The appeal to the authority of this text in order to oppose full acceptance of homosexuals today reflects an important shift away from Paul. He was not developing a pattern of moral teaching. Paul treated male same-sex sexual acts as an illustration of the social distortions that idolatry introduced. . . . We should learn from him how to envision the Christian life in nonlegalistic ways. To follow Paul on these basic doctrines will lead us away from the current impasse on homosexuality. Quoting as finally authoritative his statements derived from the common opinions of his day will not. He rigorously avoided building a legalistic system on these opinions. To build such a system today is a far greater violation of Paul's authority than to disagree with him about some of his time-and culture-bound judgments.
Well, in a nutshell that is Cobb and Lull's position.
Many of the commentaries I read last year for my Romans sermon series avoided or quickly moved over the controversial nature of this passage. Cobb and Lull take it head on. Not because they think sexual ethics is a major point of the passage – most scholars are in agreement that it is not. But because it is so controversial in the church today and as commentators they feel obligated to address the controversy. Further, the opposition to sacramental equality for homosexuals they perceive as falling into the very sins which Paul is preaching against. It is these opponents who are not taking Paul authoritatively.
Those who choose to accept Paul's teaching that same-sex sexual acts are always "unnatural" do so because they hold to this opinion themselves, not because Paul held it.
Their treatment of this passage is lengthy. They cover linguistic and textual issues and enter into more general, theological and ethical discussions.
Paul is writing about excessive desire. I learned from Foucault's A History of Sexuality how moralists of the period generally approached the issue of desire. Any excessive desire was "unnatural" because it arose from a loss of rational self-control. This ethic applied across the board of the desires, with much emphasis on food. It is significant that we do not currently problematize eating nearly to the level we problematize sex. Isn't gluttony a mortal sin?
As I preached last year, Paul had a negative view of all sexual desire, including that which leads to heterosexual sex. He used same-sex sexual desire as an illustration of sexual desire gone to excess. Is it because he had a negative view of same-sex sexual relations (distinct from his overall negative views on sexual desire)? Or was he simply using rhetorical boilerplate to make his point?
On this final question, Cobb and Lull come down on the side that Paul did have a negative view of same-sex sexual relations, as part of his cultural conditioning, but that he used it merely as an illustration. Other commentators believe it is a mere rhetorical device and not an expression of his own views.
One point they do not discuss, which I would like t have seen them address, is recent scholarship by Thomas Hanks that suggests much of the audience of the letter to the Romans was slaves who were likely sexually abused by their masters. He raises the interesting question, could the issue here have been pastoral, Paul addressing the sexual abuse of members of this congregation?
I'm currently reading Suetonius' Lives of the Twelve Caesars. The sexual perversions he writes about and presents as common knowledge in the Empire give context to this passage and explain why Jews and Christians would have reacted so viscerally to Gentile perversions. I would also condemn the sexual antics of Tiberius, Caligula, etc.
Cobb and Lull miss tying this passage to Paul's critique of empire, despite that being a major theme in their commentary.
Comments