuality. Instead, the ruin of male relationships results from fear, where the fear is NOT of homosexual acts, but of not living up to some unbiblical idea of masculinity.
21. Matthew Neal
October 7, 2008
5:07 AM
Great Post. I think it would be interesting if someone studied the correlation between sexualization of platonic relationships and homosexuality. Is it possible the cultural understanding of close male relationships as homosexual actually fosters an erotic interpretation of same-sex intimacy in the minds of individual men; leading to actual homosexual activity?
22. Char
October 7, 2008
10:32 AM
Honestly I have often wondered if some don’t struggle with same sex attraction because they lack truly loving and intimate platonic same sex relationships (and that if others were willing to love them in this way if it wouldn’t help them to cope with their temptations). Our culture has indeed oversexualized all facets of relationship, to the point that it is almost not believed that you can really love someone without a sexual component. The “emotional affair” is another example of this. One can not be very close friends with a member of the opposite sex either because others immediately assume the relationship is sexual-or that it should be. If they aren’t having an affair, certainly they’re having an emotional affair! So men keep men at arm’s length and they keep women at arm’s length. Add what was said about the fear of child molesters and it is indeed lonely.
All this has done is fractured and alienated us. We seem unable to really love our neighbour as ourselves-but that’s what we are to do, even to the detriment of our own reputations. Christianity always goes against the tide.
23. Charlie Albright
October 7, 2008
10:06 PM
Andrew K:
you seemed well versed in a post-modern method of interpretation. I know that this is a little off topic of the main post, but I want to work through some things regarding the belief that the interpretation is up to the reader and not the writer. I have some questions about it and would like answers to those questions. So if you don’t mind, I want to ask you some of those questions.
“We need to understand that any text can be interpreted in any number of ways: “Language is fluid and ambiguous. (Stanley Fish)” This authors belief in “Original Meaning” is irrelevant because we cannot possible know what the author intended to include or allude to.”
So what I gather from that statement is that there is no one fixed meaning that an author communicates when he transfers his ideas via a written system of communication (English letters; Greek letters; etc. Or would you included verbal communication in that definition as well?). So some questions:
Are there an infinite number of possible interpretations to a written text? Or are the possible interpretations limited in number?
Since the “original meaning” is deemed as “irrelevant” it would seem that one cannot fix a set number on the possible interpretations. One does not have an original reference point that he can point back to and say, “that interpretations is too far off to be considered a plausible interpretation.” (That is what it seems, but correct me if I am wrong.)
Therefore, in your system of language, what can keep me from interpreting your line:
“My first inclination would be to follow the words of Christ and take care of the least of these”
to mean that you believe that the most important thing that a Christian should be doing here on earth is making sure that rocks (gravel especially!) should be properly cared for and treated?
I am interested in hearing your answers.
Charlie Albright
24. Nathan
October 8, 2008
12:39 PM
One cannot know with absolute certainty an author’s complete intention, so the reader must infer it. Use whatever skills of inference and documentation you have to come up with a reasonable suggestion.
From a modern viewpoint and given only the story of Frodo and Sam, one could reasonably infer that they had more than a friendship.
Knowing some of the author’s other writings and the time period which the story was written, I conclude that they were “just friends” excluding any homosexual interaction.
BTW, when I said that Sam and Frodo had “more than a friendship,” I was implying that they had a relationship that may or may NOT include sex or romance…
25. Andrew K
October 8, 2008
10:43 PM
Charlie -
I certainly understand where you are coming from, and I am very aware of the concern many have with the issues of individual interpretation and Scripture. When one studies the origin of language, the changes in ways texts have come to be interpreted even to the most basic level, and even how the Bible has been interpreted differently over the years (as evidence I submit the vast array of accepted congregations and charters). However, Stanley Fish, who I mentioned before, an esteemed member of the literary world, suggests that at any given time there are generally only a few interpretations in any given audience. For example, I’m an English teacher and when I give my students a poem I generally get 2 or 3 (at most) interpretations. This notion has been supported by Dr. Mulholland of Asbury Seminary, under whom I studied the book of Revelations. He asserts that John’s vivid imagery what written so that it might fly under the radar of the government that suppressed him, but would appeal to the “image pool” that would be recognizable to other pious scholars.
