Note: These are just some thoughts. My intent is to question the traditional interpretation of Romans 1:26-32 in light of the book of Romans in hopes to start a dialogue. I am not stating a particular position, nor have I arrived at a final stance on the issue of homosexuality.
Romans 1:26-32 is often used as the "proof" text that is supposed to demonstrate once and for all that same-sex relations are contrary to God's will. Verse 27 does indeed refer to same-sex acts between men, but the previous verse makes no mention of homosexual activity. The parallel with the men's sin is that it was sexual behavior "against nature" - whatever that means. But to assume that lesbianism is what Paul had in mind is simply jumping to conclusions. Both the men and women in question are behaving "against nature", but only the men are said to have same-sex partners. P. Coleman in "Gay Christians: A Moral Dilemma", suggest that the women might (as he delicately puts it) be engaging in sex per anum, a method of contraception used by prostitutes at the time.
Male same-sex relations in Paul's day were predominately (perhaps exclusively) pederastic (between a man and a boy), and often embroiled in the slave trade. Lesbian practice, in this male-centered culture, was only rarely acknowledged. If Paul's list of sins was a "parade" of behavior that was well know and widely abhorred, the "contraceptive" hypothesis would make far more sense of what these women were up to than the traditional interpretation.
Moving along in the Epistle to chapter 2, it is as if Paul is demonstrating to his Christian audience how he might preach the gospel in the Roman Synagogue if he ever made it to their city. No sooner had he finished denouncing a long list of activities that would, in the eyes of any self-respecting Jew, highlight the depravity of the Gentile world than he turned to the people who were saying "Amen": "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." This is traditionally taken as an indictment against hypocrisy, which was then added to the long list of sins. But what if the target was the whole mentality that was so keen to point out the differences between Jew and Gentile that it was erecting a barrier between God and the people he wanted to reach? This would explain why Paul goes on to say in 2:24 that "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."
If this was his point, that long list of sins - including the "unnatural" sexual acts - was primarily rhetorical. The apostle's main aim was to expose the judgemental attitude of his audience. In this light, it is very hard to work out what his own attitude toward these "unnatural" acts might have been.
The only other text in the entire New Testament where something is described as being 'against nature" comes later in Romans itself, chapter 11. In verse 24, Paul referred to the Gentiles as the wild olive branches whom God was grafting "against nature" into the cultivated olive tree of Israel. It was God himself who was the perpetrator of this "unnatural" act. And it was precisely the same people who would have objected to the unions of chapter 1 that would most likely oppose the bringing together of Jew and Gentile.
For a while the sexual unions in question were naturally infertile and devoid of commitment, but God's faithfulness was now bearing fruit. With the entry of the Gentiles into the covenant, God's promise to Abraham to give him descendents as numerous as the stars was finally being fulfilled. God was acting "against nature", but far from breaking the order of creation, he was breaking through the barriers that people were putting up.
Is it ironic that a letter written to oppose one form of exclusion is now being used to perpetrate another? Once, Gentiles were told they could join God's people only if they were circumcised according to the Jewish norm. Today, we insist that gays and lesbians conform to the heterosexual norm. Paul was out to expose a judgemental and exclusive mindset. Today we misuse his writings and demonstrate that this same mindset is still flourishing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Time out. So just as relationships between Jews and Gentiles were being redeemed, so were same sex relationships? Am I tracking with you? you're becoming a harder read than Tom Wright. Sheesh
I'm saying that same sex relationships and the bringing together of Jew and Gentile are both considered "unnatural" in Romans. But Paul was using same-sex relations as a rhetorical example.
The passage is confronting a judgemental and exclusive mindset, but we use this passage to be judgemental and exclusive.
So are same sex relationships being redeemed? I don't know. But I think that this passage cannot be used as a "prooftext" forbidding homosexuality. And that we should not exclude.
interesting.
As I understand the issue, as expressed in Clapp's book, A Peculiar People, in the ancient world, the issue was not sexual orientation, but penetration. To penetrate was dominant and to be penetrated was to be passive. Thus the nature of things was for the man to penetrate and the woman be penetrated, for men to be dominant and women submissive. The very fact that we (I hope) reject such a sexist view of the relationship between men and women should be enough to open up dialogue.
