The first chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans (Romans 1) is sometimes cited as an example of anti-gay bigotry. I differ with that view. One can stipulate that even people with divinity degrees differ on whether Paul teaches bigotry here, and that it's not surprising that those who listen to differing positions adopt one or another. But it's probable that dismissing a claim of Paul's bigotry toward women is an even more difficult proposition, if one considers 1 Cor. 14:34-35 ("Women should remain silent in the churches" and so forth). Note, though, what the Reformation Study Bible says about that passage: "In view of [1 Cor.] 11:5 [which includes the phrase 'every woman who prays or prophesies'] and other New Testament passages, it is certain that Paul is not absolutely forbidding women to speak in every church situation. Paul may have been addressing a particular problem in Corinth, such as women creating disorder during the worship service. He may have in mind a specific function… . It has been suggested that vv. 34, 35 are a quotation from the Corinthians themselves that Paul rejects in v. 36 [which reads 'Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?' (NIV)]." So maybe it just looks like Paul is teaching bigotry, and that on more careful examination, his views, even in that passage, are in keeping with Jesus' teaching.
St. Paul in Prison – Rembrandt
From that example and others one can see clearly that in his epistles, Paul addresses particular concerns and situations taking place in the communities to which he wrote. Other more general themes are also visited. There is wonderful teaching about Christian love, wise guidance regarding the functions of the church as the body of Christ, encouragement to the faithful, and powerful witness. There is also social commentary and Paul's personal opinions on a wide range of topics. When Paul writes things that seem patently out of line with Jesus' teaching, it should give one pause. What is the context of Paul's message, and how can a practicing Christian learn and apply what Paul is saying?
Jesus taught unconditional love toward others. In particular, Jesus showed that to do God's will one would serve others without regard to their social status, standing, or identity. It's a separate issue from behavior. This teaching is at the very core of His message. How did it play a part in Jesus' teaching, and why did it infuriate the Pharisees and Sadducees to the point that they eventually had him killed? Jesus directly challenged the "Temple system," including the purity laws, which coincidentally made the high priests fabulously powerful and wealthy. The purity system as applied to humans (in T. Megillah) ordered them as follows, starting with the most "acceptable": Priests, Levites, Israelites, converts, freed slaves, disqualified priests (illegitimate children of priests), temple slaves, bastards, eunuchs, those with damaged testicles, and those without a penis. This social order dictated legitimate marriage couplings and social status in the community. Public sinners, such as tax collectors and prostitutes, are distinguished from the masses and are placed at the periphery, along with physically unclean folk such as lepers, menstruating women, the blind, and the lame. 'The Lord said to Moses, "Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; no man with a crippled foot or hand, or who is a hunchback or a dwarf, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles.' (Lev. 21:16-20 NIV, emphasis added).
The Good Samaritan by François-Léon Sicard (French, 1862–1934)
In the Tuileries Gardens, Paris.
When Jesus gave his two great commandments, take a look at the key figures of the parable, which answered the question "who is my neighbor?" (i.e., that neighbor whom I am to love as myself) (Luke 10:27-39). Three men came along the Jericho road and saw a man in trouble, and almost certainly "unclean." ("A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead." - Lk. 10:30b NIV) The first man was a priest; top of the social pecking order, and someone certainly aware of the purity laws. He crossed the road and passed by the injured man. The second to arrive was a Levite—second on the pecking order—Levites were "keepers" and defenders of the Law, and served as assistants to the priests. He also crossed the road to avoid the injured man and went on his way. Both of these prominent men knew and kept the law by steering clear of the "defective" man. Only the Samaritan, one of essentially no standing among those who would hear the parable, came to the man's rescue. Again, it was status or standing that kept the priest and Levite away from the injured man, and not his behavior, and Jesus teaches pointedly that it is just those characteristics that must be ignored in order to follow his two great commandments. It really couldn't be more clear.
In Romans 1:21-32, Paul speaks to a number of sins that seem to be related to pagan rituals that may have overtaken some in Rome ("they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. … They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator…" (Rom. 1:22b,23,25a NIV) Paul refers to adulterous and promiscuous sexual behavior (Rom. 1:26-27) apparently among heterosexual men and women ("men… abandoned natural relations with women," etc.). Other sins such as wickedness, evil, greed, depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice and others are identified, and punctuated with Paul's summary indictment, "they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy." (v. 31) These are all sins of commission and are not bigoted denouncements of people of a particular social status–or gender identity, or sexual preference. Paul does not teach bigotry toward gays in this passage.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 35
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
Why make it a measure of bigotry, or "homophobia", rather than just plain old falling short, as we all do? Why turn it into a crusade?
Did the Apostle Paul Say Homosexual Behavior is Sinful?
Why the "Puritanical fire and brimstone" approach, so to speak? Homosexuality ain't gonna "save" anybody, is it?
In other words, gender preference attribute does not effectuate sinfulness, and cannot, because we are barred by Jesus' teaching from assigning sin to individuals because of their identity or status. Those causing harm through rape, infidelity, or idol worship become separated from God. That doesn't happen because of the particular way that they are wonderfully made by God, or their social status or standing. That is not a Christian understanding.
