I recently read Bishop John Shelby Spong’s Rescuing the Bible From Fundamentalism where, among other things, he posits a case that Paul was probably a non-practicing gay man. He makes a fairly convincing argument for it based on Paul’s statements in the letters. I had previously heard the theory of Jesus possibly being gay, although the evidence seemed extremely thin in his case (not being married etc.)
Then, in our region of Western Colorado, the Methodists ministers are soon to host a talk on how the church can talk about homosexuality without setting fire to one another. The United Methodist Book of Discipline currently states that the “practice” of homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teachings. For the defense of that view they of course cite Leviticus but also Romans (open condemnation by Paul) and First Timothy (listed among other sins) in the New Testament.
My thought is first that I-Timothy is considered by many scholars not to have been written by Paul if that means anything historically when considering the issue. Romans is a different matter and in reading the fairly clear passage it seem to me that Paul may be condemning Roman and Greek cultural practice more than anything. Saying to keep themselves separate by not engaging in stuff that is okay to Romans and Greeks. And read in the light that Paul himself may have been a (self-loathing) gay man when, if you were a Jew, it was a capital offense.
Thoughts? How seriously do NT scholars take the Paul was gay idea?
I don’t think scholars believe there is enough convincing evidence to consider Paul gay. The whole issue of gays and the church rests on the belief strongly defended that the Bible is authoritative and to be followed on all issues rather than the belief that the Bible is an anthology of human works expressing various opinions from the 1st and 2nd centuries (in the case of the NT) that are interesting but in no way authoritative. A 1st century opinion and in the case of Leviticus a much older opinion should not be guiding public policy and allowing a group of people to be discriminated against for “religious” reasons.
For me, the question isn’t “what is the NT’s treatment of homosexuality?”, but rather, why do so many hypocrites opposed to homosexuality spend so much energy on that single topic? If it’s a sin it didn’t even make it into the BIG 10 in Exodus! There are so many more interesting sins in Leviticus that the typical Bible thumper and ignorer of judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged never even consider. Why can’t they be crying from the mountain top for the stoning of those who dare to wear clothing made from more than one fiber? Why can’t there be placard-wearers on Franklin St. in Chapel Hill ready to shun those who let their cows stray into their neighbor’s pastures? I covet my neighbor’s belongings daily! I’m sure I’m not the only one! I lied to my mother about who I voted for today: that’s two sins at once!
But they ignore all that because two men (“they” rarely mention the lesbians) doing something in privacy tickles a part of their brain with an itch they just can’t scratch.
I haven’t read Spong’s book but I find it hard to envision what such an argument would look like. More likely-seeming to me is an argument I read that part of Paul’s antipathy to homosexual behavior as practiced in ancient Hellenistic society might have come from being sexually harassed by older men as a youth (that according to the author being quite common in Hellenistic society at that time).
Most likely of all, it seems to me, is that Paul is merely reflecting the beliefs of 1st century Judaism.
I’ve never really understood the reasoning behind seeing Paul’s letters as the inerrant word of God. I mean, we know who wrote (some) of them, and it wasn’t God, it was Paul. Even you take seriously the idea that Paul derived at least some of his teachings from genuine experiences of God, they’re still letters Paul wrote addressing various situations in the churches and thus very definitely the word of Paul. (And Paul’s contemporaries didn’t consider his words “inerrant”, quite the contrary.)
While I was still a Southern Baptist, I used to wonder who the ministers would quote in their sermons if Paul’s letters had not made it into the NT. With the exception of Xian holidays, it seemed to be all Paul all the time.
I thought at the time, that if Paul had not existed Southern Baptists would not exist. I don’t know if this is the same in other flavors of christianity or not?
everyone should know that only 1 person got punished in a male on male relationship, the one that was dominated. Is that it all the way till now ? By the views of the ones who thought to punish them over this. Even though the ones punished could possibly know more about mirror imaging jesus teachings and ways and his purpose then them.
The loving committed long term homosexual relationships that 21st century gays and lesbians enter into today were not part of the culture of the writers of the Christian sacred text. Is there a word in Greek or Hebrew that denotes this kind of relationship? Weren’t the writers most often referring to cult prostitution? As for the sexual orientation of Paul and the homosexual love affair between Jonathan and David, may I refer you to a delightful contemporary book The Children Are Free: Reexamining the Biblical Evidence on Same-sex Relationships Jeff Miner (Author), John Tyler Connoley (Author)
ie=UTF8&qid=1418076611&sr=1-1&keywords=the+children+are+free
I presented a Sunday school program based on this book at a local UMC and it was warmly received. They will never look at committed homosexual relationships the same way. It is an unnerving book for rabid fundamentalist.
