Reply from Bill Weintraub:

Hey Joe,

Thank you for writing to me.

Let's take a look at your letter:

I am a university student in a liberal state whom is struggling with a lot of facets of the 'homosexual' issue (I read an article you wrote on the misnomer that 'homosexual' and 'heterosexual' are, so I write them in quotes).

Right -- so if you know that "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are misnomers -- that the categories of sexual orientation

are false --

why are you struggling with the issue?

There is no such thing as "a homosexual."

Or "homosexuality"

Neither exist.

Let's see if we can work this out:

Mainly I'm struggling with identifying as a 'homosexual'

Joe, you're not "a homosexual."

You're a Man.

That's the point to my work.

Men are affectionally and sexually attracted to other Men.

Not because they're different in some way.

But because they're Men.

Your same-sex feelings, your needs and desires, are completely natural and normal.

You have them not because you're in some way different from other Men -- but just and because you *are* a Man.

and honestly being afraid of the stigma associated with the word,

Okay.

But in a place like your very liberal state, there's not much stigma left.

What you should be concerned about is being put into the "homosexual" or "gay" -- or even "straight" for that matter -- box when you don't belong there.

No one belongs there.

You're just a Man.

That's all you are, and that's the only identity, in this matter at least, that you need.

and being a committed Christian.

Okay.

But look -- fact of the matter is there are a huge number of "gay-friendly" Christian denominations out there.

And their Christians are just as "committed" as you are.

What you're actually doing is choosing to stay with the version of Christianity you grew up with.

Which is intensely "homophobic" -- that is to say, hysterically opposed, for no valid reason, Biblical or otherwise, to the true and natural Love of Man for Man;

and which, in the view of many of our guys, our Warriors, also betrays Men, Masculinity, Warrior Jesus, and the Christian Faith.

I come from a conservative (but not overly fundamentalist) non-denominational evangelical Christain background. Every since puberty I've been attracted to guys (with the exception of my first crush, which was a girl at church I liked)

Right.

Which tells me that you're "bisexual," just like every other Man on the planet.

and I've been worried about it. I've been taught in church that homosexuality is innately 'evil' and 'unnatural' and those that partake in it are 'abominations', 'should be killed' and 'condemned to hell'.

Okay.

Joe -- where does the Bible say "homosexuality?"

I can tell you.

NOWHERE.

The words "homosexual" and "homosexuality" were coined in 1869 by a German doctor who wanted to medicalize sex between people of the same sex --

and the people who engaged in that sex.

He wanted to say that those people had an illness -- a disease.

That just as people who coughed up blood were "tubercular," and had a disease called "tuberculosis" -- so males who had sex with males were "homosexual," and had a disease called "homosexuality."

That's what he was doing.

He was taking something that had previously been an activity -- guys having sex with guys -- and turning it into a condition -- "homosexuality."

Once again, prior to 1869, sex between Men was an activity -- something that Men did -- rather than a condition which forever defined and confined them.

That's a really crucial concept, and one you need to understand.

The Bible does not condemn "homosexuality" -- because it doesn't know that word.

What it condemns is a specific act -- anal penetration.

There's no question that Leviticus refers to anal.

Rabbis agree on that.

So -- the Bible condemns anal penetration -- and so do I -- while presenting, in the story of David and Jonathan, a clear and unequivocal example of Love beween Men -- Love between Warriors.

If love, affection, and intimacy between Men are "evil," "abominations," "unnatural," etc -- why is that story there?

King David, after all, is one of the most important figures in both Judaism and Christianity.

If Manly Love is "evil," why present David as all caught-up in a same-sex love affair?

At no point does the Bible say that either David or Jonathan were punished for loving each other.

Not there.

Instead, their love is presented as having enriched their lives.

David:

"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."

That's a very common sentiment in the ancient world -- that the Love of Man for Man surpasses that of women.

Very very common.

So common -- that there's every reason to think -- that it's true.