Thus, our interpretations change as our “pool of images,” or things we are familiar with, change. Now, while this might mean that a passage taken out of context, such as the one you listed above, might come to be translated in any variety of ways, it is also the readers responsibility to consider their interpretation within the context of the author’s work, their society, and their individual understanding. You may agree with me that much of Christianity’s image problems are the result of fringe nut jobs who take biblical passages out of context to fit their own cause. While I’m certainly not lumping you in with this group, especially because it appears that you certainly have read and considered the content of my post and those above, when I alluded to the words of Christ, I assumed (maybe incorrectly) that they would be taken within the context of the greater work.
It’s this reason that I even bothered to reply to the original message at all. I was astonished that Christian men and women were worried with being labeled by a society that they judge to be hyper-sexual. They are worried to such a degree that they would allow their own fellowship to suffer. To quote Char above: “We seem unable to really love our neighbor as ourselves-but that’s what we are to do, even to the detriment of our own reputations.”
I think if we truly look at the life of Christ, the context and core of his message, I think we’ll find that Love is the greatest message of all. While our society may be hyper-sexual compared to that of Ancient Rome (although I think there is an argument there), there is no evidence that Jesus was shy about his intimate relationships with his Disciples. I guess I consider myself a red-letter Christian; in that, I follow the words of Christ, God Incarnate, more closely than the early instruments chosen to deliver the message. It is the understanding in my congregation that the New Testament outweighs the Old, having ushered in a new agreement, and unless a new chapter is found, I have yet to find a single passage in which Jesus condemns homosexuals. Besides, even if you believe he did, how can you tell me that he would not have loved them as he loves himself?
26. Andrew K
October 8, 2008
10:47 PM
Oops, omission after the first parenthetical clause. I meant to continue: (as evidence I submit the vast array of accepted congregations and charters) we find that interpretations of all of these have changed in dramatic ways across the ages.
27. Charlie Albright
October 9, 2008
2:01 PM
Andrew K:
to be honest, things are not making sense to me regarding this topic. I am going work through some things regarding your view in this post. Hopefully you can see my problems with your views as you see me trying to work your system out.
“However, Stanley Fish, who I mentioned before, an esteemed member of the literary world, suggests that at any given time there are generally only a few interpretations in any given audience”
So is this just a rule that he made up that everybody else has to follow? If a group of my friends (say about 35) each come up with an interpretation of a text are you going to say that they are wrong because “Stanly Fish says there are only a few acceptable interpretations.” That does not seem like any established rule to me. It sounds like some one making up rules.
Let me qualify that statement about making up rules. Granted, that the observation might be correct in that only a few interpretations are given about a text. But this kind of observation cannot be put into a rule. It is not like you are observing a pattern by which the writers are abiding by so that they can adequately communicate their ideas. (your reject that idea forth rightly) Instead you are just noticing patterns in how people try to understand what is being communicated.
The tricky thing about the system of interpretation that you are promoting is that the goal is not to hear what the author meant to say (it can’t be since we cannot know what he was saying). If it was then rules would apply. Because we would have to know the rules so that we could understand what he was communicating. An obvious rule would be, “he is writing in the Spanish language, therefore we will use the Spanish language to interpret what he was saying.” But since your system, as it seems, discards the meaning by the author such rules of interpretation are pointless.
So, when you look at me and say, “there are rules to follow” my response is “why should I care about any rules?” Just because Stanly Fish says, “most people do this” does not put me under any authority to do as they do.
The reason I abide by rules in interpreting a documents is because I have the goal to understand the authors original intent. But since your view says the purpose is not to understand the author’s intent I am left wondering what the purpose of reading is. So that is a question for you. “What is the purpose of reading written communication?”
Later on your wrote,
“Now, while this might mean that a passage taken out of context, such as the one you listed above, might come to be translated in any variety of ways, it is also the readers responsibility to consider their interpretation within the context of the author’s work, their society, and their individual understanding.”
This is really confusing! Maybe I am not understanding your world view properly! but it seems like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth. You just wrote in the first note it is not the goal to understand the author’s original meaning. If the case is that the author’s meaning is of no value, then why should I care about, context, society, and the author’s individual understanding? What do those things matter? According to your view (as I have understood it) all that is in front of me when I look at a written text are symbols that have not connection with anybody else’s views (Since I cannot understand the author’s meaning.) The meaning is left up to me to dictate.
Please don’t hear me as shouting in this post. I am just confused about what you are saying. A lot of it does not make sense. In some ways it sounds as if you are contradicting yourself. So if you can clarify these things it would be helpful.