As for the writings of Paul, doesn’t he lump homosexuality right on in there with gossip when it comes to that which deserves death?
Lee
The issues of homosexuality and the inappropriate display of sexuality are often conflated. If we define gayness or homosexuality as the sexual attraction to the same sex then we have a basis for discussion. Paul must have heard rumours, (I would give an arm and a leg to know who told him and what the specifics were) about sexual behaviour within the church that he felt repulsed and driven to make an Old Testament judgment. Were these stories concerning Homosexuals having a relationship based on love or was it more likely that it was about rabid sexual acts performed openly and inappropriately, perhaps in front of children? There is a distinct difference here as to whether Paul was being anti-Christian in his judgment or was he driven to define the behaviour according to the culture he grew up in, that being the Old Testament.
Homosexual acts, as opposed to desires, are performed by many heterosexuals. Many men have anal sex with their female partners and when imprisioned or devoid of female contact they will have anal sex, oral sex, child sex and animal sex without having any sort of specific desire for the gender or species they perform the acts on. It is this behaviour that most people find repulsive and it is this unbridled sexual behaviour that homosexuals were probably labled with from the earliest of times.
Homosexual desire is a normal occurance for those who experience it from a young age, and in public no sexual act could be observed. Therefore, I do wonder if Paul was not being homophobic but just responding to behaviour that, if it was happening at the present day in any community club, even liberals would condem it?
gmatthews said
For me, the question isn’t “what is the NT’s treatment of homosexuality?”, but rather, why do so many hypocrites opposed to homosexuality spend so much energy on that single topic? If it’s a sin it didn’t even make it into the BIG 10 in Exodus! There are so many more interesting sins in Leviticus that the typical Bible thumper and ignorer of judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged never even consider. Why can’t they be crying from the mountain top for the stoning of those who dare to wear clothing made from more than one fiber? Why can’t there be placard-wearers on Franklin St. in Chapel Hill ready to shun those who let their cows stray into their neighbor’s pastures? I covet my neighbor’s belongings daily! I’m sure I’m not the only one! I lied to my mother about who I voted for today: that’s two sins at once!But they ignore all that because two men (“they” rarely mention the lesbians) doing something in privacy tickles a part of their brain with an itch they just can’t scratch.
@gmathews
Just because items are listed together does not make them equal. If I say “I lied to my Mom about eating my breakfast, I stole an apple from my next door neighour, I murdered 2 babies, I voted to legalise homosexuality, …” all in the same paragraph or even the same sentence, it does not all mean these actions are equivalent in any way.
They are different in the parties affected and in their consequences.
Lying to my Mom about the breakfast affects her only and has no other consequences.
Stealing an apple from my next door neighbour, harms the neighbour and caused him a damage.
Killing 2 babies is an action I can neither undo nor compensate. It affects the victims, their families, Natural Law, G-D’s law. The victims have been deprived of their life, their families have incurred a loss I can never compensate, I have breached the law of Nature and I have rebelled against D-d’s command.
Voting to make homosexuality a normal and begnine way of life may be considered the most serious “sin” of all those listed above. Not only does it affect the people involved (victims), their families, Natural law because it would lead to the end of Humanity if enough people adopted the new lifestyle, it is directly opposes directly G-d’s command so as to imply G-d does not exist or he is wrong in his judgement, my vote affects numerous other third parties and for the very long-term.
I am not here taking a view on 21st century homosexuality. I just wanted to reply to your outrage regarding the attention homosexuality is receiving compared to other “sins” listed in the OT Bible. I am trying to explain the emphasis.
Lef said
gmatthews said
For me, the question isn’t “what is the NT’s treatment of homosexuality?”, but rather, why do so many hypocrites opposed to homosexuality spend so much energy on that single topic? If it’s a sin it didn’t even make it into the BIG 10 in Exodus! There are so many more interesting sins in Leviticus that the typical Bible thumper and ignorer of judge-not-lest-ye-be-judged never even consider. Why can’t they be crying from the mountain top for the stoning of those who dare to wear clothing made from more than one fiber? Why can’t there be placard-wearers on Franklin St. in Chapel Hill ready to shun those who let their cows stray into their neighbor’s pastures? I covet my neighbor’s belongings daily! I’m sure I’m not the only one! I lied to my mother about who I voted for today: that’s two sins at once!But they ignore all that because two men (“they” rarely mention the lesbians) doing something in privacy tickles a part of their brain with an itch they just can’t scratch.
@gmathews
Just because items are listed together does not make them equal.
That was precisely my point.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)