Can One Be Critical Without Being Autobiographical?

The Case of Romans 1:26-27

Daniel Patte

                                               

(Second part of an article published in Autobiographical Biblical Criticism, Ingrid Rosa Kitzberger, ed.  (Leiden, NL;  Deo, 2002), 34-59)

 

Readings of Romans 1:26-27

 

            A few years ago, I argued in a lecture that there were several equally legitimate and plausible readings of Matthew 4:18-22, by referring to several divergent scholarly interpretations of it. A colleague conceded my point regarding such a narrative text, but raised objections when I claimed this was true of any biblical text. “Is it not the case,” she argued, “that a text like Romans 1:26-27 cannot be read in any other way than as a condemnation of homosexuality and of homosexuals?”

            So it seems. For many, this is “self-evident.” This is the “literal” meaning in the sense that it “obviously” respects the letter of the text.  But a “self-evident” or “literal” reading is not critical, because it does not acknowledge its autobiographical character. In fact, it does not even acknowledge that it is an interpretation. Yet, as most readings of biblical texts, it is a faith-interpretation of the text as Scripture that needs to be brought to critical understanding. As we do so, we will see that in its lack of precision this teaching of the text might refer to three different kinds of interpretation.

            I readily perceived the interpretive, and thus autobiographical, character of these readings of Rom 1:26-27, because this is not at all the teaching I find in these verses. Conversely, by respectfully considering these three kinds of interpretation as autobiographical and by elucidating their respective interpretive choices, the autobiographical character of my own interpretation became clear.

 

Reading # 1 of Rom 1:26-27: My Own Reading

 

            The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. (Step 1) For me, this passage teaches Christian believers both to denounce destructive passion-filled homosexuality as idolatrous and to discern and affirm what is “good and acceptable and perfect” in homosexual relations. 

            My formulation of this teaching paraphrases Rom 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Let me explain.

            According to my reading the behavior described in Rom 1:26-27 is rejected because it is “idolatrous.” Life in idolatry is portrayed as shameful (avtima,zesqai). It is a life under the destructive and deadly power of one’s idols, and as such it is a manifestation of God’s wrath that the gospel reveals (Rom 1:18, read together with 1:16-17). A “shameful” behavior vitiates one’s good relationships with others and the community; one is estranged from the community; a life in idolatry generates destructive behavior toward oneself, others, and the community. What makes the behavior described in Rom 1:26-27 shameful and destructive? Although using different vocabulary Paul repeats the same answer: “lustful passion” (evpiqumi,aij tw/n kardiw/n auvtw/n, 1:24), “degrading or shameful passion” (pa,qh avtimi,a, 1:26), “burning with lustful passion” (evxekau,qhsan evn th/| ovre,xei, 1:27). Thus, passion-filled, lust-filled, destructive homosexual relationships are idolatrous and must be rejected.

            Idolatrous homosexuality must be dealt with as any other idolatries of the “present world” (tw/| aivw/ni tou,tw|): Christian believers should “not be conformed” to it, but nevertheless “discern what is the will of God – what  is good and acceptable and perfect” in it (Rom 12:2). Thus, 1:26-27 offers both a warning against idolatrous homoeroticism (the teaching for homosexuals) and a call to discern what is “good, and acceptable and perfect” in non-idolatrous homosexual relationship (the teaching for heterosexuals).

            For my colleague, and possibly for many readers of this essay, this reading is far from self-evident. I readily concede: this is nothing more than one “interpretation” among other plausible ones, resulting from a series of interpretive choices – as  is also the case with those interpretations for which the teaching of Rom 1:26-27 is a condemnation of homosexuality and of homosexuals. The autobiographical character of this interpretation becomes clear as I make explicit the interpretive choices that form the analytical, hermeneutical-theological, and contextual Choicess of my interpretation, through a comparison with the other interpretations (presented below).  My analytical choices are rooted in a particular aesthetic sensibility focused upon the mythical and other symbolic structures of the text by my fascination for the religious and the great variety of its manifestations – a fascination due in part to the tension between my belonging to a religious community and family in the midst of a secular culture. My hermeneutical choices are themselves rooted in the basic conviction that a biblical text as Scripture interprets life and life interprets Scripture, and thus results in a transformation of the believers’ perception of their daily life – a conviction that calls me to look for those around me who, in their otherness, manifest the Presence of the Other for me.  Similarly, but more specifically, my contextual choices reflect my need for a Scriptural teaching that would allow me to make sense of my confusion as a heterosexual who strives to be an enemy of his own homophobia (as Alice Walker speaks of those who are “enemy of their own racism”) – both rejecting the appalling discrimination of homosexuals in contemporary societies and finding that I have constantly to keep in check a deeply-seated homophobia.

            Textual Choices.  (Step 2) My conclusions regarding the teaching of this text are different from the following ones, because unlike them I read Rom 1:26-27 as a part of Paul’s entire letter, including Rom 12:1-2.10

            For me, together with Victor Furnish,11 what is most significant in the text is that Rom 1:26-27 is found in the midst of an argument about idolatry: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (1:25; cf. 1:23).

            For Furnish, this textual feature comes to the fore when one views as most significant the intertextual (and thus figurative) features of the text. He thus identifies and underscores the parallelisms of Rom 1:18-32 with Wisdom 11 - 14 (in particular 11:15-20; 12:17, 13:1-19, 14:12, 25-27). Furnish makes two essential points: First, as in Wis 14:25-27, Paul presents “sexual immoralities among those vices to which the pagans have been led by their own idolatry: lustful impurity and the degradations of their bodies (1:24), and ‘dishonorable passions’ as evidenced by homosexual intercourse (1:26-27). In this connection he too can speak of the Gentiles having received ‘the due penalty for their error’ (1:27).”12 Thus, “homosexual intercourse” is a “dishonorable passion” which is the consequence of idolatry. Second, Paul adopts his culture’s view of homosexuality (as expressed, e.g., in Seneca, Dio Chrysostom, and Philo) as a “freely chosen” behavior, driven by insatiable shameful lust, and against the natural order. Furnish concludes: “We must remember that it was the more degraded and exploitive forms of pederasty that the Apostle and his contemporaries had in view when they condemned homosexual practice.”13 Thus, Furnish (and many other commentators, including Brooten) insists: both in 1:26 (about women) and 1:27 (about men) Paul did not speak about what today we call “homosexuality” or “homoeroticism.” He spoke of degrading, violent, abusive relationships.

            My own interpretation follows the same line, with one additional and important point regarding idolatry, which becomes apparent in my analysis according to which the most significant in the text is the “structure” (actually, mythical structure of the system of convictions or “fundamental semantics”) of Paul’s religious discourse. What is idolatry for Paul? It is the absolutization (the taking as a complete and final revelation) of a true revelation or gift from God. In Rom 1:18-32, and everywhere else in Romans and his other letters, idolatry is always based upon a true revelation that becomes a destructive power in which the idolaters are caught. As Wis 11:16 claims, “One is punished by the very things by which one sins.” Or as Paul puts it, regarding the Law (Torah) out of which Paul, the zealous Jew, had made an idol: “… the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me” (Rom 7:10); it became a destructive monster.14 And so it is, with the revelation of God in creation, which is absolutized to the point that pagans worship the creatures instead of the Creator (1:18-23). And so it is, in a more specific case, with homosexuality: by absolutizing a precious gift from God (sexuality? constructive and fruitful intimate relationships between women or between men?), idolatrous homosexuals have transformed this gift of God into a destructive, depraved practice.

            Then, it follows in my interpretation that an idol, whatever it might be, should never be totally rejected. So, in the case of Paul the extremely zealous Jew, being freed from his Torah-centered idolatry does not mean that Torah should be rejected. On the contrary, he affirms all the more “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12). So it is for all other idolatries of “the present age” or “this world.” What is necessary on the parts of believers is to discern what is the true revelation in it – what is “holy, just and good” in it. Thus Paul writes: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (12:2).15

            In sum: My interpretation of the teaching of Rom 1:26-27 for believers today is grounded in the convictional structure of the text (and can also be grounded in the figurative intertextual dimension of the text emphasized by Furnish) that I chose as the most significant feature of the text. Thus my reading is legitimate: it is supported by the text. Yet, of course, one can choose to ground one’s interpretation in other significant dimensions of the text – as Readings # 2, # 3, and # 4 legitimately do.

            Theological Choices. My interpretation is framed by the hermeneutical-theological presupposition that the primary role of a scriptural text such as Rom 1:26-27 (as a part of the entire letter) can be designated by the metaphors “Corrective Glasses” or “Holy Bible.” We will see that the other readings have chosen to approach the text by presupposing quite different roles that need to be designated by other metaphors.

            For Christian believers, the text functions as “Corrective Glasses” when it allows them to discern what is happening around them in life.16 Through the corrective lenses of Rom 1:26-27, I can recognize that the manifestations of homosexual violence (and heterosexual violence!) around me are consequences of idolatry. Thus, still looking at these through Romans as Scripture, I find that I have to strive to discern in these manifestations what is the “good and acceptable and perfect” which has been absolutized and turned into monstrous and oppressive sexual practices. Then, lo and behold, I discover that these homosexual idolaters have received a revelation or gift from God that I as a heterosexual do not have, and that I need, therefore, to receive from them.

            For me, this text as Scripture also functions as “Holy Bible”; it brings about an encounter with the Holy One, a shattering experience. This is especially the case for me, a heterosexual Christian believer, who has for so long considered homosexuals through the dark glasses of my homophobia (here, an idolatrous bondage in which I was caught and still risk to be caught at any time). Discovering that those whom I despised are bearers of a precious gift from God, a revelation that I and other heterosexuals need to receive from them, is a “goose bumps” experience in which my homophobia is shattered by finding myself in presence of the Holy Other by reading this text and by encountering homosexuals who are bearers of this divine gift for me. This “goose bumps” experience includes a no less shattering reaffirmation that heterosexual relationships are themselves a good gift from God, provided they are not absolutized; otherwise they similarly become an abusive and destructive monster.

            Of course, my interpretation is framed by my emphasis of other hermeneutical-theological categories, such as idolatry, the Gospel as a power which liberates from all kinds of bondage, especially the bondage to the power of idols, also known as bondage to the power of sin.

            Contextual Choices. My reading presupposes a situation where homophobia is rampant both in society or culture, and among heterosexual Christian believers like me. At first, this teaching seems to reinforce homophobia, since Rom 1:26-27 presents homosexual relations as lustful, degrading, violent, and abusive, in the same way as homophobic people think of pedophilia and rape when they hear about homosexuality. But when it becomes clear that Rom 1:26-27 presents idolatry and its concrete manifestations, homophobia is itself challenged. According to this reading, homophobia is itself an idolatry, from which I and others in my context need to be freed again and again by encountering homosexuals as brothers and sisters from whom we have much to learn and to receive, precisely because of their difference. This was my experience as I read the amazing book by Joretta Marshall, Counseling Lesbian Partners, from which I learned so much about intimate covenantal relationships as gifts of God.17                     

            This reading also presupposes a situation where degrading, oppressive and abusive homosexual relationship exist. As in any case of abuse, the cycle of violence cannot be broken without on-going help from outsiders. Paul’s letter to the Romans promises such help, from brothers and sisters who offer their bodies in living sacrifice (Rom 12:1), even as they recognize themselves as members of a very diverse body of Christ (12:3-8) in which everyone should “outdo one another in showing honor” to other members (12:10), or, as Paul says in Philippians 2:3, “in humility regard others as better than yourselves”).

            It is helpful to identify the root-problem that characterizes the basic need of Christian believers in this context. I have presupposed that this root-problem is lack of ability, bondage. Christian believers need to be empowered to overcome either their homophobia or their oppressive homosexual relationships. In order to overcome my homophobia, I need, again and again, the help of others, and in particular of homosexuals who can be Christ for me.

            My reading of Rom 1:26-27 as presented above is critical, not because it argues that it is the only legitimate reading of this text, but rather because it acknowledges its autobiographical character, its analytical, hermeneutical-theological, and contextual choices. Yet, these became apparent only because I compared it with other readings of this text, and because I viewed these readings as other autobiographical interpretations, based on equally legitimate and plausible, though different, interpretive choices.

            My own interpretation is not worthy of the qualification “critical” as long as I do not affirm the equal legitimacy and plausibility of these other interpretations. I will do so (in an abbreviated way due to lack of space) by presenting these interpretations following the same format for easy comparison. It is only afterwards that, together with interpreters who have chosen other interpretations, we can debate what “the best interpretation” is (ethically and theologically) in specific contexts.

 

Reading # 2 of Rom 1:26-27

 

            The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. (Step 1)  According to this reading, Rom 1:26-27 offers a moral teaching for Christian believers who are tempted to be homosexuals. This teaching can be summarized by the phrase, “You shall not commit homoerotic acts.”

            Textual Choices. (Step 2) This conclusion results from reading this part (and many other parts) of Romans as paraenetic literature. This type of literature, epitomized by the Book of Proverbs, strings together moral teachings that can be read independently from each other. Thus, the text which is read is: Rom 1: 26-27 by itself.

            Choosing to read these verses by themselves, as a stand-alone moral teaching, might be surprising, when one remembers that this is a part of the letter that Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, writes to the Romans in order to proclaim the good news of God’s grace and the central role of faith. But, one can justify the choice of this Textual Choices by noting, for instance, that Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” (u`pakoh pi,stewj, 1:5), and that this letter like any other letter includes exhortations to the moral life, besides other things. In the same way that it is legitimate to read this letter thematically to identify what Paul has to say about God’s righteousness, Christology, or any number of other themes found in it, so it is legitimate to read this letter to identify what Paul presents as sins and vices. Rom 1:26-27 presents homoerotic behavior as sinful and, therefore, as a behavior that one should not commit.

            When the text is read as a paraenetic teaching condemning a certain behavior, what is most significant in it is, of course, the description of this behavior. One needs to have a clear view of what one should not do. Consequently, in this reading, one closely examines the connotations of each of the words, as a window upon a sinful reality that needs to be avoided. What is the behavior that Paul condemns? In this reading it is argued that the most probable and legitimate conclusion is that here Paul refers to, and condemns, any homoerotic act by lesbians and gays (so, e.g., Hays,18 Brooten, as well as Bahnsen, Becker, Strecker, Van de Spijker, and many others listed in Brooten’s annotated bibliography19). This analytical (largely philological) conclusion is the necessary basis for the above teaching. Yet, in interpretations supporting other conclusions, scholars have strongly argued that Paul was condemning pederasty (Scroggs,20 Smith21), or cultic homosexuality (Ridderbos,22 Wengst23), as well as (less convincingly in my view), homosexual acts by heterosexuals (Boswell on the basis of John Chrysostom24).

            Theological Choices. (Step 2) This reading presupposes that the primary role of Rom 1:26-27 as Scripture is to be “A Lamp to the Feet and Light for the Path” of the believers (Ps 119:105). Scripture teaches believers God’s “righteous ordinances” and “precepts,” i.e., what they should or should not do, step by step. This teaching also gives them the sense of direction for their lives that they lack, because they do not know what is good or evil. The concept of sin presupposed here is one in which sin is grounded in a lack of knowledge of God’s will, possibly resulting from a “suppression of the truth” (Rom 1:18, 21). Acknowledging God’s will is then expected to overcome sinful conduct.

            Contextual Choices.  (Steps 1 and  3)  This interpretation and its teaching presuppose concrete situations – for instance, a permissive society with lax morality – in which individuals lack direction for their lives and more specifically do not know what they should do or not do, what is God’s will (as a law). This passage from Scripture teaches them one thing that Christians should not do: “You shall not commit homoerotic acts.”

            This teaching is addressed to people who are inclined to have homoerotic relationships, and it presupposes that such people (“they”) have such an inclination, because they lack the knowledge that homoeroticism is against God’s will. From this perspective, sins such as same-sex intercourse are a matter of free choice that reflects a lack of (or wrong) knowledge, rather than a matter of sexual orientation. But is this the reality of the situation? This question will need to be raised in the debate regarding the relative value of the different readings.

 

Reading # 3 of Rom 1:26-27

 

            The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. (Step 1)  According to this third reading, Rom 1:26-27 teaches: Homoeroticism is one of the sinful practices that are unacceptable in the Christian community, as the vices described in 1:28-32 are. This teaching is primarily addressed to heterosexual Christian believers. They should shun and/or ostracize homosexuals and other sinners, condemning their behavior in the hope that they will repent. Until they repent, these sinners are not full and legitimate members of the community. If they remain in their sin, the church might have to exclude them from the community. This teaching is also addressed to Christians who are practicing homosexuals; it demands that they repent from their sin. Such is, in brief, the conclusion reached by Brooten, who rejects this teaching.25

            Textual Choices. (Step 2) This conclusion is closely related to the preceding one, yet it is distinct, because Rom 1:26-27 is now read together with 1:28-32 as a part of a “Rule for Community Life.” This focus is quite appropriate, since it is clear that this letter is concerned with issues of community life.

            The rest of the analytical focus is the same as the preceding one. Since the text is read as a “Rule for Community Life,” what is most significant in these verses is, once again, the description of this behavior. Consequently, here also, the connotations of each of the words are most significant; each descriptive term used by Paul is a window upon a sinful behavior which needs to be banned from the community. The conclusion is once again that in Rom 1:26-27 Paul refers to, and condemns, any homoerotic acts by lesbians and gays; these are particularly serious sins, as is signaled by their relatively lengthy description at the beginning of the list of sinful behaviors.26

            Theological Choices. (Step 2) The primary role of Rom 1:26-27 as scriptural text has changed. This reading presupposes that the role of Scripture for Christian believers is to be an authoritative “Canon,” that is, a “measure” for assessing the quality of behavior of the members of a community; an authoritative “Rule for Community Life.”27 Ultimately, this authoritative Canon is expected to mold the will of believers so that they will conform to the norms of the community. This authoritative Canon has this power of persuasion, because it includes threats against sinners, who are without excuse, because “they know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die” (Rom 1:32), as Brooten emphasizes.28

            This reading presupposes a concept of sin according to which sin is grounded in a lack of will to do God’s will, a rebellion against God that brings about a “suppression of the truth” (Rom 1:18, 21) – instead of the reverse understanding (see Reading # 1, for which sin is rooted in a lack of knowledge of God’s will).

            Contextual Choices. (Steps 1 and  3)  This interpretation and its teaching presuppose a Christian community life in a permissive society with lax morality. The major pragmatic problem in this context is a lack of will to do God’s will – because people want to follow their desires, rather than respect  “the social order established by God at the creation”; thus, sin is “not a private sin against a system of private morality as contemporary Christians may understand.”29

 

Reading # 4 of Rom 1:26-27

 

            The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. (Step 1)  According to this fourth reading, Rom 1:26-27 teaches heterosexuals who condemn homosexuals: Homoeroticism is a sin among others; hate the sin, but love the sinners, as God loves them. Homosexuals are like any other sinners, and thus, should not be singled out as “them”! Christians should recognize as full members of the community those homosexuals who struggle with God’s grace to overcome their homosexual inclination (as other people also struggle to overcome their own sins), even though, like everybody else, again and again they need forgiveness, because they failed in their struggle against sin. All of us, Christian believers, and members of the community of faith, are “recovering sinners” by God’s grace and through faith, whatever might be our sin. Consequently, according to this reading, the teaching that Rom 1:26-27 (together with the rest of the letter) brings to homosexuals is the good news of God’s unconditional love for them.