Incidentally, while a session with a clinical psychologist would be necessary to isolate the problem in an individual, expressions of revulsion toward homosexuality, especially when accompanied with explicit physical descriptions, is an indicator of anxiety over the speaker's own latent homosexual impulses. It's not that uncommon, especially in people who have had strict upbringings.
I said nothing about "sex positions", Dave, and will not be engaging in discussions about your imaginary versions of what I say, or your imaginary mind reading analysis.
I came here asking why the either/or approach, why the "homophobic bigot" lingo? What happened to God having His own plans, and intentions, and a better understanding of what is harmful or not, than we do? And you simply not understanding everything as well as He does?
If I wrote this, would you not find it rather . . extreme?;
*Was the Apostle Paul a Cleptophobic Bigot?* . . or;
*Was the Apostle Paul a Sexophobic Bigot?* . . or;
*Was the Apostle Paul a Deceptophobic Bigot?*
I simply do not consider it rational to think Paul (or the Book in general), is being frightened and bigoted by default if he speaks of something being sinful, which you find acceptable. I see no rational reason to "throw him under the bus" of the "gay is Godly" campaign like that . . or act like it's right to . . if he did not see homosexuality as Godly . .
You think it is, obviously, but you are just a man, and could be wrong, is that not so? . .. is it not written?;
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Doesn't that imply to you that what He sees as "missing the mark", may not appear to us to be harmful or unwise in all cases? That something like homosexuality might be sinful for reasons that have nothing to do with "homophobic bigotry"? And that Paul was simply not in any position to speak of it as fine with God? Regardless of what he himself might think of it? You know, like the Prophets . . inspired by God?
He doesn't speak of homosexuality being sinful. I'm arguing against the claim of Paul's bigotry here. You can't prove his bigotry because it's not supported by the text. You'll need to let that sink in before going any further, I surmise.
I say you're being somewhat narcissistic and yourself bigoted about this, by not allowing for, not granting at least the possibility that those who read the relevant scriptures differently than yourself, are correct. It's not like there are not very harsh words written in there about homosexual behavior, after all. There most certainly are.
Secondly, by ignoring over half of what I said you've committed the fallacy of composition; you argue for the validity of a bigoted exposition by Paul while not accounting for the teaching of Jesus. If the fact of gender identity (status) is not a sin by Jesus' teaching, then the argument devolves to whether, in the absence of infidelity or idolatry, a particular sex position is inherently sinful. You are clearly not up to the task of responding to the full argument advanced in the post. You are scrounging around with the fallacious (i.e., begging the question) shot that there's "harsh words written in there." No there aren't. You're substituting your own secular conclusion based on your personal opinions. That's why you can't comprehend the discussion or make a rational argument of your own.
Interesting theory on 1 Cor 14:34-35. I hadn't heard it before.
I agree with you that Romans 1 is not anti gay at all. It is a message against lust of all kinds.
24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves
The historical context is that in classical and later times, homosexuality was not considered to be anything like the modern concept of being gay. The modern idea that being gay is biologically inborn, and that there is little choice in the matter is just that – very modern. It appears that in many cultures, some men (and women) chose to “indulge” in homosexual acts not because they were actually gay, but as an expression of a particular cultural value.
For classical Greeks, it was connected with a general sense of mind and body health. In Rome, homosexuality was just another form of sexual liberty that was all the rage among the jaded, bored, and super wealthy aristocrats who lived in the incredibly powerful seat of the Empire.
I believe that this is what Paul was talking about. We know that the Hebrews rejected the physicality of the Greeks, and that included their tolerance of all forms of sexual license, including homosexuality. Wealthy Romans, and much later Arabs, and other cultures did borrow this from the Greeks, but Paul went about preaching that this form of “decadence” should not be part of Christian culture.
The key verse, 27, stresses the lustful aspect of the sin, and the unnatural.
27: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet
Does this mean that Paul is saying that being gay is unnatural? I don’t think so, I think he is saying that homosexual activity on the part of those for whom being gay is not a natural state, is wrong. It is a part of the unbridled lust that had become a part of decadent Rome, and that in future centuries would become a hallmark of the capital.
My basic point is that this has very little to do with being gay, as we understand it today.
I consciously left out a discussion of contemporary understandings because I think a close reading of the text is sufficient. Modern understandings of gender identity and gender preference are helpful, though.
You might be interested in Roy Hilbinger's excellent article on a similar topic.
It's such a relief to find people like you and Roy interpreting the scriptures with love instead of hate. (I think the people who interpret with hate may be much louder).
There are honest differences of opinion on some passages, and I try to go at it from the angle of what the Bible teaches rather than characterizing the individual who's reading the book. That may be a thin line, but not disingenuous as I see it.
Maybe, Paul was no better or worse than the rest of us. He had a great experience of the risen Christ. Parting visions are certainly not rare. He did his best, I think - so do many others.
Came here via your post on the article "Boy Scouts Choose Bigotry Over Honesty".
Agree with a lot of what you have posted....disagree with some.
"New International Version (©1984)
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
Jesus fought against the disenfranchisement of the "unclean" (as you have posted) from their GOD! but he did not declare that those practicing homosexuality as an accepted lifestyle.
Present-day rejection of homosexuals as inherently immoral is unconscionable given how much we now know about early development of gender identity and gender preference. We need to recognize the person before us and not be conformed to what are really secular normative cultural standards.