Charlie
28. Michael
October 9, 2008
4:18 PM
A blog I read called The Art of Manliness addressed this issue recently (and even referenced Lincoln and Sneed and modern homophobia as a destructive influence). Though not a Christian website, I have quite often found their analyses to line up with Christian values and principles.
Here is a link to the article:
http://artofmanliness.com/2008/08/24/the-history-and-nature-of-man-friendships/#more-750
29. Andrew K
October 10, 2008
12:05 AM
Charlie,
I will be back to you, however I have to wake up early to teach in the morning and I have a very full weekend so you may not get a full response until Sunday. I have read and considered what you’ve said, and again, I still understand where you are coming from. The largest part of the problem, in my estimation, is that I’m trying to describe a literary theory that I have read volumes about in a very concise way. I will do my best next post to make my point as clear as possible. Let me just say, I quote Stan Fish frequently because he’s one of my favorites, not because he’s the only scholar that feels this way. I could point you to several dozen people currently working in the field who, like Stanley Fish, have not simply made up the rules about literary interpretation. Major universities don’t hand out PhD’s to people who make things up. These works are based upon years of research and careful consideration.
30. Christopher Lake
October 12, 2008
4:15 AM
Andrew K,
I have a B.A. in English and a minor in Philosophy and Religion from a fairly liberal (if not radical) university. You write that “major universities don’t hand out PhD’s to people who make things up.” I beg to differ with you here.
What about the gay/Marxist/feminist, etc.etc. etc. literary criticism-loving English professors who spend much of their time writing books and publishing papers which foist ridiculous interpretations onto Shakespeare’s, and countless other authors,’ works, that the authors themselves clearly never intended? Is this not an exercise in “making things up?” Oh yes— you don’t believe that authorial intent can actually be “discovered.” Am I correct in assuming that your stance here has something to do with the “fluidity of language” and/or the supposed “instability of meaning” (to borrow a phrase from the deconstructionists) in words and texts? If I *am* correct though, why are you using words here with any intent or hope of communicating anything clear and definite to us in your comments on this blog?
31. Jay
October 13, 2008
9:42 AM
Perhaps one of the worst side-effects of this cultural shift is the fact that many men (like myself) who walk away from homosexuality end up celibate in the long run (the attractions run deep, and the development of heterosexual attractions is rare at best).
However, being celibate does not mean one does not need deep and intimate friendship. In fact, I’d say for the celibate person, deep friendships are almost necessary in order to be psychologically and spiritually healthy. But like you said, fears over whether one will be seen as “gay” often get in the way.
Although that often doesn’t happen on the part of the former homosexual, but on the part of the people with whom he is trying to be friends. I think the fact that culture is no so accepting of gay men and women kind of makes this a double-edged sword. For example, if I have a close male friend and we go to dinner together, some people might think we’re gay. However, less and less people think that’s a problem, so it’s not like we’d be harassed or anything.
Of course, the friend might care if he’s homophobic and insecure in his own masculinity to the point where he’s concerned what others think of it… Yet at the same time, that’s not really the kind of friend a guy like me needs or wants anyway.
32. EMSoliDeoGloria
October 13, 2008
10:55 PM
Very good post. I don’t think fear of being labeled “gay” inhibits male friendships in my church. Maybe it does but that hasn’t been my observation. However, I have seen what you mean in an unhealthy distance or isolation among some of the husbands of my female friends. These gals don’t know of any man with whom their husband is particularly close or open with about his life. Not only is that bad for these men — it’s bad for the wives and children too. Both men and women (whether married or single) need same sex friendships and these relationships shouldn’t be sexualized or stigmatized.
At the same time, I have seen the dynamic Deb brought up in her comment (#8), in my church. I think a lot of men seem to have a difficult time relating to women innocently - as friends. This sort of awkwardness can seem silly and juvenile but I believe that it is worse than that. When men and women in the church can not relate to each other without stigma and sexualization, we literally deny the power of the cross to tear down barriers and unite us into one holy family. Of course I am not advising people to ignore legitimate sexual differences or to behave unwisely. Yet, while male-to-male relationships seem to be quite healthy in my church, male-to-female (brother & sister) relationships are often not so, and female-to-female relationships also have room for improvement.
Thankfully, there is a lot of grace for these things. God wants us to be a family that testifies to His ability to transform ALL of our relationships - where the observation of a watching world is “behold how they love one another” and our response is “only because He first loved us - won’t you join His family too!”
33. Nathan
October 14, 2008
3:17 AM
I am in the same boat that Jay is in.
This so-called burden that Tim Challies mentions is rather absurd. Is there really a burden on straight people when others assume they are gay based on incorrect and perverse assumptions?
What about the burdens caused by homophobia? I know, I know, I know – homophobia is a buzzword that turns a lot of people off, but really think about it. Where would Jay and I be if we are allowed to be open and honest about ourselves? I’m not seeking acceptance of a purported lifestyle, but the ability to just admit to something without having to wade through everyone’s hang-ups, theories and political agendas. If Christians are so afraid of being suspected based on something as flimsy as sitting next to a guy, then how will I ever be able to confess, “It is I,” to you? How can there be any real dialog? What I see in actions like leaving an empty seat between two guys is an acknowledgement of the hatred that runs through churches and society. Why else would people be that afraid of being misidentified? Is it because they themselves hate me so much that they couldn’t stand to be labeled as someone like me?
Another way that homophobia burdens relationships in the church is through the placement of unrealistic / unbiblical expectations on men regarding true manhood. God has made many temperaments for men, yet I see only a subset of those accepted and cultivated. Contrary to popular opinion, not every man is wild at heart. I think both ends of the spectrum have a lot to learn from each other, but that doesn’t happen because of the homophobia on the one side and the resulting exasperation on the other. Guys that are “gay” are excluded or forced to assimilate and what is cultivated is an idolized version of manhood.
Christians really need to ascertain a biblical definition of what is gay and what isn’t and stick by it and not worry about what outsiders (and even insiders with the wrong idea) think. Without that definition you exclude people who need support to live up to biblical standards and who can actually be contributing members.
34. Jay
October 15, 2008
12:21 AM
Thanks Nathan! You bring up a lot of good points that I should have gotten to. More than anyone, this whole attitude in which men are afraid of appearing “gay” really hurts the brothers who are struggling with homosexual desires. I don’t mean this to paint myself (or you, or anybody), as a victim, but really, it just seems odd to me that we’re talking about the negative side-effects of cultural homosexuality on Christian men…
…and no one is talking about the Christian men who struggle with homosexuality! (Well, except the two of us). That just strikes me as a bit wrong. I’ve often had a boisterous personality and I don’t let others’ opinions get to me. This abrasiveness has cost me some friendships and I’m probably a bit more of an isolated individual because of it, but I stand up for what is right and I won’t accept anything less.
I just hope and pray that more Christian guys come to their senses and start to not only be confident in their own masculinity but also accept the fact that some guys, even if their sex lives (physical and mental) are pure, aren’t going to be the most “masculine” around…
And yes, hanging out with them might make you look “gay,” but since when does culture dictate how we treat our brothers and sisters in Christ?
35. Bon
October 16, 2008
1:58 AM
The sexualization of male friendship is a great evil. I am deeply frustrated that referring to the good friend whom I run a business with as “my partner” invites raised eyebrows. What a thing has been done to us, or should I say we have allowed to happen. It is a conspiracy of cynicism.
36. Nathan
October 16, 2008
2:24 AM
Such horrors for you and your partner, Bon!
When I tell some people that I have an attraction for men, they assume that I kidnap and eat children… or at least recruit them to do nasty things… or that I purposefully chose to slap God in the face… or I want to mutilate my body to change it into a female form … or I’m a disease ridden animal clawing the fabric of civilization apart… or I’m the cause of terrorist attacks…
You get the idea — I get more than a raised eyebrow. None of those assumptions are even remotely true nevertheless they are allowed to happen to me. Talk about the burden of perverse assumptions …
37. Stephen
October 22, 2008
11:21 PM
I found this article to ring very true with me, I don’t like homosexuality, but as God gives me the grace, I can love the homosexual.
Growing up in Sydney Australia (our ‘gay’ capital) I had a few homosexual friends, and now I even count a trans-sexual among my acquaintances. I’m not really worried about my reputation (I am a married man with 4 adult children).
What concerns me is that I cannot find a Christian male friend, who love as David says ’ love exceeds that of women’ because of the paranoia that exists within Christian circles.
As Christians I think that it is time that we restore the word ‘love’ to a level that surpasses sexuality.