A Neko's Approach to Divine Inclusivity

NOTE: This is only a portion of a much larger essay / post I've been working on. But due to recent political and real life events, I simply don't have it in me to continue the work involved. I do my best to get out of bed every day, let alone surround myself with the material that trash human beings use as an attempt to devoid me of personhood.

Introduction

Religion has long been used as a weapon against those seeking comfort and belonging. In today’s world, the rise of Christian nationalism in the United States is causing ripples throughout the political landscape, impacting millions of LGBTQIA+ lives more deeply than the already pervasive Abrahamic ideals. But why do these religions, which ostensibly seek an overwhelmingly inclusive salvation, often propagate hate and exclusion toward this group? This Neko wholeheartedly believes that Christian scripture not only supports but also uplifts LGBTQIA+ individuals in ways that modern dogma often chooses to ignore.

My Background

From the time I was born, my Sundays were spent sitting in the front pew of small Baptist churches, listening to weekly sermons, singing hymns, and letting the word of God flow through me. As I grew older, I found pleasure in reading the Bible like any other book, spending my nights poring over its pages and even bringing it to school for those rare quiet moments (at the time, I solely read the King James Version, but I’ve since switched to the New Revised Standard Version). Eventually, though, I began questioning the inconsistencies I found within those pages and the contradictions I observed in the lives of those who claimed to live by them.

I was fortunate to have a pastor during that period of my life who was incredibly open-minded and down-to-earth. He was someone you could ask any question, discuss any concerns about the scriptures, and receive thoughtful conversation rather than the pure apologetics many rely on today. He helped me realize that the Bible wasn’t intended as a literal truth, historical document, or even the direct word of God itself, but rather as a guiding tool to lead us toward salvation and establish a moral framework.

Eventually, I began attending church less frequently and reading my Bible less often. At that time, I felt I had gleaned as much as I could, given my then-current ability to discern and research my questions. Around this period, I also began questioning my place in the LGBTQIA+ community (I was around 15 years old, in 2013). Though I was far from the revelation that would eventually come to me, it allowed my views on this community to open up and break through the barriers that had been imposed on me earlier in life.

Fast forward to today: I’m 27, I’ve come out as transfem, and I’ve experienced a reawakening to religious and spiritual studies through Gnostic texts. I’ve come to understand that reality and spiritual insights often coincide. With the help of close friends, I’ve started developing a community for like-minded individuals in the form of a church. I’ve founded the religion of Nekoism - an anti-dogmatic congregation that seeks Gnosis through the culmination of ideas, understandings, and spiritual practices across the full scope of religious and scientific understanding, all rooted in the framework of Gnostic texts.

Intentions

My intention in this article is not to dissuade you from any religious or spiritual beliefs you may hold but to clarify that the foundations of Christianity - when viewed from historical, moral, and theological perspectives - not only tolerate but accept and uplift people from the LGBTQIA+ community. I aim to provide context for those struggling with family, friends, their community, or even internal strife so that they can build a better understanding between themselves and others regarding who they are and where their place in the church might be.

I also want to piss off those who are Christian in name only, but that’s neither here nor there.

Inclusivity In Canonical Christian Texts

I find that when the bible is read in its totality, and its original context and meaning, a message of inclusivity for all people is found. Not just in the values about people as a whole, but directly through stories and parables about individuals falling under the LGBTIA+ umbrella within the scripture itself. Characters such as David, Ruth, and Jonathan bring us closer to a value system that not only accepts but uplifts those of us who fall under this umbrella.

The Importance Of Context In Scripture

When reading biblical texts, we need to keep a remembrance of the cultural, historical, and linguistic context in each verse. The Bible was penned over a period of more than 1,500 years - from the writings of Moses around 1,400 BC to the writing of Revelations in 90 AD. The newest book was written nearly 2,000 years ago, in a world vastly different from our own. And yet, contained many of the same types of people we see in our daily lives - there were gays, bisexuals, asexuals, non-binary, trans people - simply placed under different terms and contexts.

Cultural Context

The cultural context of the scripture is essential for understanding its intended message. Much of the Old Testament was written in the ancient Near East, where culture was vastly different from our modern society. When societal norms, religious practice, and daily life dictated the way people thought and wrote - it's understandable how one message may portray another thousands of years later.

For example, the concept of family and gender roles in ancient Israel were deeply rooted in a patriarchal structure, with extremely strict rules determining behavior and expectations. These led to passages of ownership over women and lesser men, but even then, we can find scripture that breaks the rigid structure and challenges those norms, offering a glimpse of a more inclusive meaning held within the pages.

An example of this would be the story of Ruth and Naomi (Ruth 1:6-22). Naomi had born two sons, each of which grew and wed, to two women - Orpah and Ruth. After some time, both her husband and two sons had passed away. The cultural expectations at this time would have required both Orpah and Ruth to return to their fathers' homes, where they might be once again wed away to other men. When asked to follow her sister-in-law, Ruth said to Naomi: "Where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge" (Ruth 1:16-17). This is not just a statement of loyalty, but a radical defiance of established cultural norms. Ruth, a Moabite widow, choosing to stay with her Israelite mother-in-law rather than return to her people, suggests a broader inclusivity that transcends cultural boundaries.

Similarly, the Greco-Roman world in which the New Testament was penned down, followed a separate set of cultural norms that shaped the texts of the New Testament (as an aside, this is in part why the univocality of scripture, cannot be true). Many portions of life were shaped by the concept of "honor and shame", a central pillar that upheld social life. We can see this reflected in many of the teachings of Joshua and the apostles, for example in John 4:1-26, when Joshua directly engages with a Samaritan woman, breaking societal and religious barriers with a woman deemed morally questionable. Understanding these cultural underpinnings will help us decipher meanings, which may exert exclusivity but on the surface, but truly speak to a deeper, more inclusive truth.

Historical Context

As previously mentioned, the canonical Biblical scripture was written over a period of more than 1,500 years, in vastly different historical periods, with each verse, each scripture, reflecting the current period of the time. The laws and rules laid out in the bible span from the nomadic peoples of the Sinai Peninsula, to long the long-defined civilizations of Greece and Rome. The bible's purpose of political organization within these peoples expresses values aimed to protect and ensure the survival of these many types of societies.

The laws in Leviticus were written at a time when the Israelites were attempting to forge their own, unique, identity after their exodus from Egypt. The laws held within were meant to create cohesion and separation from surrounding civilizations, they were not just religious precedents but rather a means of social development in a harsh environment. Purity laws, including those that are today morally acceptable sexual behavior, were an attempt to separate the Israelites from surrounding pagan cultures where practices like temple prostitution and child sacrifice were common. 

In the New Testament, which are the more relevant laws after the coming of Christ and the establishment of the new church, Paul's letters were written (around 100 AD). This is around the time when the Roman Empire was a mass of complex religious, societal, and cultural ideals, similar to how the modern Western world is laid out. Christians viewed many of these, such as emperor worship, as idolatry. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, we can see Paul condemning many such behaviors, reflecting the pervasive influence paganism had over Corinth. Corinth was a port city, known for its wealth, diversity, and moral laxity. The cult of Aphrodite, for example, was a prominent sect known for its sexual "immorality".

Paul's warnings though, were aimed at the Christian community, in an attempt to distinguish them from the surrounding culture to further develop the uniqueness and separation of the Christian identity from other, more established, religions and traditions. His focus in these letters was not the exclusion of those based on their identity, but rather the fostering of a growing Christian community and commitment to God. Understanding this historical context allows us to understand many other scriptures' purpose was not the exclusion or hate of people based on their cultural or societal identity, but rather the values that went into developing a new religious platform to separate its followers from the surrounding practices of the time. 

Linguistic Context

Having been written over such a large expanse of time, across so many different cultures and locales, linguistics plays a massive part in understanding and deciphering the meaning behind the scriptures. The texts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek - each coming with its own set of linguistic ambiguities which can be challenging to translate into more modern eras, with their entirely own sets of nuances and expressions.

For instance, in the original Hebrew scriptures, we can find three different words that mean "abomination", but each carries a distinct meaning, far surpassing what we assume with that word today.

1. תּוֹעֵבָה (To’eva): This is a term that refers to religiously impure, or forbidden, within specific religious practices in ancient Israel. There is no inherent implication of moral evil, but rather it's indicative of something being unacceptable solely within the religious context of this culture. For example, this term is utilized in Leviticus 11:10-12, describing certain foods that were abominable to eat, as well as Deuteronomy 7:25-26 which dismissed idolatry as an abominable practice. 
2. שֶׁקֶץ (Sheqets): This word defines something as morally detestable or loathsome, typically being utilized in the context of impure animals. In Leviticus 11:10, again the word "sheqets" is used alongside "to'eva" to reinforce that the creatures are not just unclean, but rather loathsome to eat within the Israelite community.
3. זִמָּה (Zimmah): The term most often associated with lewdness or wickedness, within sexual immorality. "ZImmah" carries a stronger connotation of moral corruption, and in Ezekiel 22:11 is used to describe acts of incest, menstrual sex, and adultery. All acts which were seen as harmful to the community of the time.

Understanding these distinctions will help us infer the meaning behind the passages they're used in, as not all instances of "abomination" carry the same meaning, or implications. While "to'eva" is culturally specific and tied to ritualistic practices, "sheqets" and "zimmah" are more directly related to moral and ethical concerns superseding the culture a the time.

Similar challenges can arise once we reach the Greek found in the New Testament. For example, ἀρσενοκοῖται (arsenokoitai), which we can find in 1 Corinthians 6:9, is a compound word literally meaning "male-bed". This term is very rare, as it doesn't appear in any earlier Greek literature, and has been the cause of debate across many translations. Scholars range from claiming that it can refer to the condemnation of all illicit sexual activity, same-sex sexual activity, or more likely pederasty and prostitution - both of which were extremely common in Greco-Roman society and shunned by the early Church. 

