Dear Jerri,
Over the last two weeks I have looked at how people often read two verses out of Romans in a way that does not honor the context and movement of Paul’s letter. What I suggest is that, within the overall structure of this letter, Romans 1:26-27 can be a gathering place of fruitful conversation, peopled by we who are humbled by our mutual sinfulness and yet empowered by our mutual salvation, to explore issues like this:
1. What is the relationship of sexuality to “idolatry”?
2. What Paul does Paul mean by “natural” v. “unnatural” affections?
3. Do we agree with Paul’s understanding of “natural” affections?
I suppose you might find issue #3 objectionable, since you and I were taught that every word, every opinion, and every declaration of the Scriptures was inspired and therefore is absolutely true, despite any declaration otherwise coming out of “human wisdom.” This may really be the point at which you and I have grown apart the most over the years, not the hot-button issues on which we might disagree, but the meaning of biblical authority and how we read the Scriptures as authoritative. The view of inspiration that we were taught as kids was expressed in a song we used to sing at camp: “God said it! I believe it! That settles it for me!” But, of course, it is more complex than that. None of us who sang that song endorsed slavery, even though the Scriptures at times tolerate it, at other times expect it, and at other times regulate it. None of us would have said we are pro-slavery because God said it, we believe it, and that settles it. None of us. Even the “verbal, plenary inspiration” view of biblical authority that we sang about is more complex than our song let on.
I would argue that our encounter with the authority of Scripture is always a dance of sorts. We could even call it a form of wrestling, since the name “Isra-el” means “one who wrestles with God.” One of the things with which we must wrestle is captured in these twin questions: When is the biblical writer speaking a “Word of the Lord” in a way that is powerful and true for the people of God, despite whether we agree with it or not? And when is the biblical writer speaking out of her/his own time and context, in a way that we can say is no longer the way of faithfulness (like verses that condone slavery)? I know that you and I were not taught to ask questions like these, but we can take solace in this: These are precisely the kinds of questions Paul asks himself when he writes.
Consider the first letter to the church in Corinth, a church deeply divided over theological schism and ethical scandal.[1]Let’s start with something small and innocuous, like Paul’s account of the people he baptized. I’ll use color coding for us to notice how Paul makes a statement; then corrects himself; then qualifies himselfjust in case he is wrong, in I Corinthians 1:14-16: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)” This is the letter of a human being, with finite human memory, trying to ensure that his finitude does not get in the way of his larger point – which is the true word of God that those who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized into one faith and not into schismatic cults of baptizer-worship. Taking the Scriptures seriously – or, reading them in the spirit in which they were written – means embracing the truth that comes from the depths of God’s wisdom, as well as acknowledging the finitude of the writer. Paul does both repeatedly in this letter.
Consider I Corinthians 7, Paul’s chapter on marriage and singleness. In earlier chapters, Paul has drawn some very sharp distinctions between God’s wisdom and human wisdom. However, in this chapter he shows incredible awareness of his own finitude even as he speaks on God’s behalf:
1. He qualifies his statement in v. 6:
This I say by way of concession, not of command.
2. He sets a principle and recognizes exceptions and concessions in vv. 7 and 8-9:
I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am. But if they are not practicing self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
3. He delineates between God’s wordand his own opinionin vv.10-11 and 12. Even with God’s command (v.10), he considers ‘plan B’ (v.11).
To the married I give this command—not I but the Lord—that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does separate, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.
To the restI say—I and not the Lord—that if any believer has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
And, frankly, there is one deep theological principle at work in Paul’s writing on marriage and sex that is simply wrong. (I know, I know. Grab a stone and get in line. I deserve it.) Paul is sure that the return of Christ will happen in his audience’s lifetime. That is why Paul says people should not marry, unless they are incapable of harnessing their passions. Marriage brings obligations but it also relieves passions. So, married folks should stay married and try to fulfill each other’s sexual needs, yet they should otherwise live as if they are single in order to focus primarily on the coming of the Lord. Single folk should remain single and keep their focus on the coming of Christ, but if they cannot control their sexual passions they should marry.[2]The point is, Paul’s most adamant principle at work in this chapter is simply wrong. He and his correspondents are all dead and Christ has not yet returned. It is amazing to consider how much of the early church’s theology was shaped by the delay of Christ’s return – but that is a matter for another day.[3]
Taking Paul’s letter seriously – indeed taking biblical authority seriously – involves both honoring the wisdom of God that is contained there and reckoning with the human finitude that is contained there. That is what we will do next week as we look at what Paul says about same-sex relations in this letter.
[1]I call this the “first” letter because that is the standard manner of speech about it. Many scholars have noted that there are some references in the letters to Corinth to other communications that suggest we only are privy to part of the conversation – and totally without the Corinthians’ own letters to Paul. We may well be looking at letters two and three of four or more letters from Paul.
[2]People who go on and on about how marriage is the greatest calling, written into the heart of the human story from time immemorial – are not named Paul the Apostle. His is not a romanticized or a romantic view of marriage. For Paul, marriage is simply the lesser of two distractions.
[3]Of course, if you want to read more about it now, you can find my book, Left Behind and Loving It: A Cheeky Look at the End Times(Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), and do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment