Thanks so much for the kind, hand-written note regarding Spirituality according to Paul. Please forgive my letter in print form; my
handwriting is atrociously illegible, especially when compared to your
beautiful cursive script. I blame my poor
penmanship on fast-talking professors during my studies at the university and
seminary. But, to be fair, my writing was
in pretty bad shape before I started college.
Thanks for picking up a copy and reading the book. I hope what I wrote is both fair to St. Paul
and helpful to the Church. There’s so
much to say about our apostle, and so many excellent minds have devoted much
study to unpacking his ideas. No one, of
course, will ever be able to say they’ve offered the last word on Paul. To say that we shall study his letters until
the end of the world is not a statement of resignation but a sincere and
promising hope. There’s still much work
to be done.
Thanks also for including notes from your talk about
homosexuality and the Bible. To be sure,
this is a complex and sensitive subject.
As a culture, we’ve certainly witnessed a revolution in the way we think
and talk about homosexuality. And, there’s
no way a little letter will capture the way I read the Bible, and especially
Paul, on this matter. But, I will say
this: for the most part, I agree with
your statement, “There can be no question Paul condemns homosexual acts, but he
does not condemn homosexuality as such.”
But, allow me to parse your words a little in light of my reading of the
Bible.
Homosexuality as a sexual orientation is a modern
construct. In New Testament times, they
only knew of homoeroticism. No one in
Paul’s day would claim a psychological identity “gay” or “straight.” So, to say that Paul condemns homosexuality
in our terms is anachronistic (as your notes seem to point out). That’s why I like to use (along with other NT
scholars) the more descriptive term, homoeroticism. Paul does condemn homoerotic acts, both man
to man and woman to woman. This is to be
expected because as a first-century Jew who’s very concerned about holiness—especially
as it applies to the behavior of his converts—Paul wants to present the
obedience of the Gentiles to Christ as the ultimate proof of his apostleship.
Now, to claim that Paul would therefore affirm homosexual (a
modern construct) relationships or unions (whether civil or religious) is
purely speculative. I think the burden
of proof falls on anyone who would argue that Paul would support gay
marriage. Just because a more accurate
reading of Paul’s arguments—based on the culture of his time—helps us see the
difference between homoeroticism and homosexuality, it doesn’t necessarily
follow that Paul would support gay marriage.
The most that could be said is that he would oppose it because he
believed homoerotic acts did not glorify God (and gay couples certainly have
every opportunity to engage in homoerotic behavior). And, the least that could be said is that we
don’t know whether Paul would support gay marriage. One would have to weigh the arguments—plotting
a trajectory from Paul’s letters to our context—to see whether we’re being fair
to Paul (and especially) the full revelation of God’s Word.
Of course, some don’t feel obliged to read Paul carefully;
claiming to be “red-letter” Christians they base their support of gay
relationships on the silence of Jesus. But,
I’m afraid such an argument from silence is pretty shaky ground. Besides, Jesus does have much to say about
human sexuality and practice that needs to be more carefully considered, for
example his teaching about lust, the abuse of divorce, and the importance of “eunuchs”
for the sake of the kingdom. I don’t
hear many people fretting over what Jesus meant about becoming a eunuch. Why not? Sometimes it feels like the “marquis” issues
of our day dominate our reading of the Bible.
Our selective reading of the Scriptures has more to do with what we’re
trying to prove. I would like to turn
the hermeneutic around. Perhaps a more
careful reading of the Bible should inform the issues we choose to discuss? Is that naïve? Maybe so.
I hope my little note helps explain what I wrote in the
conclusion of the book, where I speculate on what St. Paul would say to us
today. It was offered as a “thought
experiment” and not a definitive word.
But, you certainly read my comments correctly. I don’t believe Paul would come down hard one
way or the other on the politics of gay marriage. I do, however, believe that Paul would
continue to condemn homoerotic behavior and would have much to teach us about
sacrificing ourselves for one another—even Christians who are attracted to the
same sex.
Thanks again for your kind remarks about the book.
