02/12/2008
Adventures in Marketing
What do you think we're looking at here?
Find out, AFTER THE JUMP...
If you guessed the cover of a book on God, Gays, and the Church, you were right!
According to Pam Spaulding, this is what's inside:
* Pastoral Considerations for Homosexuality
* Post-Gay: The Transforming Power of God
* Post-Lesbian: My Testimony
* Same Sex Attraction. Is it innate and immutable?
* A Faithful Church: The Bible and Same-Sex Sex
* Civil Partnerships: Advice to UK Parishes and Clergy
* Unexpected Consequences: The Sexualisation of Youth
Expert contributions include chapters by Professor Joseph Nicolosi, former President of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, and Professor Robert A. J. Gagnon, author of The Bible and Homosexual Practice (2001).
Nothing like on the nose marketing (so to speak) to reach your target audience.
What’s Wrong With This Picture? [box turtle bulletin]
Anti-gay U.K. Anglicans' subtle marketing for new tome [pam's house blend]
Posted 12:45 PM EST by Andy in "Ex-Gays", Books, News, Religion | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son is an excellent choice for a book cover; however, I think that it sends the wrong message, given the subject. We gays are not prodigal sons. We did not squander our inheritance and seek to return to a parental church. It is religion (as it is too often mis-practiced) that has spurned us. Great art, nevertheless. I love playing Art App 101.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 12, 2008 12:59:05 PM
I'm sad to see this painting used in such a misguided way. The painting, Rembrant's depiction of the prodigal son returning to the welcome embrace of the father, is iconic in certain Christian circles. It is particularly well-loved in evangelical circles because of a book by Catholic spiritual author Henri Nouwen called "The Return of the Prodigal Son," which he wrote after sitting for hours in a Russian art museum contemplating Rembrant's painting and the parable from Luke's gospel. The book is a beautiful meditation on the painting and the story. The ironic twist is that Nouwen himself was gay, although closeted. No doubt the painting and the story had added resonance for him because of his internal turmoil. Later in life, he made significant strides towards embracing his sexuality. His biographer, Michael Ford, believes that had he not died prematurely of a heart attack, he would have eventually published another book about reconciling with his sexuality. No doubt such a book would have put a bit of a damper on this new ex-gay love fest.
Posted by: tim | Feb 12, 2008 12:59:16 PM
I'm sad to see this painting used in such a misguided way. The painting, Rembrant's depiction of the prodigal son returning to the welcome embrace of the father, is iconic in certain Christian circles. It is particularly well-loved in evangelical circles because of a book by Catholic spiritual author Henri Nouwen called "The Return of the Prodigal Son," which he wrote after sitting for hours in a Russian art museum contemplating Rembrant's painting and the parable from Luke's gospel. The book is a beautiful meditation on the painting and the story. The ironic twist is that Nouwen himself was gay, although closeted. No doubt the painting and the story had added resonance for him because of his internal turmoil. Later in life, he made significant strides towards embracing his sexuality. His biographer, Michael Ford, believes that had he not died prematurely of a heart attack, he would have eventually published another book about reconciling with his sexuality. No doubt such a book would have put a bit of a damper on this new ex-gay love fest.
Posted by: tim | Feb 12, 2008 1:00:51 PM
I...don't get it. The Bible is pretty explicit as to how it feels about the gays: none too good. And sure, there's David and Jonathan in 2 Samuel -- but that doesn't negate all the other incredibly clear and forceful proscriptions against homosexuality.
I'm not saying the Bible's right here. As a homo myself, I down with my fellow queers. However, I don't think that Christianity is where we need to be looking for evangelical acceptance.
Athiesm just makes more sense, ultimately.
Posted by: Mike B. | Feb 12, 2008 1:13:23 PM
Mike B, Your lack of Biblical knowledge is frightening. Certain passages pertaining to the rules governing Levite priests arguably proscribe homosexual relations, just as they prohibit touching pigskin (therefore, no football), eating shellfish (no shrimp or lobster for the Levites), no wearing of mixed fabrics (probably everything you are now wearing), and other historical anomalies. Jesus himself never spoke of homosexuality, yet he explicitly condemned many other practices such as usurious money lending that are now quite common and accepted. Too many people fall into the trap of following the literal rules of the time preceding that during which the Bible was written and miss the overall message of love and acceptance. Atheism may make "more sense" in your opinion but you are making a straw man argument against Christianity.
Posted by: rudy | Feb 12, 2008 1:58:50 PM
Mike B.--Jesus absolved the old law with his bringing of the new law, love God and love one another. So the Old Testament law isn't binding anymore.