My family thinks upon those lines.

Okay.

But you're not your family.

You're an independent and free human being.

A Man.

You can think for yourself.

I would really like 'to come out of the closet' but honestly, I'm concerned with what the Bible says, not what man says or does.

Fine.

If that's true, the Bible doesn't have a word to say about "homosexuality."

There's no there there.

All it does is condemn anal -- which is wise.

So basically, I want to accept who I am, but I also don't want to be condemned to hell.

You're not going to be condemned to hell.

If you live your life, as I like to say, and quoting Joseph Campbell, "with integrity in the spirit of your own brave truth," God is not going to condemn you.

And that's how you should live regardless of anything else -- you should live with integrity in the spirit of your own brave truth.

Part of your own brave truth is that you're attracted to other Men.

That's normal.

It's natural.

The question now is -- how will you live out that truth?

That's the real question.

With integrity?

As a Man?

Or as part of the analist subculture?

Or in eternal denial as part of the evangelical subculture?

Those are the actual questions before you.

Are you going to live your own life -- Joe's life? -- or someone else's?

I have been researching this particular topic (the Bible and Homosexuality) for months now,

Yeah.

Joe, you could do that for the rest of your life, pitting one theologian or pundit against another -- and it won't matter.

As a matter of fact, it will make things worse, because you'll just end up more and more confused, and bouncing back and forth between the "gay" camp and the "evangelical" camp.

Neither of which are operating in good faith on this issue.

You need to listen to your OWN HEART -- your own MANLY HEART -- and listen to what it's telling you.

You need to listen to your own truth.

Your own brave truth.

That's the only thing you can do.

and I have several questions about theology and some verses from the Bible. I don't know if you're qualified to field them (gone to seminary or such) but I don't really care. I've read some articles that I think are by you (including 'Theological Rebuttal')

No, that's not by me.

Any article that's by me is signed with my name -- Bill Weintraub -- and if it's online, my email address.

and I'm just wondering if you would be able to field some of my questions.

Joe, you can run them by me, but I've already expressed my view on this.

The Bible does not address the issue of "homosexuality."

It doesn't use the word, because it doesn't know the word.

It condemns anal, promiscuity, and effeminacy -- as do I.

But it sees those as acts -- not as a condition.

As do I.

Joe -- we have a number of posts from Christians and/or talking about Christianity on the site, which you may want to look at.

Here are a few:

• Is Homosexuality a Sin?

• One Christian's Journey

• Jesus and the Truth

• Warrior Christendom

• The Warrior God

• Wonderful Site

• The Greatest Gift

And we discuss David and Jonathan in a series of posts, including

• Warriors or Sodomites

• When David was the butch and Jonathan his bitch

• David and Jonathan: Kristof Agrees

So Joe -- the important thing for you to understand is that:

Affection, intimacy, sex, and Love between Men are acts.

They are not a condition.

Loving a Man does not make you into a different sort of Man.

You're still a Man.

And that's the only identity you need.

If someone tries to put you into a box -- a "gay" box, a "straight" box, a box which says you're "intermediate" between "gay" and "straight" -- they're lying to you and using you.

Don't let anyone put you in a box.

Because it's a trap.

In terms of being a "committed Christian" --

that's fine.

But the fact of the matter is that there are LOTS of "committed Christians" around these days.

Let's face it, you can't swing a cat, as we used to say, without hitting a "committed Christian."

Or at least someone who claims he is.

What's rare is what I'd call a "committed Man."

A Man who's committed to living his life publically and openly as a MAN.

And not as the stooge of the feminists or the heterosexists or the analists or anyone else.

Just as a MAN.

Who's willing to say, aloud, loudly, and as often as it takes -- that he's a Man -- and he loves Men.

And maybe, Joe, that's what God wants you to do.

Not spend your life in hiding as a "committed Christian";

but live your life openly and fully and completely as a MAN.