Another term relating to sexual ethics is μαλακοί (malakoi), which is also found in 1 Corinthians 6:9. This word literally means "soft" and can be interpreted in various ways within the context of the verse. While it can be understood to mean effeminate or moral weakness, many scholars suggest that it refers to individuals who are morally lax and self-indulgent, rather than targeting gender non-conformity. 

Even the process of translation itself has massively influenced modern societies' understanding of the scriptures. The King James Version, for example (the most widely adopted and utilized translation) was developed in a time that carried heavy biases and societal norms, which directly influenced terminology used while translating words or phrases. Modern translations such as the New Revised Standard Version strive to return to the earlier language and contexts, providing a clearer and more accurate understanding of the scripture, and even still meanings can change as we further our historical understanding of these cultures.

By paying close attention to linguistic nuance, we can strive to better understand the scriptures as they're meant to be. We should avoid imposing modern biases and linguistic understanding onto the scripture, and approach it in a way that allows a faithfulness towards original context, meaning, and inclusivity of people. Regardless of their sexual or gender identity.

Gender In Scripture

When we utilize the previously broken down contexts while reading scripture, we can find separate meanings from those that have ingrained themselves into modern Christian society. In the realm of gender within the bible, while there aren't many passages explicitly speaking out on it, we can still find quite a few that support an inclusive viewpoint held by both the authors and religion as a whole. 

Trans Issues And Gender Nonconformity

Isaiah 56

This is one of the most significant verses inviting gender non-conforming individuals into the church, not only accepting but uplifting them by stating, "I will give, in my house and within my walls, a monument and a name better than sons and daughters."

Do not let the foreigner joined to the Lord say,  
    “The Lord will surely separate me from his people,”  
and do not let the eunuch say,  
    “I am just a dry tree.”  
For thus says the Lord:  
To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,  
    who choose the things that please me  
    and hold fast my covenant,  
I will give, in my house and within my walls,  
    a monument and a name  
    better than sons and daughters;  
I will give them an everlasting name  
    that shall not be cut off.

The primary term we need to focus on within this text is "eunuch," which appears multiple times throughout canonical scripture but is often misunderstood in modern Christianity. The term comes from the Hebrew word "סָרִיס (sarís)," traditionally understood as a male who is either sexually underdeveloped or who has developed female secondary sex characteristics.

When exploring the historical and cultural context of this term, it’s important to recognize that eunuchs were not simply seen as castrated men. They fulfilled a variety of roles in society that neither strictly male nor female roles could encompass, and were accordingly viewed as distinct. Moreover, many eunuchs occupied roles that transcended traditional gender expectations.

For example, Ashpenaz, mentioned in Daniel 1:9 (whom we will discuss in more depth later), is referred to as a "saris" and held a position that transcended the gender binary. Similarly, Sumerian and Akkadian gala priests, also described as "saris," were often attired in female garb, wore long hair, and were fragrant with ointment - individuals who might today be recognized as transfeminine and who were highly regarded at the time these texts were written.

Matthew 19

We've discussed eunuchs as viewed from the Old Testament's perspective, and the meaning that term implied within Hebrew texts. But moving on to the New Testament, we find a different set of sociolinguistic rules to adhere to. In Roman society, gender was seen as a spectrum of "man" with women being an inferior state of being a man, and many people fell within that spectrum outside the ideal "masculinity" one might expect from biblical manhood.

While Matthew 19 is discussing aspects of adultery and divorce, Joshua makes the following statement:

¹² For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Eunuchs, at the time of this writing, were again not only castrated males but rather those that fell too far down the rung of masculinity to be seen as an ideal man. And they were people who fell into the realm of womanhood, or a limbo between the two; fairly comparable to individuals we would consider nonbinary, genderfluid, or transexual today. 

In this verse, we can see Joshua clearly tell us to not only accept those who are born intersex, not only the individuals who have had castrations (forced or willingly) but to accept those who chose to live outside of gender normativity. In this and surrounding verses, we can extrapolate the context that Joshua is inviting them into the kingdom of Heaven, and who are we to disagree with the child of God?

Acts 8

Having already discussed the meaning of eunuch in both Old and New Testament contexts, we can take a more in depth look at Acts 9. In these verses, we find the Apostle Phillip spreading the word of Joshua as he flees prosecution of the Church. 

³⁴ The eunuch asked Philip, “About whom, may I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?” ³⁵ Then Philip began to speak, and starting with this scripture he proclaimed to him the good news about Jesus. ³⁶ As they were going along the road, they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water! What is to prevent me from being baptized?” ³⁸ He commanded the chariot to stop, and both of them, Philip and the eunuch, went down into the water, and Philip baptized him. ³⁹ When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; the eunuch saw him no more and went on his way rejoicing.