            Textual Choices. (Step 2) This conclusion is different from the preceding ones because Rom 1:26-27 is now read as  part of Paul’s argument in Rom 1:16-3:31, or even Rom 1:16-5:21.

            According to this reading, what is most significant in the text is, first, the way in which Paul ties together the description of homosexuals with that of other sinners, not only in 1:28-32, but also in the following chapters, and second, the place of this description in the rhetoric of the letter. From this perspective, one recognizes that 1:26-27 is part of a “rhetorical sting.” Through the description of homoerotic acts and other vices, Paul coaxes his readers to condemn those who commit such vices (as Readings # 2 and # 3 do!). Then, Paul continues: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things” (Rom 2:1). From the perspective of this interpretation, the point is that all people, whatever might be their sins, are equally sinners, in rebellion against God the Creator and in need of God’s grace. “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:22-24). In other words, Rom 1:26-27 is part of the proclamation of the Gospel as good news of God’s reconciliation with all human beings, while they are still sinners: “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us . . .  For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (5:8, 10). Such is, in brief, Richard Hays’s interpretation.30

            Theological Choices. (Step 2) The primary role of a scriptural text such as Rom 1:26-27 (as a part of 1:16-5:21) has once again changed. Now the interpretation presupposes that Scripture functions like a “Family Album” and/or as “Good News.” By the metaphor “Family Album” I seek to express that according to this interpretation the role of Scripture is to establish and reinforce the believer’s identity and vocation as a member of the family of God. Here, it gives believers a true sense of relationship to other children of God – all of whom, including homosexuals, are sinners – and to God who is in the same relationship with every member of this family (God does not show partiality, 3:22). The more traditional metaphor “Good News” expresses that the message of the Gospel for sinners, including homosexuals, is not a negative word of condemnation, but a positive word affirming God’s unconditional love for them, and, therefore, that God’s will and commands are to be trusted; it requires from them what is good for them.

            This reading presupposes a concept of sin as grounded in a lack of will to do God’s will, a rebellion against God that brings about a “suppression of the truth” (Rom 1:18, 21) as in Reading # 3. But according to Reading # 4, such a wrong will is not changed by an authoritative condemnation and the threat of exclusion from the community (as is presupposed in Reading # 3), but by an invitation to respond to God’s love, as well as by the compassionate inclusion of the sinners in a church community with the help of which all sinners struggle to progressively turn away from their sinful inclinations, whatever they might be, including homosexual orientation. The Christian community must remember that it lives in the tension between the “now” and the “not yet” of the gospel that gives all Christians, including homosexuals, the possibility to overcome their rebellion against God and their wrong will, and to have a “disciplined” life free from homoeroticism.31

            Contextual Choices. (Steps 1 and  3)  This reading offers a teaching for members of the church who have a wrong will as they show by being judgmental and by rejecting homosexuals, in a knee jerk reaction. It is a teaching for heterosexual Christians who are homophobic – when homophobia is understood as resulting from a wrong will (that can therefore be freely changed by an act of will). These heterosexual Christians are led to recognize that their church community is not a community of people free from sin, but rather a community of “recovering sinners,” whatever might be their particular sin. Homophobic Christians are thus challenged to conceive of the church as an inclusive community, in which everyone needs to benefit from God’s grace, and everyone needs the support of the other members of the church as all strive to overcome their particular sins. They should “hate the sin” (homoeroticism), “but love the sinners” (homosexuals).

            This reading also offers a teaching for homosexuals. In a homophobic society, homosexuals are victims of homophobia. They are constantly marginalized, excluded, rejected, ostracized, psychologically abused, if not physically abused. As a consequence, they often lose any sense of self-worth. Victimized by homophobia, they end up seeing themselves as victims. The good news of the gospel is that, without pre-conditions, homosexuals, as well as other sinners, are fully accepted and loved by God, by contrast with their being ostracized in society.

