lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (03/21/85)
[] Some recent discussion has called into question the teaching of St. Paul and other New Testament writers on the subject of homosexuality. Let me offer some comments on relevant passages, which I hope might be helpful. Romans 1.26-27 Dia touto paredoken autous ho theos eis pathe atimias: hai te gar theleiai auton metellaksan ten phusiken xresin eis ten para phusin, homoios te kai hoi aresenes aphentes ten phusikjn xresin tes theleias eksekauthesan en te oreksei auton eis allelous, arsenes en arsesin ten asxemosunen katergazomenoi kai ten antimisthian hen edei tes planes auton en heautois apolambanontes. Therefore, God delivered them to dishonorable passions; for even the females exchanged the natural function [of sexuality] for that which is contrary to nature. Likewise also the males left the natural use of the females, and were inflamed in their lusts toward each other - men accomplishing shameless actions with men - and received the punishment which their error necessitated in themselves. A few notes on some key terms: The "dishonorable passions" (pathe atimias) are defined by the rest of this passage. Specifically, they consist of sexual activity "contrary to nature" (ten para phusin). The dominant idea of "nature" (phusis) in Greek philosophy is one's "constitution" (Plato and Aristotle), although in Hellenistic times (c 20 0BC-200 AD) the idea of "universal nature" or "highest principle of the visible world" was common. The Jewish philosopher Philo identifies "nature" with the Law of Moses. For specific passages in these writings (and many others), see Helmut Koester (Harvard), _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_, "Phusis, ktl.", vol 9.242-71. Obviously the primary point Paul wishes to make is that the shared constitution of humankind, the general order of the world, and the Law of God have demonstrated that some "functions" are legitimate, while others are not. That the essence of these "functions" (xresin) relate to sexuality is likely in view of the frequent use of the term for sexual intercourse (e.g. Plato, Isocrates, and the more contemporary Plutarch). Likewise males who leave the "natura[sexual] functions" (phusiken xresin) of females are condemned - their reward is "that which their error necessitates of itself" (hen edei tes planes). I am afraid I see no explanation of this passage *except* that Paul is condemning both men and women who have left the "natural" heterosexual expression of sexuality for expressions with those of the same sex. He thoroughly condemns this activity, and claims that the result of this is that God "gives them up" to a "rejected" (adokimazein - the opposite of dokimazein, or approved) mind. It is also important, however, to note what Paul does not say in this passage. First, he does set this homosexual activity in a wider context of crass rebellion and sin. Those who have sunk to such depths are the same heathen who have worshipped idols and have sought out all types of wicked behavior. They are filled with "dishonorable passions", and their hearts "burn with lust." Presumably, Paul did not intend to address the situation of a homosexual relationship based on a mutual love and committment. Likewise, Paul did not appear to address the situation of one who is homosexual by "nature" (i.e. constitution). His is not the argument which would condemn relationships which may be in harmony with one's own "phusis". If Paul's argument here is not condemning loving relationships nor the individual whose orientation is toward others of the same sex, what exactly is he saying? It appears that Paul intends to make one point: that there is a universal principle reflected in the Old Testament Law, in the social consience of his day, and even (Paul would maintain) in the created order, that made heterosexual intercourse "natural", and homosexual intercourse "contrary to nature." That the behavior he chooses to illustrate his claim is extreme and morally reprehensible serves to score debator's points. Presumably Paul could respond to questions about homosexual "love" and "orientation", but these would not change the essential point he makes in Romans 1.26-27 - there is a Law of Nature, and (for Paul) that Law makes no provision for homosexuality. Jeffrey William Gillette duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University
lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (03/21/85)
[]
In 1 Corinthians 6.9-10, St. Paul mentions certain groups of people who
stand under God's wrath:
E ouk oidate hoti adikoi theou basileian ou kleronomesousin; me
planasthe, oute pornoi oute eidololatrai oute moixoi oute malakoi oute
arsenokoitai oute kleptai oute pleonektai, ou methusoi, ou loidoroi, oux
harpages basileian theou kleronomjsousin.
Or do you not know that unrighteous people will not inherit God's
kingdom? Do not be misled; neither immoral, nor idolaters, nor
adulterers, nor catamites, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor greedy, nor
drunks, nor extortioners, will inherit God's kingdom.
Why did St. Paul insert a list of vices into his letter at this point,
and where did he get such a list of activities? Vice-lists are a common
part of Hellenistic ethical teaching (e.g. Plutarch or Epictetus), and
the specific activities cited generally seem to have been drawn from
(informal) catalogs of sins prevalent in society. Within a particular
context, however, these lists are generally used as summaries, or as
transitions. They bring home the point the writer has been attempting to
make, and they provide a smooth flow of thought into the next subject.
I would, therefore, suggest that the particular vices mentioned in 1
Corinthians 6 ought to be considered in their larger context. The actions
mentioned appear to focus on two areas: thieves, cheats, drunks, and
extortioners represent the type of criminal charges which might cause one
Christian to take another to court. These sins are probably related, in
Paul's mind, to the passage he has just completed (6.1-8), which
encouraged the church to conduct its own legal matters, and judge its own
offenders, without recourse to the magistrates. Immorality (porneia -
prostitution?), idolatry and adultery relate directly to the subject of
the following discussion (6.13-21) - sexuality and responsibility before
God.
In which of these two categories (criminal and sexual) are the actions
referred to by the terms malakoi and arsenokoitai. The translation above
makes my own judgment clear, but we must ask what type of sexual
connotations might these words carry?
Victor Furnish (professor of New Testament Exegesis at Perkins School of
Theology, Southern Methodist University), who would like very much to
follow Boswell's translation ("dissolute" and "male prostitutes"
respectively), finds Boswell ultimately unsatisfactory, and (with much
apology) suggests the translation "men who assume the female role in sex"
and "men who have sex with them" (_The Moral Teaching of Paul_, p. 70).
Malakos is used in the New Testament with the meaning of "soft" (e.g.
soft clothing - Mt. 11.8, Lk. 7.25), but is commonly used of catamites
(men/boys who received homosexual love) by Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(1st cent. BC.), Dio Chrysostom (1st cent. AD), and Diogenes Laertius
(3rd cent AD). Arsenokoitai (from the terms arsen - male, and koite -
intercourse) could, theoretically, be used of any male who engages in
sexual activity, but the implication seems rather that the distinguishing
mark of these individuals was not their action but their partners. In
the Septuagint (early Greek translation of the Old Testament), the term
arsenokoitos does not occur, but the phrase arsen koitein is found in
Leviticus 18.22 and 20.23 (in both verses "and you shall not have sexual
intercourse with men as with women").
Although Boswell has suggested that the term arsenokoitai carries the
idea of cultic activity (e.g. "male prostitutes in the temple" - a
phenomenon not commonly attested at this time), one might have expected
Paul, had he wished to convey this idea, to have use some masculine form
of the term pornes (which was used of a female temple prostitute). This
is exactly the case in Deuteronomy 23.17 (again Septuagint), where "there
shall not be a porne from the daughters of Israel, nor shall there be a
porneuon from the sons of Israel" who serve in the temple of a god.
What vices, then, does Paul condemn in 1 Corinthians 6? I have here
argued that his terms refer to those who initiate homosexual intercourse,
and to those who receive it. These are they who "will not inherit the
kingdom of God", but they surely have a good deal of company -
heterosexual offenders, adulterers, idolaters, thieves, drunks, the
greedy! Taking a second look at the context of this passage, we might
notice that Paul does not give instructions for excommunicating these
people (indeed, the only person he commands to be kicked out of the church
was most definitely *heterosexual*). Thus we have seen the theological/
theoretical attitude of Paul towards homosexuality, but the question of
how this should work itself out in the experience and discipline of the
church remains open.
Jeffrey William Gillette duke!phs!lisa
The Divinity School
Duke Universitylisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (03/22/85)
[]
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 Universitygarys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (03/25/85)
> 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! Now wait a minute; I know a bunch of "fundamentalists" (in quotes because it is a term used by others and not necessarily accepted by themselves), and I don't know anyone who "finds God's condemnation of all sexual expression except the 'missionary' position." (I have to admit that I haven't asked everyone I know.) What "fundamentalists" believe that, and on what basis? Gary Samuelson (accused of fundamentalism) ittvax!bunker!garys
larry@cci-bdc.UUCP (Larry DeLuca) (03/26/85)
> > 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! > > Now wait a minute; I know a bunch of "fundamentalists" (in quotes > because it is a term used by others and not necessarily accepted > by themselves), and I don't know anyone who "finds God's condemnation > of all sexual expression except the 'missionary' position." (I have > to admit that I haven't asked everyone I know.) What "fundamentalists" > believe that, and on what basis? > > Gary Samuelson (accused of fundamentalism) > ittvax!bunker!garys I was raised VERY catholic (read: years upon years of cathecism). in a religious instruction class in the eleventh grade we had a "frank" discussion on sexuality. "Anything that does not contribute directly to the conception of children or that rules out that possibility altogether is prohibited. "This is not to say that, uh, variations are in themselves sinful, so long as the sex act itself contributes to procreation." we only got as far as the word 'variations' when we were asking, so i don't know whether they were discussing oral sex or something like woman on top. i'm not sure i remember the rest of the evening exactly but i was left vaguely with the impression that something like oral sex might be OK as foreplay, but that intercourse had better occur somewhere along the line. This was especially interesting, because by the time i was in 8th grade, our parish no longer had a convent that regularly sent over nuns to teach, so we were instructed by lay teachers (generally parishioners who were fairly active in the church community and received additional instruction in religious education). larry... -- uucp: ..mit-eddie!cybvax0!cci-bdc!larry arpa: henrik@mit-mc.ARPA This mind intentionally left blank.