WWMC Members Only -- Resources for interpreting Romans 1 (re: homosexuality)?

[Macrina]

First off: I don't want to debate.
Secondly: Really, I don't want to debate.

Now, for the purpose of this non-liberal dropping by to talk about a controversial subject:

Although I believe that same-gender sex is sin, I want to understand your view. I have nothing to fear from learning more.

Specifically, do any of you have any links/resources, preferably with solid scholarship, which deal with the exegesis of Romans 1? This is the passage which I believe is the largest obstacle to accepting the liberal view on homosexuality, and I would like to examine it more closely. In order to do justice to your position, I would appreciate it if you would point me towards whatever you consider most convincing relevant to this passage.

I won't debate your comments here; I'm just looking for some resources. I tried to request such resources in Christian Philosophy & Ethics, but the thread got out of control... so I decided to make this a "liberals only" conversation. I hope you don't mind me asking. I can't tell you that I'll change my mind because of what you post, but I will consider it carefully.

Thanks.

 

[b.hopeful]

Liberal interpretation of Romans 1:26-27

That's a great resource that sums up what a lot of responses will allude to...just for a jumping off point.

One thing that I heard before I was a Christian that stuck with me was the fact that the word homosexual/homosexuality does not appear in the Bible since it's a 19th century term. So we interpret those passages to mean what we currently label as "homosexual". Jesus never mentioned these acts...these acts were not included in the Ten Commandments and no prophets mention them. Yet....in modern times we seem to dwell on it like nobody's business. Paul seems to discuss a cultural practice and we read into it what is now widely accepted as an orientation.

In The Good Book by Peter Gomes, he speaks to this passage and says that Paul is talking about something very cultural...and not homosexuality as we know it today. He says "The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals....." "All Paul knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our own."

 

[Macrina]

Liberal interpretation of Romans 1:26-27

That's a great resource that sums up what a lot of responses will allude to...just for a jumping off point.

One thing that I heard before I was a Christian that stuck with me was the fact that the word homosexual/homosexuality does not appear in the Bible since it's a 19th century term. So we interpret those passages to mean what we currently label as "homosexual". Jesus never mentioned these acts...these acts were not included in the Ten Commandments and no prophets mention them. Yet....in modern times we seem to dwell on it like nobody's business. Paul seems to discuss a cultural practice and we read into it what is now widely accepted as an orientation.

In The Good Book by Peter Gomes, he speaks to this passage and says that Paul is talking about something very cultural...and not homosexuality as we know it today. He says "The biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals....." "All Paul knew of homosexuality was the debauched pagan expression of it. He cannot be condemned for that ignorance, but neither should his ignorance be an excuse for our own."

Thanks! I'll check out the link. Btw, Peter Gomes was my thesis advisor -- and I bought the book you mentioned for one of his classes!

 

[Supernaut]

http://www.fundotrasovejas.org.ar/ingles/articulos/The%20Ten%20Myths%20.pdf

Here is another link for ya! I can type my view.....but I would basically be repeating what b.hopeful has already stated.

 

[TheManeki]

Some of the best resources you have are your own eyes and brain, and using them tends to lead to questions like:

"What exactly would God be protecting us from by forbidding manogamous same-sex marriages?"

"What evidence do I see in the world around me that God treats a homosexual couple differently than a heterosexual one?"

"Why would God biologically predispose people to homosexuality and then punish them for it?"

"Why are there so many theological parallels between the struggle for same-sex marriage and interracial marriage?"

 

[AzA]

Two more resources you may find useful.

Martin, Dale B. (2006). Sex and the single savior: Gender and sexuality in Biblical interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
and
Johnson, William S. (2006). A time to embrace: Same-gender relationships in religion, law, and politics. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans.

Both of these are broader works. Martin takes the approach of exploring hermeneutics -- meaning and interpretation. When we look at many of the "hot" topics today in cultural Christianity, many of them can be sourced to particular methods of interpretation and meaning-making.

Then, having explored the questions of "what to read", "how to read", and "how to approach applying," he looks at sex/gender and sexuality through history, during the periods that the Bible talks about, and as interpreted since in the community of the church(es).

Johnson takes a different tack. His work is more a response to the discussions of same-sex unions. And so he looks at the religious issues, the political stakes and the legal issues (using the US as the context).

One of my favorite comments from Johnson is "The limits of a past generation's imagination need not constrain the limits of our own generation's commitment to compassion or justice." But then I've been reading a lot about imagination this week.

Blessings as you read.

 

[Macrina]

Some of the best resources you have are your own eyes and brain, and using them tends to lead to questions like...

I hope you didn't mean to imply that I don't use my eyes and brain. I'll assume you didn't mean that in quite the way it came across.

 

[Macrina]

Two more resources you may find useful.

Martin, Dale B. (2006). Sex and the single savior: Gender and sexuality in Biblical interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
and
Johnson, William S. (2006). A time to embrace: Same-gender relationships in religion, law, and politics. Grand Rapids, MI: William B Eerdmans.

Both of these are broader works. Martin takes the approach of exploring hermeneutics -- meaning and interpretation. When we look at many of the "hot" topics today in cultural Christianity, many of them can be sourced to particular methods of interpretation and meaning-making.

Then, having explored the questions of "what to read", "how to read", and "how to approach applying," he looks at sex/gender and sexuality through history, during the periods that the Bible talks about, and as interpreted since in the community of the church(es).

Johnson takes a different tack. His work is more a response to the discussions of same-sex unions. And so he looks at the religious issues, the political stakes and the legal issues (using the US as the context).

One of my favorite comments from Johnson is "The limits of a past generation's imagination need not constrain the limits of our own generation's commitment to compassion or justice." But then I've been reading a lot about imagination this week.

Blessings as you read.

Thanks... as I'm looking for hermeneutical material, the first one looks especially helpful.

 

[TheManeki]

I hope you didn't mean to imply that I don't use my eyes and brain. I'll assume you didn't mean that in quite the way it came across.

I wasn't implying it, I was only encouraging you to remember that there's more than commentaries on the Bible to aid you in interpretation. Observing real life -- and how Biblical interpretations play out (or fail to play out) in real life -- is a valuable, yet too often neglected, skill.

Still you have an excellent point -- a lot of Christians do seem to have trouble distinguishing between the maps their religious leaders gave them and the territory they live in. It's like those stories of people who are following their GPSes and end up driving into a lake.

 

[SmileAndAHandshake]

First off: I don't want to debate.
Secondly: Really, I don't want to debate.

Now, for the purpose of this non-liberal dropping by to talk about a controversial subject:

Although I believe that same-gender sex is sin, I want to understand your view. I have nothing to fear from learning more.

Specifically, do any of you have any links/resources, preferably with solid scholarship, which deal with the exegesis of Romans 1? This is the passage which I believe is the largest obstacle to accepting the liberal view on homosexuality, and I would like to examine it more closely. In order to do justice to your position, I would appreciate it if you would point me towards whatever you consider most convincing relevant to this passage.

I won't debate your comments here; I'm just looking for some resources. I tried to request such resources in Christian Philosophy & Ethics, but the thread got out of control... so I decided to make this a "liberals only" conversation. I hope you don't mind me asking. I can't tell you that I'll change my mind because of what you post, but I will consider it carefully.

Thanks.

It's of no consequence to me how passages get "interpreted", only that I understand that the Bible was a human construction and contained in it's pages are pieces of information tainted by culture and time.

Prior to the mid-20th century, black people and white people couldn't even marry -- and many Christian sects believed that was Biblical! Because "God drew the lines" when he placed certain people on certain continents, and those lines shouldn't be crossed. There was an actual judge in the American legal system who said this when making a ruling. It was despicable.

So because that was what was normal to believe at the time, should we accept it now? Of course not.

Times change. This is God's world too, but it is not the same world as it was 2,000 years ago, nor should it be.

That's my viewpoint, and like you, I will not debate it. Just thought I'd share

 

[SpiritDriven]

Sigh....

The Consequences of Sin where...REMOVED...from the Human race at the Cross 2010 years ago.....

The consequences of the Sin of the whole World was taken away completly, at the Cross 2010 years ago.

Peace

The Path to destruction is Broad, because Main Stream Christianity are not Christian, they only think they are.....however this in no way means they are lost to God....nobody not one will be lost to God.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Sigh....

The Consequences of Sin where...REMOVED...from the Human race at the Cross 2010 years ago.....

The consequences of the Sin of the whole World was taken away completly, at the Cross 2010 years ago.

Peace

The Path to destruction is Broad, because Main Stream Christianity are not Christian, they only think they are.....however this in no way means they are lost to God....nobody not one will be lost to God.

[pedant]
2010 - 33 = 1977 years ago.

+/- 10, of course.
[/pedant]

 

[Macrina]

[pedant]
2010 - 33 = 1977 years ago.

+/- 10, of course.
[/pedant]

give or take.



Thanks to everybody who posted thoughts and resources for me to consider and/or consult. I appreciate your courtesy on what I know is a very volatile issue.