            In sum, proclaiming this good news and living by it involves welcoming homosexuals without conditions – with the convictions that God’s loving Word transforms people in rebellion against God.

 

Epilogue

 

            Then, should not this practice of autobiographical criticism conclude by arguing that one of these interpretations is “better” than the others? As a biblical critic, I am tempted to do so by claiming that my own interpretation is better grounded in the text. How much do I long for the subject/object dichotomy and the closure it promises! But, this would “close down” the critical process, instead of promoting it. This is why I want to insist that the comparative practice of autobiographical criticism should remain open-ended. Its role is to open up the possibility of a debate, a true live-debate, in a community, regarding the best hermeneutical-theological and contextual choices in given situations.

            Obviously, I favor my own reading. I have very good reasons for choosing it. But the prophetic word needs to be heard, claimed, and proclaimed by a community. Thus, my interpretation is placed on the round-table of a debate in which proponents of other interpretations will also participate. Our respective elucidations of the characteristic analytical, hermeneutical-theological, and contextual Choices of several interpretations demonstrate the need for a debate. There are real choices before us, requiring a decision from the community. Should we reject any homoerotic act? Should homosexuals be shunned in the Christian community? Should homosexual inclinations be viewed as a sin from which homosexuals should strive to free themselves with the help of the community? Or should homosexual abusive relationships, as any other abusive relationships, be rejected as monstrous idolatrous behaviors, even as the community is gratefully enriched by the God-sent gifts of “holy, just and good” homosexual and heterosexual relationships? Such a round-table debate – a debate in which each interpretation is recognized as equally legitimate and plausible – is called for by the fact that our interpretations are autobiographical and scriptural. I cannot impose on others my own choice of an interpretation, although I hope to convince them to adopt it, as they hope to convince me to adopt theirs. A scriptural interpretation must be examined and validated within a debate in a community of believers, because it is an interpretation of Scripture for their life as believers in a concrete context. This debate is, therefore, regulated by two kinds of questions related to the twofold commandments of loving God and loving neighbors. What is the “best” interpretation, when “best” is assessed in terms of convictions, and thus of the hermeneutical-hermeneutical categories that Choices each interpretation? What is the “best” interpretation, when “best” is assessed in terms of the positive or negative effects it has upon believers and upon people around them in particular life-contexts?

            As I “show honor” (Rom 12:10) to each reading, considering others as better than myself, rather than trying to impose my own reading upon others - an idolizing practice, in which I act as if my interpretation was the universally true and good reading, - I prevent the devastating effects of idolatry and its cycle of violence, and free myself, again and again, from the temptation to make idols. Instead of suppressing the truth (Rom 1:18) that each of our interpretations is autobiographical and framed by interpretive choices and, thereby, instead of turning my interpretation into a tool of oppression to victimize all “others” who have different interpretations, a comparative practice of autobiographical criticism calls me to recognize different interpreters as “Others” (manifestations of the holy Other for me) from whom I have much to learn. Then, gathered together at this round-table, pondering the Word that Rom 1:26-27 has for us in a given context, we can hope to “discern what the will of God is – what is good and acceptable and perfect” (Rom 12:2).

 

Bibliography

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980).

Brooten, Bernadette J. Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996).

Bultmann, Rudolf. “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith: Shorter Writings of Rudolf Bultmann (trans.  Schubert M. Ogden.  Cleveland: World Meridian Publishing, 1960), 289-96.

Countryman, L. William. Dirt Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics of the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988).

Edson, Margaret. W;T: A Play (New York: Farrar Straus & Giroux, 1999).

Edwards, George R. Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (New York: Pilgrim, 1984).

Fewell, Danna Nolan and Gary A. Phillips, eds. Bible and Ethics of Reading (Semeia, 77; Atlanta: Scholars, 1998).

Furnish, Victor Paul. The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues (2nd ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1985).