As far as going against nature, isn't that also Paul's argument against long hair on men?
I am all for challenging traditional arguments against homosexuality, but refuting an argument is not the same as offering one. I've yet to hear any convincing positive arguments for homosexuality's appropriateness, i.e., any arguments stronger than the arguments against.
And now those against do not have the stupidest rhetoric. I used to think, "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" was the stupidest thing ever said. But now I've heard someone say, "Jesus doesn't care what hole you stick your dick in," which is vastly more ridiculous. I'm all for offensive rhetoric when it's true, but not when mountains of evidence refute it.
I don't have my copy of "A Peculiar People" right now, I let someone borrow it. So I don't really know what to say about that.
I never said that I was offering a position on the appropriateness of homsexuality. I actually said that I wasn't. But I am questioning whether those mountains of evidence really exist. I don't see them. I don't think there are good arguments for either position. I was just trying to point out that these verses are speaking out against exclusion, but the contemporary church uses them to exclude homosexuals.
Upon re-reading your comment and talking it over with Jeff, I think that we were speaking past one another.
I thought you were referring to the "mountains of evidence" against homosexuality. I thought this was very out of character for you. I do think that "Jesus cares what hole you stick your dick in", but I am totally convinced that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality.
Chris,
I wasn't arguing with you, just adding my thoughts to the conversation.
I agree that Scripture does not say as much against homosexuality as listening to some evangelical pastors might lead us to believe. But the quote, which I do not attribute to you, is not only phallocentric and individualistic and so still part of the problem it should oppose, it is contrary to the message of Scripture which portrays sexuality as something important enough to serve as a metaphor for Christ and the church. So where one sticks one's dick has enormous bearing on the kingdom.
I don't mean to sound argumentative (not with you anyway), and I don't mean to railroad your discussion. This post just brought up some thoughts I had since our last face to face discussion of the topic, limited as it was.
Christine,
We're back in the USA now; it's "behavior."
I love you.
Buddy,
I think that statement was said in jest, at least that is the way that I took it. I think the guy who said it understands the ridiculousness of the statement, does indeed think that Jesus cares, but does not think that homosexuality is wrong.
Christine,
Hi.
I don't really know if the Bible takes a stance on homosexuality. I find arguments in either way rather weak. Arguments against seem to be based on bad exegesis, arguments for seem to be based on silence. So I don't know. But I think the Bible does stress inclusivity. This is what I tried to point out in my post, that Paul was speaking out against a judgmental and exclusive mindset, a mindset that is strong today and how we go so far to use these verses to judge and exclude.
In sum, I don't know if homosexuality is right or wrong, but I know that we are not to exclude.
And yes, Buddy is a word tyrant.
It's late and I hope some of this makes sense...
The place where I've always gotten hung up in terms of this whole debate is not so much on scripture -- you could argue about it all day and get nowhere, there are important points on both sides. What it comes down to for me is lived experience. When I talk to a person who tells me they have always felt homosexual tendencies (or whatever you wish to call it), that the very idea that they "chose" to feel that way is rediculous (who would choose that kind of ostracization?), and that they feel incapable of sexual expression any other way (it would be dishonest and possibly hurtful to get married), what can I say to them?
I want to say that those feelings, that "condition" (couldn't think of a better word) is a result of the fall (the rest of the Romans passage might apply here), so how do we understand what redemption looks like in that situation? How do we redeem sexuality in this case? Thinking about it in terms of redemption also opens up other ways of looking at the issue. For instance, I think we would all say that war is "against nature" -- it is a condition of the fall, not the way it is supposed to be. Nevertheless, I think we would also all say that war is, concievably, necessary under certain circumstances. We do not live in a world that has been totally redeemed, and thus there are times when we must fight wars. So what do I say to the person that feels incapable of heterosexuality, that for whatever reason...reasons beyond his or her control...is attracted to the same sex and can only experience the highest expressions of human love with a person of the same sex?
