I linked to Brueggemann’s discussion above, in post #27. There were people who voluntarily became eunuchs back in the old days in order to serve on foreign courts. Don’t ask me why, as I don’t know. So, if this were going on today, I’m thinking they might be part of the “trans” community, though I could be wrong there.
Anyway, eunuchs were considered impure and not worthy of heaven, at least until that Isaiah language came along.
Is that the Christian perspective? 
Some Christian churches have gay pastors.
That is Old testament, not New.
This cite says that cross dressing was not uncommon in Ancient Rome-
Again the old testament (the “old covenant” in Christian parlance) Christians (even the most conservative fundamentalist ones) do not feel beholden to the bits of Deuteronomy that command they should keep three cities as sanctuary cities for people who are accused of manslaughter, or using cows to atone for unsolved murders, similarly for this passage.
I’ve read this, and I have a bit of trouble following the overarching argument – although, I understand this is part of a larger work, so that might help.
One key concept is: “The Gospel is not to be confused with or identified with the Bible.” Which is to say, that I understand Brueggemann to be rejecting the claim that the biblical text is inspired or authoritative. Instead, he’s derived (from Scripture, including Paul) which overrides any inconsistent message (found in Scripture, including Paul). There’s an intellectual danger to this approach that’s fairly obvious. (I think it’s curious that he largely ignores the New Testament texts about homosexuality – or indeed New Testament texts about “rigor”). But it echoes my point, I think: what do you believe to be authoritative?
My other reaction to consider what he’s talking about. He cites Deuteronomy 23 on exclusion from the “assembly of the Lord.” The text is understood to be talking about participation in communal life (attending a literal “assembly”; voting; privileges of citizenship, etc.).
Brueggeman seems to contrast that with the Gospel message that everyone can be part of the Christian community. And the Christian community shouldn’t exclude people because they are sinners (we are all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God). You don’t have to “prove” your worthiness to be part of the community ( you can’t – you’re not worthy and you can’t justify yourself).
That’s a good message. And it’s a message that many Christian churches have failed to live up to. But I don’t think it gets you where you want. I didn’t read anything in the Brueggemann piece that suggests that homosexual behavior isn’t a sin or that there is a Biblical argument that it’s “okay.”
Paul also talks about thieves, slanderers, drunkards, the greedy, swindlers, idolaters, and adulterers. In Galatians, he also talks about rage, jealousy, ambition, factionalism, (and, of course, the sex stuff). It seems to me that churches have done a much better job welcoming those classes of people (probably because it obviously includes many of us). But they’re not “included” in the sense that you mean (i.e., no longer viewed as sins). (EDIT: We don’t expect the churches to validate those behaviors or refrain from discouraging them).
One other question I have, echoing something I said earlier: is there any behavior that the “texts of welcome” approach wouldn’t apply to? If we’re talking about “inclusion” (however you want to define it), can we define it a way that continues to recognize that some acts are sinful. And do we need to be able to?
All the major religions are bigoted against us to varying degrees, so there are no good options there. Liberal religious people have a tendency to twist the scripture of their holy books to accommodate their own personal beliefs to support our civil rights, and while I’m certainly glad people like that exist, they aren’t really representative of their religions.
My takeaway from the excellent Brueggemann piece was
a) The Wesley quadrilateral - the four sources of Christian guidance are scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, and
b) You have to consider all the scripture taken together, dismissing none of it. That includes the relative few clobber passages (what the author calls texts of rigor), but also the far more prevalent texts of welcome. You need to take it slow, taking time to understand the Bible in context and in pieces but also as a whole.
My interpretation is that the 4 Gospels - Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John - are central to Brueggemann’s Christianity and are elevated above, for example, the Old Testament. Such an interpretation is pretty standard and is derived from the Book of Acts. I see no indication in the essay that Brueggemann rejects the claim that biblical texts are inspired. None. Elevating the Gospel above Paul’s letters is also consistent with my childhood Sunday school teachings at least.
This still leaves the concern that safe sex homosexual conduct in a loving relationship is harmless and shouldn’t be derided as a sin. Furthermore an undue focus on such biblical minutia carries the very real risk of distracting parishioners from the central tenets of Christianity. There are ways of reconciling such a liberal position with scripture provided you take an historical perspective, but that goes well beyond the argument in Brueggemann’s essay.
True, but at least if you follow the Word of Jesus you wont see anything like that.
One reading of Pauls new word is that it applied to male prostitutes. And that would not be safe, nor loving, nor harmless.
Similarly it is claimed that, “Rather than viewing homosexual activity as an expression of love or personal identity, the audience of Leviticus understood homosexual practices solely as a derogatory act of rape that was practiced to humiliate and undermine men.”
Sort of like some US prisons today. It’s not difficult to imagine a Christianity honoring G-d and His creation, loving thy neighbor as thyself, but at the same time trying not be a sanctimonious jerk about all of that. That’s a pretty consistent through-line in the four Gospels and not at all easy if taken seriously.
Cite: https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1284&context=theses
I wonder what that would mean for lesbians.
As far as I can tell, the bible is cool with lesbians, excepting possibly Romans 26-27.
Romans 1:
So homosexual impulses according to Paul were a punishment from G-d for the sin of idolatry, a humiliating one. Men were punished for acting on these desires, women were given a pass.
Joan Roughgarden is a trans woman who’s a biologist and a Christian. In her book Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender, and Sexuality in Nature and People she argues that some of the “eunuchs” in the Bible were trans women, including those who became eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.
It’s possible.