Re: Sin?

From: Robert Schneider (rjschn39@bellsouth.net)
Date: Sun Aug 03 2003 - 09:51:33 EDT

  • Next message: George Murphy: "Re: Can you differentiate - was loose ends"

    George writes:

    >
    > I think it's plausible that Paul (& his contemporaries) did not have
    anything
    > like our modern understanding of sexual orientation. But it seems very
    unlikely that he
    > wasn't aware that homosexual activity sometimes took place outside
    settings of pagan
    > ritual. & was there any significant lesbian pagan ritual? (The Romans
    passage is the
    > only biblical one to mention female same-sex activity.)
    >
    >
    I've kept silent during this latest round of notes on the topic, but
    George's comment spurs me to jump in. What follows is based on my reading
    of ancient literature and studies back during my long life as a classicist.
    I think it is more than likely that Paul and contemporaries had nothing like
    our modern understanding of sexual orientation. Ancient Greco-Roman society
    was built upon the structure of the family, and every male (certainly the
    first-born) was expected to marry and provide offspring to perpetuate the
    family and the state. Since men, around 30, were married (in arranged
    unions) to women half their age, it was not uncommon for young men of the
    upper classes in Greece to established erotic relationships with other males
    to provide the emotional bonding that was impossible with respectible women
    outside of marriage, before they married; but any sexual component was
    temporary. While I find it hard to believe that there were not men and
    women who had what we call a homosexual orientation (they did not have a
    term for it) they still would have been expected to marry; while there may
    have been same-sex long term liaisons, such do not turn up in the literature
    of ancient Greece and Rome. Among the Romans, sexual activity among persons
    of the same gender appear even more temporary and more of a promiscuous than
    a bonding nature, if the literature is any indication. But one of the
    problems here is that Greek and Roman literature rarely describes life among
    the lower classes. We don't have enough of a "spread" to make clear
    decisions about it.

        When I read Paul's description of lustful "homosexual" behavior in
    Romans 1, I think more of the behavior of upper-class Romans at their
    orgies; in our language, heterosexuals indulging in homosexual behavior.
    Other references by Paul in Corinthians, etc., seem to me to refer to male
    prostitution. While the interpretation of these passages continue to be
    arguable (as is evident from this recent list discussion), I would contend
    that given the conditions in the pagan societies of Paul's day, I am not
    convinced that any passage referring to same-sex behavior in the NT, or the
    OT for that matter, has anything to do with the phenomenon of our day:
    public same-sex long-term, monogamous, faithful partnerships that have more
    to do with relationship than sexuality. I think the church needs to face up
    to this matter and address it in a thoughtful and charitable way, rather
    than merely condeming it. And in my mind that means the church needs to
    come to terms with centuries of unhealty attitudes and practices regarding
    human sexuality as a whole, beginning with the exaltation of celibacy during
    the early period, and recurring attitudes that in some way sex is dirty and
    sex in marriage is primarily for procreation. We Christians have not done a
    good job with opposite-sex unions, let alone same-sex, and we cannot
    effectively address the latter until we finally deal adequately with the
    former.

        While I'm at it, let me comment on this sudden spate of activity to pass
    legislation to define marriage as a union of a man with a women. The
    proponents claim that the purpose of such acts is "to defend marriage."
    How, I ask, would such legislation "defend marriage"? I am puzzled and
    would appreciate any thoughts about it. Marriage needs to be defended in
    our day, but not from same-sex unions. We have an epidemic of divorce,
    broken homes, spousal abuse and the abuse of children within the marriage,
    patriarchal marriages that fail to keep Paul's dictum to "be mutually
    submissive one to another" (Eph. 5:21). There are better ways to defend
    marriage, and they need to be done on the local, church community level.

    Grace and peace,
    Bob Schneider



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 09:51:40 EDT