For the most part my response is the same as it is to the thought of a necessary war (WW2 is thrown out there a lot and it may be an appropriate example). I shrug and pray for God's continuing redemption of this world and keep trying to do whatever I can to make that redemption a reality. But I realize that we aren't there yet.
If, then, we are willing to accept something as unnatural as war in certain circumstances, I wonder why we are so loathe to accept the possibility of beautiful, loving homosexual relationships whatsoever. In other words, I'm as baffled as everyone else by the whole thing. But I can't help but sympathize with the plight of those who feel trapped by their own undeniable feelings. So far shrugging is the best I've come up with.
hi friend,
Let me confess to being slightly confused by your post. If I followed what you were saying correctly (and if I didn't, please correct me) I think you make some rather uncalled for leaps in your reasoning. I have two major questions/concerns.
1) I think you fail to recognize the Pauline distintion between moral actions (adultery, greed, etc.) and ethnic identity markers (circumcision, Sabbath day, food laws, etc.). Let me explain. Paul has little patience for those Jews (cf. Acts 15, Galatians) who try to force Gentiles to adopt these Jewish identity markers (e.g., circumcision, Sabbath, etc.). This causes division which hinders the spread of the all-inclusive Kingdom of God. It must be noted, though, that these Jewish tags (which Paul is very interested in removing for the sake of inclusiveness) are never confused with the ethics of the Kingdom. So, for example, Paul never calls for Christians to reconsider their stance on bestiality or greed so that all people may then participate in the Kingdom. On the former Paul is compromising; on the latter he is not.
Your argument assumes that Paul places homosexuality in the former category (Jewish identity markers). You didn't make a case for this and there actually seems to be quite a bit of counter-evidence. For example, why doesn't Paul list homosexuality along with circumcision,sabbath,etc in those passages (Galatians, Jerusalem Council) where he is clearly talking about the identity markers? If you want your case to be strengthened you must recognize the distinction and offer evidence why homosexuality fits in the former category.
At least that's how I see it.
oh, i forgot to mention my second point.
It's more of a question. I didn't follow your reasoning on one point. If we accept that there's a rhetorical strategy to Romans 1 (which, honestly, I'm not convinced of), how does it follow that it reveals nothing of Paul's view on the issue of homosexuality described in 26-27? Does that also mean we know nothing of Paul's view on the
"gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful" in verse 30?
- If I misunderstood you on this point correct me.
As an extension of my first post, you would also have to demonstrate why the other identity markers (circumcision, etc.) which were *far* more divisive issues for Jews/Gentiles are absent from the list in Romans 1.
The Hatch,
I'm shrugging right along with you. I think that we agree alot when it comes to practice.
Jeff,
Good questions friend. I don't really know, I'll have to think more. But here are a few initial thoughts:
1. In Romans 1, Paul doesn't seem to be addressing homosexuality in general, but pederasty and the method of contraception used by prostitutes.
2. What does Paul mean by "against nature" (para pushin)? Is Paul using "nature" to mean a cultural heritage, or religious teaching, or social construction? Because God's act was, seemingly, not "against nature" as in "against the creation order", but "against nature" in the sense that it was against Jewish cultural practices. So basically, what is Paul's relationship to Stoicism?
3. Do we not know Paul's stances on "gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful"? Maybe not from this verse, but we can find his views on them elsewhere.
I am still thinking about the distinction that you brought up. I don't know if that is a Pauline distinction or a theological distinction. Any self-respecting Jew would have seen this list as highlighting the depravity of the Gentile world. So is this a moral distinction or an ethnic distinction?
I will keep thinking about it. But maybe this will give you something to chew on, Kristina told me that you were rather anxious.
I was debating writing it:
(s)h(r)ugging
But I thought that might be too busy.
Too busy or too pomo.
Chris,
A few comments:
(your words are bolded)
1. In Romans 1, Paul doesn't seem to be addressing homosexuality in general, but pederasty and the method of contraception used by prostitutes.
I'm not sure I agree with that. First, the ancients were aware of committed, monogamous homosexual relationships as well (check out the Symposium). Second, there are different Greek words for boy/child and man/adult. If pederanty was the issue, why didn't Paul use the words man/boy instead of man/man?
What does Paul mean by "against nature?
I'm not sure. I've understood it to mean against creation order but I have no real basis for saying that. The consistent condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible (which spans different cultures) suggests that it's not simply a cultural prohibition.
Regarding point 3, I have a question. It's your view that Romans 1 offers absolutely no judgment on the moral status of gossips, slanders, etc. just as, you say, it offers no judgment on homosexuality?
Lastly,
Any self-respecting Jew would have seen this list as highlighting the depravity of the Gentile world. So is this a moral distinction or an ethnic distinction?
I agree. In fact, the fact that Jews did confuse the two categories is the reason Paul had to write to correct them.
Again, Paul doesn't spell out these categories anywhere but I think it is fairly frames his thought. Like I said, these aren't new to me. This distinction is at the heart of the New Perspective on Paul and NT Wright talks a lot about it.
I wrote a long post and then it deleted, so I will try again.
1. I question whether the ancients were in monogamous, homosexual relationships. I think that they were heterosexual, married men that took part in homosexual activities. This may explain what is meant by "against nature". They were going against their heterosexual nature.
The Greek word for "men" in these verses is arrhen or arsen, which simply means "male". It doesn't necessary mean "adult male".
2. I question whether there is "consistent condemnation against homosexuality in the Bible".
3. I don't think Romans 1 offers moral judgment on slanderers, murderers, gossips, or homosexuals. I think Paul is confronting this judgmental, exclusive mindset.
4. I question whether Paul wrote because of the conflation of the ethnic and the moral. It seems that he wrote because of the superiority complex of both the Jews and Gentiles. The Jews were lucky to be in, the Gentiles were in only because God grafted them in "against nature". There is, however, no distinction (3:22).
I'm probably misunderstanding you. I think I already have problems with my response. If this comes off as uncharitable, I apologize. The post that I typed, and subsequently lost was of a much better quality and I am angry at cyberspace.
Your post didn't come off rudely or anything. I have a few points in response.
1) Thanks for correcting me on the Greek. That raises a different question, though. I know Greek has the words for man/boy. It also distinguishes between male/female. The Greek word in Romans 1 (arrhen), as you point out, is not referring to adult men but simply males. The word that Paul uses then is a generic word for gender (male). Here's my question: If Paul was primarily concerned with man/boy sexual relationships, why would he use a generic term for gender (male) instead of using the more specific words for man/boy? That would be like me defining pederanty as sex between a male and a male. Sure, it *could* mean sex between an adult male and a child male, but that meaning is not at all clear from the sentence. In fact, if I intended my readers to hear that, I would likely use the words man/boy. So why didn't Paul? Is he being intentionally ambiguous?
2) Let me explain how I interpret Romans 1 & 2. In Romans 1:18-32, Paul is rehearsing the Jewish condemnation of the Gentiles. He shows the sin of the Gentiles. And in Romans 2, Paul points his finger at the Jews showing that they too are guilty. I think you'd agree with this.
Where we disagree is you seem to dismiss everything Paul says in Romans 1 as serving a rhetorical end and therefore having no truth to it. In my view, simply because Paul moves to condemn the Jews in Romans 2 doesn't mean that what he said in Romans 1 about the Gentiles was untrue. All this means is that both Gentiles and Jews are sinful.
In fact, in Romans 2:2, Paul seems to be confirming the judgment on the Gentiles by saying, "Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things [those sins listed in Rom 1] is based on truth."
And by the way, I sense an inconsistency in what you're arguing for. If, as you said, Rom 1 is simply rhetorical and reveals nothing about Paul's view on the issues discussed, why even argue that verses 27-28 are referring to pederanty? He can't be condemning pederanty any more than he can homosexuality, right? Or is this the net in case the rope should break?
Long post. Sorry. Interesting discussion though.
My computer likes to wait until I am almost ready to post a response, and then delete it. I will try again, and I will try to breath at a normal rate.
1. Perhaps the original audience would understand what Paul was referring to. Or perhaps he was referring to homosexual relations between men. I don't know.
2. I don't think I am dismissing Romans 1 and saying there is no truth in it. I am just saying that Paul seems to be using it rhetorically and therefore his views on homosexuality do not come through.
It seems that Paul begins by correcting the Jews in chapters 1-8 and then turns to the Gentiles in 9-11.
So in Romans 2:2, I think he is referring to the previous verse. Therefore, you will be justly condemned by God if you pass judgment, because you behave in the same way as those you are condemning. The list that characterized the depravity of the Gentiles in 1:26f was seen as wrong by the Jews and they judged them for it. But Paul said that the Jews cannot judge them because the Jews do wrong.
Therefore, i think the list is rhetorical to get the Jews to affirm the list and say to themselves "look how bad the Gentiles are, Paul is on our side". But then Paul says, "No. You have no excuse to judge because you behave in a way that is worthy of condemnation." The things Paul listed may be wrong and worthy of condemnation but I don't think you can get that from these verses. Also, I still think Paul's point is to contest the judgmental and exclusionary mindset.
Woohoo! It's didn't delete...yet.
...which is my point. Even if we look carefully at the scripture and decide that homosexuality is not "structural" or "normative," how do we begin to talk about redeeming sexuality? How do we understand sexuality in the context of a fallen world? Is sexuality somehow different from every other non-structural/ normative thing we come into contact with?
And...even if Paul was speaking out against homosexuality does that mean homosexuality is wrong? Was he, using Middleton's vocabulary, going west before in order to eventually go north? Where is the spirit of the text leading? In continuing the story, how are we to deal with homosexuality?
I'm assuming you agree that polygamy is also not off-limits for Christians. After all, there are no biblical prohibitions on anyone's part.
This is a very problematic argument on a number of levels, but one that is not mentioned is that Jewish and Christian teaching on this topic has been consistent. There is no evidence that Paul was ever interpreted by anyone in the manner you're trying to do (until our own age, that is)--that is, punt on whether Paul is assuming the sinfulness of such behaviors.
I think the historical witness of the church is important, but fallible.
You obviously think the Church's witness is fallible if you are in the Protestant tradition. But your interpretation goes so far against the text, with nothing in the history of interpretation to back it up, so you might wrestle with this fact a bit more.
What about the polygamy? The Church's witness is fallible and there's nary a word against it?
I think that you have to think the Church's witness is fallable if you are in the Church, unless, of course, you support the Holocaust.
Anyway, I never said that this was my stance. Please re-read the disclaimer note at the beginning of the post. But I think it is just as valid as any other interpretation concerning scripture and homosexuality. How does this interpretation "go far against the text"? Please expound, this is a discussion.
On Polygamy, I'm not going to have multiple wives. But this is beside the point, I was discussing homosexuality in this post, not polygamy. I gave an alternate interpretation of a traditional prooftext on homosexuality and I don't think that bringing up polygamy weakens the argument.
Hey,
There's one issue I want to focus on from your previous response. Why do you think that the mere fact he's using an interesting rhetorical strategy in Ch. 1 mean nothing can be gleaned about his views on those sins he lists?
Isn't it equally possible (I would argue much more) that in ch. 1 he shows the sinfulness of the Gentiles and in Ch. 2 he says, "But don't stop there, Jews. You're guilty, too!" The fact that he goes on in chapter 2 to condemn the Jewish sins doesn't mean that his condemnation of Gentile sins is meaningless.
Like I said, in 2:2 he seems to be reiterating the truth of this condemnation of the Gentiles: "Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth."
You understand the "those" to be referring to the judgmental Jews. But how do you interpret verse 3? "So when you[Jew], a mere man, pass judgment on them[Gentile] and yet do the same things, do you think you[Jew] will escape God's judgment?"
He says that Jews "do the same things" meaning that Jews sin like Gentiles. This fits with my reading of Gen 1,2 where he shows that Gentiles are sinful in 1 and shows that Jews too are sinful in 2.
