Homosexuality in Romans 1

Homosexuality in Romans 1 - Paul was right in one sense, but he was also not fully informed. Biblical authors assumed a geo-centric worldview. Were they wrong? Or, were they not fully informed? Morgan Guyton explains how Paul was right in principle, but was uninformed as to the best application of that principle. This should be no more disturbing for us than the discovery that the Earth wasn't the center of the universe. [Oops! People got excommunicated for believing that!! So, we may have a way to go yet.]

Morgan Guyton:

     “So here’s where my quarrel occurs with a strictly historical Biblical interpretation like N.T. Wright’s. Paul did believe that non-heteronormative sex was “unnatural” and that “unnatural” sex resulted in bad spiritual fruit. In Romans 1, he says that when people “exchange natural intercourse for unnatural” (v. 26), they are “filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice” (v. 29). The reason Paul calls non-heteronormative sex bad is because he thinks it fills people with bad spiritual fruit. That’s the plain meaning of a straightforward reading of Romans 1, which is consistent with the fruit-centered ethical framework Paul exudes throughout his epistles.
     For N.T. Wright, there’s only one question to be asked, since we’re supposed to answer twenty-first century questions with first-century eyes: does Paul think non-heteronormative sex is bad? If he does, then we have to agree with him if we’re Christian. Case closed.
     But what if it turns out that Paul’s grasp of human biology was inadequate while his ethical instinct was right? Does his biology have to be perfect and timeless for his words to be canonical? What if “unnatural” sex actually means for a gay person to marry straight and have a turbulent, dishonest relationship in which authentic physical intimacy is painfully impossible? What if the best way for gay people to live with good spiritual fruit if they aren’t uniquely called to celibacy is “to marry rather than to burn” (1 Cor 7:9) in a way that is “natural” to their biology?
     When I look at the pragmatic pastoral theology Paul demonstrates throughout his epistles, I honestly believe if he were walking around today, he would say, “Let them do what is natural to them and least disruptive to their communion with Christ.” That seems to be a reasonable, straightforward application of Paul’s ethical framework.be no more disturbing
     In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul reveals where he’s coming from when he’s talking about sexuality. He says to the Corinthians, “I want you to be free from anxiety… I say this for your own benefit, not to put any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and unhindered devotion to the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:32, 35). So Paul is not invested in arbitrary restraints. In terms of our sexuality, he wants to promote freedom from anxiety, good order, and unhindered devotion to the Lord. Those three principles are not contingent upon retaining “first-century eyes” when it comes to human biology. They are timeless, and I believe they should be the foundation of our sexual ethics today.”

See the whole discussion at:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mercynotsacrifice/2016/06/23/my-quarrel-with-n-t-wright-about-sex/

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Famous Little Bo Peep Expository Sermon

I cannot take credit for this sermon, but I have embellished it based on years of teaching exegesis and expository preaching. I am sure I heard a sermion very like this once, but I may have been sleeping at the time. Enjoy. Little Bo Peep Sermon I would like to read to you from the 14th chapter of the book of Mother Goose, where we find these words recorded. “Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep, and she doesn’t know where to find them, but leave them alone and they’ll come home wagging their tails behind them.” Thus endeth the reading of the text. Now I would like to go through this passage with you and explain to you as best I can the pearls of wisdom contained therein. The first line tells us that “Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep.” Immediately we learn that the name of the main character in our narrative is Bo Peep; to be more precise, Little Bo Peep. Now from this we can ascertain that Little Bo Peep was a child or possibly a small adult. But since there aren’t too many small a
Read more

Instead of T.U.L.I.P.

In a recent Koinonia blog ( http://www.koinoniablog.net/2014/05/tulip-is-so-20th-century-proof-is-a-modern-framework-of-dort-and-gods-irresistible-grace.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+typepad%2FpQHu+%28Koinonia%29 ), Pastor Jeremy Bouwma, cited, but did not recommend, a revision of the traditional Calvinist T.U.L.I.P called P.R.O.O.F. If this stuff interests you, check out the link above. Let me offer my alternative to both of these, a version that emphasizes God's grace: Instead of Total Depravity      1. Sin - it affects all aspects of our humanity. We cannot turn to God without God’s saving GRACE. Instead of Unconditional Election      2. Salvation - it is entirely by God’s GRACE that we are saved and come to know God. We do not merit or earn salvation. Instead of Limited Atonement      3. Sacrifice - God in GRACE and mercy accepts the the death of Christ as a perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the who
Read more

My Life in Baseball

MY LIFE IN BASEBALL My earliest memories of baseball haunt the side yard of the "farm" I grew up on in Troy, Michigan. Most of our 12-acre property was a corn field or lay fallow, but about two acres was laid out like the diagram below. On this field we played softball . . . carefully. Breaking windows in the house in shallow center field could result in the neighborhood season being canceled, at least until the window was fixed and paid for out of our meager allowance. So, we all, including we right-handed hitters, learned to hit to right field (a skill that came in handy later in church league softball!). You could also pull the ball to left field, but not too deep, so you wouldn't get a muck ball from the leaky sewage drain field. (How did we not get hepatitis, dysentery, hoof and mouth disease, or some other noxious crud? But we didn't.) The barn made a decent backstop, though you had to stay out of Mom's rhubarb that grew along the barn near home plate.
Read more