Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site phs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!duke!phs!lisa From: lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: St. Paul and Homosexuality (III) Message-ID: <1005@phs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 23:15:46 EST Article-I.D.: phs.1005 Posted: Thu Mar 21 23:15:46 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 04:03:13 EST Organization: Duke Physiology Lines: 89 [] I have thus far mentioned the two passages in which St. Paul discusses homosexuality (yes, this subject only comes up twice in his letters), and have made some observations and suggestions as to what he was getting at. In Romans 1, Paul is following quite closely a traditional Jewish polemic against paganism (found in the Wisdom of Solomon 13-14 - a book evidently popular and influential among Jewish apologists of the 1st Century AD, and to which Paul consistently alludes in Romans). Where the argument in Wisdom is the "de-evolution" of gentiles from original monotheism, through idolatry, to complete depravity, Paul inserts another stage - homosexuality, which he describes as contrary to the Law of God revealed in nature. In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul is about to take up a discussion of sexuality and responsibility before God, and prefaces his remarks with some examples of the types of behavior he has in mind. Homosexuality, in the Greek model of pedastry (i.e. one [usually older] person is "active" in initiating the intercourse, and the other assumes a "passive" role as recipient) is prominent on this list. Thus far, I would hope to have made one point convincingly. St. Paul had only negative attitudes toward homosexuality *as he understood it*. There is *no* room for a positive statement on intercourse between people of the same sex in these passages (nor is there any decisive evidence that Paul would have made such positive statements had he understood homosexuality in a more "modern" way). A number of revisionist biblical scholars are afield today, and their desire to cut through the simplistic literalism of both fundamentalist and liberal interpretations of Scripture is admirable, as is their attempt to make the social context of these documents more relevant to contemporary society. It is unfortunate (though inevitable) that some, either through personal or professional interest, have gone to the extreme, arguing with zeal positions and interpretations which simply are not supportable. A good deal of recent work on homosexuality in the Bible appears to fall into this category. And the literalism of those who seize upon revisionist theories ("this term didn't refer to my particular type of sexual experience") is no less problematic than the literalism of the fundamentalist who finds God's condemnation of all sexual expression except the "missionary" position! How should we treat the teachings of Paul (or the rest of the Bible) with regards to complex moral issues? First (and most importantly) we should try to avoid the simple answers. Most of us understand the significance of sexuality much differently than our parents of 50 years ago. How much more the difference 1900 years has made. It is not sufficient to regard the Bible as a divine "rulebook" which either condemns our actions or gets us "off the hook." Both of these options leave out serious and critical reflection on the meaning of Christian faith, the gospel, and the nature of life "in Christ" (to borrow one of Paul's favorite terms). In addition, we would be well advised to take a cue from Paul, who is perfectly able to distinguish theological/theoretical discussions, in which homosexual activity (as he understood it) may be thoroughly blameworthy, and may disqualify the individual from God's kingdom, and more pastoral advice to the church on how such theology ought to be carried out in life and discipline. In a fallen world, the church is made up of sinners. Paul does not command many excommunications (and certainly none are recorded for homosexual activity). More important to him seems to be the sincere attempt to respond to the gospel in obedience and faith, and to live within the church as in a growing vital community. Official church discipline for Paul (as, interestingly enough, for Matthew also - cf. Mt. 18) is a last resort which is reserved for those whose open and flagrant rebellion makes open and conspicuous rebuke necessary. How might the writings of St. Paul (or, for that matter, other documents in the Bible) be useful in formulating a "Christian" approach to homosexuality? Perhaps on the one hand his questions regarding the established Law of "Nature", and the responsibility of one's sexuality as befits the "temple of the Holy Spirit" should provoke serious thought about what types of sexual activity are legitimate for Christians, and in what context. On the other hand, Paul's constant challenge to rethink established custom - sifting out God's perfect Law from inauthentic and superficial legalism imposed by society - and his emphasis on the church as a place of nurture and growth for *all* believers, should provoke serious reflection about what it means to experience God's grace and the calling to share God's love with all of God's people, whether Jew or Gentile, whether slave or free, whether male or female, whether "gay" or "straight." Jeffrey William Gillette duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University