So he's using a rhetorical strategy, sure, but that doesn't mean the Jews were mistaken in their condemnation of sin; it just means that they didn't look closely enough at themselves.
I don't have much time, but here goes...
I could argue exegesis with you until I'm blue in the face to convince you that all war is wrong or that women are to remain silent in church, just to name a couple of things. However, if I were to do this I would completely fail to deal with the reality of a necessary war, or the insight and direction that a woman can give to a church body. These realities force us to look at scripture in a certain way, so that our interpretation makes sense. We do this with a lot of things in scripture.
My argument is the same when it comes to homosexuality. Exegetical proofs are nice and can be scientifically sealed up, but ultimately I feel they fail to address the testimony of countless homosexuals who experience beautiful, loving relationships; relationships that they have not been able to experience in heterosexual contexts, love that they only have for a member of the same sex. If you do not deal with this reality, then in my mind you fail to address the issue.
We have no problem finding room for women and war (among many other things)...why such resistance for homosexuals? The main gist of Chris's post to begin with was not necessarily to upset the interpretation that homosexuality is wrong, but more to emphasize Paul's point about exclusion. Nevertheless, we continue to exclude the reality of affirmable homosexual relationships from our view of scripture and from our exegetical arguments. I don't see much hope for a view of scripture or an exegesis that that fails to address undeniable reality.
Racie,
You said, "The struggle for me is that I recognize the beauty of some homosexual relationships and yet if I categorize homosexuality as a sexual sin then I feel that I must see the love in those relationships as stifled in some way."
I don't think it's necessary to view the love of homosexuals as less authentic or stifled in any way. Adopting the neo-Calvinist distinction between structure/direction helps us make sense of this. Indeed this is love (structurally, it's true) the problem is that it's misdirected. In the same way, Hindu devotion/religious affection is authentic; it's just misdirected.
I agreed with your response about necessary evil. War, the ministry of women, and homosexuality are not analogous.
Chris,
If you have to explain away Paul's position on slander, we're really far out. Besides, the point in this section of the text is that the world worships idols and the behavior described is the result of it.
What is this about the holocaust? Did "the Church" interpret the holocaust as God's will? Or did some Protestants and Catholics in Germany? Maybe the Reformed Church in Germany did, but the Catholic Church did not.
Yes, polygamy does play into this argument. If this interpretation you're floating--that we have no evidence that Paul really thinks homosexual behavior not according to the norm and he's only outlining people who are outsiders--then you're going to have to swallow polygamy, because in that case, we have the example of the patriarchs practicing it and nary a word against it. So the same argument will have to work for polygamy.
I'm not trying to make war, women and homosexuality analogous, though I was afraid someone would make that unnecessary connection. Nor did I ever use the phrase "necessary evil".
My point is that there are many parts of scripture that we view a certain way because of what we experience in reality. We don't argue that all war is definitely wrong because we see instances where war brings justice and some form of peace...it does good. We don't hold fast to statements about women because we see women in church leadership doing a lot of good. My question is - why do we leave out the existential reality of homosexuality when we discuss Biblical statements about it? Homosexual relationships are capable of producing a lot of good. There are plenty of stories that could be told. To me if you leave that out it just becomes a bunch of talk. Again, I'm not trying to make war, women and homosexuality analogues...I'm just throwing out examples as they come to me and questioning the lack of consistency.
As far as structure/direction goes...the more I think about it the less comfortable I become with that when it comes to homosexuality. But I don't have time to expound right now.
Jeffy,
I'll have to think more on your comment. But I agree with the Hatch that the structure/direction distinction makes me uncomfortable.
Dave,
Are you saying the Catholic Church didn't support the Holocaust? What about Pius XII aka "Hitler's Pope" and his explicit anti-semitism? What about the Vatican's "We Remember, A Reflection on the Shoah", written as an act of repentence for the Catholic Church's wartime record? Or the note Pope John Paul II put on the Wailing Wall asking God's forgiveness for the past sins of the Church?