The use of the word homosexual in the Letters of Paul is a guess, at best. The word "Homosexual" was coined in the 1890s, and didn't appear in a translation of the bible until post-WWII. Before that it said "Masturbators". So most of us would be guilty anyway.
Actually if you put the pieces together from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament all of these so-called references to homosexuality are actually references to those who abuse sex by using violence to have sex. Further, Paul is trying to get everyone to see themselves in his "vice lists" so that we understand that everybody is a sinner.
I think that giving up on God in favor of Atheism because of a 2000+ year old document written by old white heterosexual men, is pretty faulty reasoning. God is still speaking, just lend an ear.
P.S. as for the art, they are probably using it for the same reason as Nouwen, for the prodigal son effect: bringing LGBTs back to God. HOWEVER, Robert Gagnon is a hater so beware.
Posted by: Erik K. | Feb 12, 2008 2:08:00 PM
funny how you would consider a *lack* of biblical knowledge "frightening."
Posted by: bmac | Feb 12, 2008 3:22:41 PM
BMAC, When would basing an argument on a lack of knowledge about the subject not be frightening? I did not attack the commenter, as is the wont of so many, but expressed my firm opinion that lack of knowledge is a cause for deep concern. Idiosyncratic punctuation also frightens me, but to a lesser extent. ;p
Posted by: rudy | Feb 12, 2008 3:55:19 PM
@Rudy:
The issue is, of course, that there's no agreement among Biblical scholars and translators over what, exactly, the Bible says. Or, heck, even what it is. Claims that Jesus "absolved the old law" is pretty breathtaking in its arrogance, since most Jews will say that actually, no: Jesus has done no such thing because, turns out, he's not the Messiah.
"Too many people ... miss the overall message of love and acceptance." The Tanakh is pretty much chockablock full of God being anything but loving and accepting. Vengeful? Vindictive? Angry? Bilious? Sure. Loving? Tell it to any of the -ites God commands the Hebrews to smite while looking for a homeland.
The Christian Testament isn't terribly loving, either -- though certainly not as cranky as the Tanakh. This might be because God himself doesn't make an actual appearance in the Christian Testament. He's spoken of and to, but not with, in the way, say, Abraham and God were pals. Or God and Moses. Or God and Job when God delivers his smackdown (after allowing a shaitan to kill all of Job's livestock and children before covering Job with boils). But you have Christ cursing a fig tree and suggesting violence to further his cause.
What I'm suggesting -- and not, as you say, from a place of ignorance; just because we disagree over scripture doesn't mean that I'm ignornat, willfully or otherwise -- is that the Bible is a complex, old, contradictory collection of documents. And it's intellectually dishonest to say that, because one passage here seems to suggest that God is love and homosexuality is a-ok, then the whole book and religion has a history of being gay positive. Because there are a lot of passages that would certainly suggest otherwise.
Also, when nitpicking on punctuation, one generally doesn't capitalize the first letter after a comma, as you have done after "BMAC."
Posted by: Mike B. | Feb 12, 2008 4:57:28 PM
(And because arrogance is always punished, it should, of course, have been "Claims that Jesus 'absolved the old law' are pretty breathtaking in their arrogance."
D'oh.
Posted by: Mike B. | Feb 12, 2008 5:02:00 PM
And another thing!
@ BMAC:
I think even athiests or agnostics should have some Biblical literacy. It's a very significant book for this country (if you're in the U.S. with me) and world-wide. So, not knowing it puts you at a disadvantage.
Posted by: Mike B. | Feb 12, 2008 5:14:37 PM
Actually what the Bible says is not that loving homosexual relationships are wrong, but that the idolatry related to male prostitution is. In the new testament, The translations from the original Greek say nothing about loving gay relationships. It has more to do with forced sex and the man-boy relationships that were commonplace at the time.
By no means do I consider myself a biblical scholar, but becoming more educated about these issues will make us feel better about what the Bible *really* says about homosexuality--which happens to be nothing.
For more info check out this website http://www.lionking.org/%7Ekovu/bible/toc.html
Posted by: Nathan | Feb 12, 2008 5:25:30 PM
Looks like "Tim" needs to read the bible again and again and again. Are you serious? "the bible is explicit about the gays" OMG! Please don't start believing all the loose translations of a book intended to spread love and is completely based on Egyptian stories pre-dating Jesus. Knowledge is power....and shooting star! LOL
Posted by: DAVE | Feb 12, 2008 6:22:25 PM
It's by no means universally accepted among Christians that "Jesus absolved the old laws," as Rudy asserts. This is a kind of argument Christians of all stripes make all the time: that the theological tradition of their own particular sect applies to all Christians, even though there are lots of Christians who reject whatever notion is being argued for.
