What is in Kelvin's Head?

Revised Commenting Policy

04/08/2012
I’ve posted something like this before but have had to add the final bullet point today. (And have today decided not to allow any further comments from the offender who caused me to add this last point. It seems to me that he has been warned enough).

The following types of comments will be deleted without question.
- Comments which appear to be legitimate but whose posters’ details point to porn sites.
- Comments which contain homophobic epithets. I’m open to intelligent discussion but I’m not running a site which allows people to get away with silly name calling.
- Comments which claim to prove something by quoting a single verse taken out of context from the Bible. Scripture is too precious to me to allow that. This is a place where the Bible is loved and honoured and treasured. Comments which use it as a weapon are unwelcome.
- Comments promoting one Bible translation because all the rest are flawed. Like quite a few people who comment here, my Greek and Hebrew are a bit rusty. However, it was worth learning them as I can now make up my own mind about such matters. Go thou and study likewise.
- Comments promoting or trying to raise money for particular missionary societies.
- Comments disparaging women and in particular comments which undermine my female colleagues. I learn about God from them.
- Comments trying to explain Penal Substution as a theory of Atonement. I know what it means. I know how it works. We’ve already established that like most Christian people I don’t believe in it. It gets boring if you try to explain it to me again.
- Comments in which those of us who are gay are likened to murderers either in the eyes of the commenter or in the eyes of God. To be honest, when it becomes that offensive, I don’t think we are talking enough of the same language for me to want to bother carrying on listening. I’m also not in the business of providing space for that kind of rhetoric. Those who want to make such comments can do so on their own blogs but not on mine.
As I’ve repeatedly said before, I like an intelligent argument and tend to adopt this policy as much for the sake of those others who like a sane corner of the web as for myself.

[Most] Comments welcome.

13 responses to “The Comites Christi – Gay Icons”

John O’Leary

27/12/2014

Whether or not these people had sex with each other is unknowable and irrelevant. A gift that they offer to all, of whatever sexual persuasion, is the understanding that people of the same sex can have beautiful friendships marked by tender affection.

Reply
Daniel Donaldson

27/12/2014

Jesus had sex, he was human Afterall. I don’t like the way churches destroy the humanity of bible stories, making everyday life and seem dirty and disgusting (sex, being case in point ) replacing it with a self interpreted image of the divine. Maybe if the church recognised and embraced humanity, they would get more folk in the pews, instead of pushing them away.

Reply
1. Jo
  
  27/12/2014
  
  Not every human has sex during their lives. People have, by accident or design, remained chaste throughout their lives. We have no reason to believe that Jesus was married, and likewise we have no reason to suppose that he did have sex. All we have in this regard is an argument from silence. One would expect, however, that were he married it would have been his wife, as well as his mother, whom he commended to John’s care at his death.
  
  Reply
  1. Daniel Donaldson
    
    27/12/2014
    
    That’s a matter of debate. Some people can be chaste all their lives. I’m not comvinced that is the case with Jesus. The church likes to destroy humanity, make us feel guilty and dirty about being ourselves. If other heretical writings were allowed to survive, we may have a better account of the human side of Jesus.
    
    Reply
    1. Rosemary Hannah
      
      27/12/2014
      
      Actually you would probably have a much more Gnostic Christ in the destroyed writings, other worldly and detailing the orders and hierarchy of angels. In fact the New Testament as we have it is kind to our physical nature, by and large. Whether Jesus was unmarried or widowed or gay we cannot know. We do know that he touched the ‘untouchable’ and was blamed for party going. It is enough to be going on with.
      
      Reply
      1. Tiggy
        
        27/12/2014
        
        I don’t like the implication in the comment above that someone has to have sex in order to be fully human. Maybe there are less people today who go their whole lives without having sex, but it was very common in the past and not always a choice, certainly for women. Were those people not fully human?
Ann Fontaine

27/12/2014

Thanks Kelvin – tomorrow on Speaking to the Soul on the Café — Leslie Scoopmire writes about our wanting to know “what” rather than opening up to possibilities — asking “why”. Also are the images available for use?

Reply
1. Kelvin
  
  27/12/2014
  
  I was unable to identify the origins of the two icons. The middle one came from the wikipedia page on St John and is in the public domain.
  
  Reply
Pam

28/12/2014

Thanks for this post. I enjoyed reading it very much. I tend to be a bit less reflective of Bible stories during Christmas days as my large family keeps me quite occupied – and we do live near the beach. I was reading Ruth 1 last night as it happens and I find the story of Ruth and Naomi to be one of love and fidelity. I don’t read their relationship as being of a sexual nature at all, my perspective. I also think black women and white women may read the Bible quite differently.

Reply
Jaye Richards-Hill

28/12/2014

David and Ruth speak to me far more than the examples you draw in the blog post. Not so sure that Naomi and Ruth is all that far-fetched either. If literature reflects life,then why shouldn’t we look for examples of LGBT folk in scripture? It’s pretty much a given that they were there, after all?

Reply
Ann Fontaine

28/12/2014

Another reflection along these lines http://www.episcopalcafe.com/speaking-to-the-soul-living-into-the-possibilities/

Reply
Kittredge Cherry

30/12/2014

I’m one of those lesbian people who gets excited about the same-sex love affirmed in the stories of Ruth & Naomi and David & Jonathan. In fact I blog about them and other “LGBT saints” (loosely defined” through Jesusinlove.org.

I don’t disagree with your statement, “Instead of asking whether a given character in the bible ‘is gay’ those of us who read from that perspective would be better to ask of all the characters – what are you saying to our lives?”

However I find that highlighting the same-sex love or “queer” people in the Bible helps catch the attention of LGBT people today who would otherwise ignore the Bible completely.

Your description of the conversation about John the Beloved Disciple is amazing. I’ve engaged in conversations about this, but it never became anywhere near so detailed as what you describe.

Today is the feast day for King David in some churches… another date to add to the gay comites Christi. Thanks for a thought-provoking piece, and happy New Year.

You can find my LGBT saints series at:
http://www.jesusinlove.org/saints.php

Reply
Kate Odling

26/12/2018

I found this interesting. Both Stephen & John were quiet, “soft” men who were sympathetic to people who needed help, I think. There are many gay & straight people who are like them. They are the quiet ones who get on with doing good deeds. I think everyone can appreciate their love

Reply