Also, I'm not explaining away Paul's views on slander. I just don't think that passage portrays his views. And I disagree that the point of the passage was to say "that the world worships idols and the behavior described is the result of it." I think the purpose is to confront the exclusive and judmental mindset of the Jews.
And...I still disagree with what you are saying about polygamy. Why do I have to swallow down polygamy just because I disagree that this passage is prooftext against homosexuality?
Chris,
No, the Catholic Church did not support the holocaust and the fact that you would say so indicates that you have no knowledge of the subject beyond hacks like John Cornwell and Jonah Goldhagen. Please get hold of David Dalin's (he's a rabbi and historian) THE MYTH OF HITLER'S POPE. All serious historians understand that while the Catholic Church as a whole might have taken better strategies, they were not on Hitler's side. This has been affirmed by all the most serious 20th Century historians, including (another Jew!) Sir Martin Gilbert. As for the famous confessions and the WE REMEMBER document, you can access it on-line at www.vatican.va. It doesn't say what you think it says.
The idea that Romans is all about "exclusivity/inclusivity" regarding Jews and Gentiles is true, as far as it goes, but that doesn't mean that the whole book is about that and only that. It's clear that in the early chapters, we are being told about the fact that God is impartial, but this leads up to the fact that his impartiality means we will all be judged by the same standards (see 2:15-16--we are judged by our deeds).
Finally, you don't even seem to understand the argument which you're advancing, though you disclaim it as your own, all the while claiming it is as good as any other argument.
Here is the argument.
1. If something is not condemned explicitly by Scripture, it is licit for Christians.
2. Homosexual behavior is not condemned by Scripture.
Conclusion. Homosexuality is licit for Christians.
I can make the same argument for polygamy, whether, as you say, YOU "don't want to marry more than one wife."
On what principle can you exclude polygamy? As long as it doesn't go against a person's "nature," as you charmingly explain away St. Paul's words.
So, I will make my own argument.
1. If polygamy is not prohibited by Scripture, it is licit for Christians.
2. Polygamy is not prohibited, but instead is a consistent reality throughout the old covenant and not prohibited at all in the New.
3. Polygamy is licit.
Now, taking your understanding of "nature" we can further say that "polygamy" might still need to be part of one's nature for it to be OK on Pauline lines, though Paul doesn't specify this case as ever against nature. Thus, polygamy is only wrong if you're really a man who's only attracted to one woman at a time. Since most men are attracted to more than one woman at a time, let's make sure that we do justice to all those men who have been unjustly forced by the churches to live with only one wife.
Can you tell me where I go wrong?
Where you divert from the argument I am suggesting:
"1. If something is not condemned explicitly by Scripture, it is licit for Christians.
2. Homosexual behavior is not condemned by Scripture.
Conclusion. Homosexuality is licit for Christians."
The argument as I understand it:
This verse, which is often used as a prooftext against homosexuality, isn't as explicitly against homosexuality as is often thought.
I am suggesting that it is used rhetorically, to reveal an exclusive and judgmental mindset of Jewish Christians in Rome.
I am also suggesting that the Church has often used this verse as a prooftext to be exclusive and judgmental.
I also think that the historical witness of the Church is important, but I think it has been exclusive and judgmental of homosexuals. I think it should instead embody an ethos of compassion.
You haven't even vaguely responded to me, a fact I am not surprised by. But I hope you'll look at your own presuppositions for morality at some point.
I don't know what you want me to respond to. Seemingly you want me to subscribe to the logical propositions within which you have attempted to systematize my argument and then tell you how I deal with polygamy within your system. But I don't subscribe to the logical argument you have posited, nor do I think my post does.
Nor do I think the original post was making a moral argument. I think it was asking some questions concerning the traditional interpretation of Romans 1 from an exegetical/theological standpoint. What moral presuppositions of mine do you want me to look at?
Yes, the church has generally spoken out against (and been violent and exclusive toward) homosexuals and homosexuality. However, I think that it should be a topic that the church should rethink.
I don't really know what else you want me to respond to. I think we are speaking past one another. However, I don't think condescension will improve the dialogue.
Post a Comment