But then, I long ago gave up on the idea of expecting logic or consistency from people who believe in fairy tales like resurrection, virgin birth, transubstantiation, and the like.
Posted by: Michael M. | Feb 13, 2008 11:24:17 AM
The only thing I have to add to this is that the name UNDERNEATH the comment is the commenter. Accusations are flying unnecessarily.
Posted by: Phil | Feb 16, 2008 6:44:10 PM
A few comments:
(1) Maybe I'm just a pervert, but the painting makes me think of the priest abuse scandals.
(2) Most Christians -- Catholics, Orthodox, mainline Protestants, and Evengelicals -- do not believe that Jewish law is binding on them (although certain aspects of it may be to the extent that they relate to ethical matters, such as the prohibition against murder in the 10 Commandments).
(3) The Bible does condemn homosexual sex. At least in the New Testament, however, it is not clear why. Did Paul write denounce men and women who act "against nature" because he believed homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered? Or did he write that because he apparently had no concept of the possibility of a loving, marriage-like same-sex relationship? No one knows for sure.
(4) In most Christian traditions, however, we don't need to know why Paul wrote what he did because our faith is based on not just Scripture, but also tradition, experience and reason. It is through these means that we believe the words of Jesus are fulfilled: "When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).
(5) I believe that the Holy Spirit is leading the church to affirm that same-sex relationships can be genuinely marital in nature, and that therefore homosexual behavior is not intrinsically wrong, disordered, or harmful. Many other Christians share this belief, but we simply don't know yet whether or when the church as a whole will come to share this belief. And so the struggle continues.
Posted by: Mark | Feb 18, 2008 2:10:40 AM
Does the "bible" condemn same-sex relationships? It depends on which translation you choose to refer to.
The Levitican prohibitions are more about ritual purity and refers to those practices of the "pagans" (whatever those were--probably from the Babylonian captivity). And, Levitican laws proscribe just about everything that is pleasurable in the human experience and are--whether in human terms or theological terms--ridiculous and anti-ethical to the human experience. But, that is the neurosis that is the Jewish religion--pleasure is bad and tantamount to separation from "god".
It is the great contradiction in christian "thought" that most "christians" do not follow Levitican law. Their claim is that the "new covenant" makes the "old covenant" laws invalid. Yet, in the "new testament", christ clearly states that he is not replacing the old laws, but reaffirming them since he is the "fulfillment of prophecy". Christians do not follow Levitican law because of the virtual impossibility of following such "laws" literally.
The story of Jonathan and David cannot be dismissed so cavalierly. It is a major part of biblical lore and the ancient Hebrew uses words to describe their relationship and its personal intimacies that would be used only for a man-woman relationship. The story of Ruth and Naomi is another example that contradicts the "bible's" alleged bias against same-sex love.
Paul's antipathy was based--again--on a repulsion for certain cultic sexual practices in which a person would go to a temple and pay to have sex with a "god" or "goddess", usually a comely young man or woman. There is speculation that Paul was a sexually-repressed man and as we all know from our own bitter experiences, there is nothing worse than a closet-case with access to power.
Even Paul's (in)famous exhortation against who will enter the "Kingdom of Heaven" is based more on his personal biases than on anything that is remotely sensible. Any "bible" that uses the word "homosexual" in its translation is biased outright and inaccurate because the word that is used is basically that referring to "temple cult prostitute". Paul's claim that relations between men and men or women against women are "against nature" is referring to wanton and indiscriminate lust and is not referring to loving relationships.
I make no excuses for the "bible". I got over christianity along time ago and consider it to be as dangerous and vile as the other two devil-children of Abraham, Islam and Judaism. I care not whether "christians" ever accept me. But, I will be in their faces and up their collective asses if they continue to deny me my essential and god-given human right to live and breath free in my own land.
And, if the trend continues by any of these three shameful excuses for religion to harm or cause suffering to any of my fellow queers--be they male or female--I am fully prepared and willing to take the fight to an entirely new level and meet their violence with violence.
Posted by: mike | Feb 18, 2008 6:08:39 AM
For those who are tired of religious scripture I would invite you to visit this site. You may find it a refreshing concept on God. I like their motto: “God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion”
http://www.deism.com/
Posted by: 1♥ | Feb 18, 2008 8:14:59 AM