To live your life "with integrity in the spirit of your own brave truth."

Can you do that?

Will you do it?

You're a college student.

I get letters all the time from guys in their fifties and sixties who haven't done that.

And who are full of regret.

Live your life, Joe, with integrity in the spirit of your own brave truth -- and you'll be fine.

You'll be right.

Right with God --

and Right with your fellow Men, too.

Bill Weintraub

November 2, 2008

© All material Copyright 2008 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Brian Hulme

Re: Questions about Homosexuality and Christianity

11-14-2008

This is an open letter to "Joe" and any other of my Christian Brothers, who maybe I could doubly call my Brothers if they choose to accept their natural masculine needs and also become my Warrior Brother as well.

Let me explain how, I was a member of a Church and the Church gave me a choice, accept their teachings and live as THEY say OR, well be a MAN that is Masculine And Normal, but could I do this and be a Christian as well? Yes! How? Ask yourself this do I need to attend a church to be a Christian? I don't and I now feel closer to Jesus since leaving my Church and after all what is a Christian but a follower of Jesus?

It is the teachings of Jesus that I accept not that of some pastor or preacher from a church polluted with non- Biblical do's and don'ts. It is difficult to break away from what you know and I do understand, but once you have you will feel better, the old restrictions are gone and new freedoms possible. I don't yet have a man in my life, but I hope to some day and as I already said I am closer to Jesus and Worship Him in the way I wish as the Man I am now and never was or could be while a member of that church.

You also can do as I have and be both a Christian and a Man who loves a Man (or will when you have that special one in your life) hoping for the best in your future, with Christian and Warrior Brotherly Love,

Brian

Related posts:

One Christian's Journey

values and morals and honour

Bill Weintraub

Re: Questions about Homosexuality and Christianity

8-5-2009

Hi guys.

Some time after this post went up, the person who'd originally posed the "Questions about Homosexuality and Christianity" did, finally, write back to me.

It had taken him time, he told me, in part because he was doing his own research.

And in the meantime, as I said, I had decided that his question and my response were too important not to be posted for all to see.

But he did eventually respond.

His true name is Ted.

And as you'll see, my reply, as well as other reading he did on the site, and other email conversations we had, convinced Ted that he too was a Man and a Warrior -- who belonged in the Man2Man Alliance.

Where he's been ever since.

Though I was delighted that Ted had written back, and even more delighted that he'd decided to join us, his reply did pose a dilemma -- which was, simply, should I re-write this already posted "Questions about Homosexuality and Christianity?"

After a lot of thought, I decided not to change the original post -- eg, change "Joe" to "Ted."

I think doing that would have been confusing to people who were already familiar with the post, and had linked to it, etc.

But I do want to introduce Ted to the Alliance, and of course give him credit as the author of the original questions.

Ted now has a second post on our boards, titled True Man2Man Intimacy -- and he's also listed in Alliance Youth.

When Ted did write back to me, this is easily what, to my eyes, is the most important thing he said:

Thank you for clarifying about 'sexual orientation', I am finally understanding what you've been saying all along. I finally get that there's no 'straight', 'bi', 'gay' or 'in-between'...there's just men. Directly related to that, I realize that I'm a man, not a 'straight', 'bi', 'gay' or 'in-between' man, (which would then make me an alien compared to other men) but that I'm just a normal, average guy.

It's hard to describe 1) the relief and 2) sense that it is right that this brings about. Honestly, I thought that I was 'different' (pick a category), because I am attracted to men, it's an overwhelming feeling when I suddenly realized, that I'm not different, I don't have a 'different' or 'minority' 'sexual orienation', I'm just a guy.

Thank you very much for helping me to (finally) see this.

In reply, I said to Ted,

Ted, this is the crucial sentence in that paragraph:

"It's hard to describe 1) the relief and 2) sense that it is right that this brings about."

Ted, if it feels right to you, that's because it is.

Hold tight to that Ted.

Here are some other things Ted said, followed by my replies to him.

Ted:

Though some people might claim that we 'need' categories in which to describe sexuality, because language, by very nature, must classify things; I think that being a man is a very relevant category.

If you must, you can call men 'bi', but the thing is, as I have come to see it, that a man is a being with a sexual component, and it doesn't matter if that man's attractions fall more towards the same or opposite natural gender.

Sometimes labels do more limiting than classifying.

Our culture really likes to operate on labels because it helps us to know how to behave.

'If you're classified as 'this', then I know that you like 'this', that you live like 'this', and that you consider youself to be 'this', so now I know how to interact and respond to you.' But that is really the extent of how labels can be helpful. I would rather be myself than a label.

It's much more freeing, it's also much more honest, as you don't have to live in a stereotype, especially if aspects of that stereotype are undesirable to me.

The message that men, including evangelicals, need to hear is that they are normal, and they don't need a label. They need truth, acceptance, and love.

And here's my response to Ted, starting with Ted's words.

Ted:

Though some people might claim that we 'need' categories in which to describe sexuality, because language, by very nature, must classify things; I think that being a man is a very relevant category.

Bill:

Yes -- it most certainly is.

If you must, you can call men 'bi', but the thing is, as I have come to see it, that a man is a being with a sexual component, and it doesn't matter if that man's attractions fall more towards the same or opposite natural gender.

Yes, Ted, that's correct.

And Ted, I can't emphasize enough with you -- and all the other guys -- how different the perspective was in the ancient world.

To the Men of the ancient world, relationships which included a sexual component -- always had a purpose.

The purpose of mixed sex relationships was procreation.

The purpose of same sex relationships was the promotion of excellence -- the pursuit of moral beauty.

Ted, I'm going to be talking about that in a post which I hope will go up soon -- and then in some future posts as well.

But to the ancients, excellence aka areté aka virtue was what mattered.

Not the gender of the person you were involved with.

But whether the involvement served a moral purpose.

Ted -- the great classicist Werner Jaeger talks about the "passionate moral earnestness" of those ancient Men who took part in Eros -- same-sex love -- and that's an excellent descriptor -- "passionate moral earnestness."

Jaeger: "Lovers who were bound by the male Eros were guarded by a deeper sense of honour from committing any base action, and were driven by a nobler impulse in attempting any honourable deed."

And that's absolutely correct.

And wouldn't we today be better off if our discourse centered on "virtue" -- rather than "sexual orientation?"

Ted:

Sometimes labels do more limiting than classifying.

Yes!

Exactly!

Our culture really likes to operate on labels because it helps us to know how to behave.

Yes.

'If you're classified as 'this', then I know that you like 'this', that you live like 'this', and that you consider youself to be 'this', so now I know how to interact and respond to you.' But that is really the extent of how labels can be helpful. I would rather be myself than a label.

Absolutely!

It's much more freeing, it's also much more honest, as you don't have to live in a stereotype, especially if aspects of that stereotype are undesirable to me.

Right!

The message that men, including evangelicals need to hear is that they are normal, and they don't need a label. They need truth, acceptance, and love.

Yes, Ted, and that's very well-said.

Exceptionally so.

So good, that it bears repeating:

The message that men, including evangelicals, need to hear is that they are normal, and they don't need a label. They need truth, acceptance, and love.

All Men, including evangelicals, need to hear that they're normal, and don't need a label.

Men need to know the Truth about themselves -- about being Men -- and then Lovingly accept themselves for who and what they are -- Men.

MEN.

So -- guys -- all this is to introduce Ted the Warrior.

Like I said, he's posted in Alliance Youth, and his fellow young Men can look for him there.

Which I hope they will.

Because Ted's a true Warrior:

A Man who's decided to live with integrity in the spirit of his own brave truth.

Bill Weintraub

August 5, 2009

© All material Copyright 2009 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.