_____________. “The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context,” in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate (ed. J. S. Siker; Louisville:    Westminster John Knox, 1994), 18-35.

 

_____________. “What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?” in Caught in the Crossfire: Helping Christians Debate Homosexuality (ed. S. B. Geis and D. E. Messer; Nashville:    Abingdon, 1994), 57-66.

Grenholm, Cristina and Daniel Patte. “Overture: Receptions, Critical Interpretations, and Scriptural Criticism,” in Reading Israel In Romans: Legitimacy and Plausibility of     Divergent Interpretations (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 2000), 1-54.

Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament. A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996).

____________. “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of   Romans 1,” JRE 14 (1986): 184-215.

Marshall, Joretta L. Counseling Lesbian Partners (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997).

Miller, James.“The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?” NT 37 (1995): 1-11.

Moxnes, Halvor. “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul's Letter to the Romans,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark    Kee (ed. J. Neusner; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 207-18.

____________. “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” JSNT 32 (1988): 61-77.

Patte, Daniel. PaulÂ’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).

____________. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995).

____________. Discipleship According to the Sermon on the Mount: Four Legitimate Readings, Four Plausible Views of Discipleship and Their Relative Values (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1996).

____________. The Challenge of Discipleship: A Critical Study of the Sermon on the Mount as Scripture (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999)

Patte, Daniel, with Monya A. Stubbs, Justin Ukpong, and Revelation E. Velunta. The Gospel of Matthew: A Contextual Introduction for Group Study (Nashville: Abingdon, 2002).

Ridderbos, Simon Jan. “Bibel und Homosexualität,” in Der homosexuelle Nächste: Ein Symposion (ed. H. Bianchi; Hamburg: Furche, 1963), 50-73.

Ringe, Sharon H. “Plus ça change, plus c’est la mLme chose: Changing Demographics in Biblical Studies,” Religious Studies News, SBL Edition, vol. 2, no. 8 (November 2001). ( http://www.sbl-site.org/Newsletter/11_2001/Ringe.html).

Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. ”The Ethics of Interpretation: De-centering Biblical Scholarship,” JBL 107 (1988): 3-17

Schweitzer, Albert. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (trans. W. Montgomery. New York: Macmillan, 1948); German original, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung   (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1906).

Scroggs, Robin. The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983).

Smith, Abraham. “The New Testament and Homosexuality,” QR 11 (1991): 18-32.

Troeltsch, Ernst. “Historiography,” in Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ed. J. Hastings; New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1914), 6:716-23.

Wengst, Klaus.“Paulus und die Homosexualität,” ZEE 31 (1987): 72-81.


10 A passage that is most significant in my own interpretation. See Daniel Patte, PaulÂ’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to the Pauline Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 256-96.

11 Victor Paul Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul: Selected Issues (2nd ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1985), 72-77. See also idem, “The Bible and Homosexuality: Reading the Texts in Context,” in Homosexuality in the Church: Both Sides of the Debate (ed. J. S. Siker; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1994), 18-35, and “What Does the Bible Say about Homosexuality?” in Caught in the Crossfire: Helping Christians Debate Homosexuality (ed. S. B. Geis and D. E. Messer; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994), 57-66. See also George R. Edwards, Gay/Lesbian Liberation: A Biblical Perspective (New York: Pilgrim, 1984), 85-100 (where, among other things, Edwards rehearses Furnish’ argument).

12 Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 76-77.

13 Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 73, 78. On Paul having in view pederasty, see also Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality: Contextual Background for Contemporary Debate (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 29-65, and Abraham Smith, “The New Testament and Homosexuality” QR 11 (1991): 18-32. This last point is reinforced when Rom 1:26-27 is interpreted in terms of honor and shame (thus my mention of “shameful” not found in Furnish). See L. William Countryman, Dirt Greed and Sex: Sexual Ethics of the New Testament and Their Implications for Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 109-123. Halvor Moxnes, “Honor, Shame, and the Outside World in Paul's Letter to the Romans,” in The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark Kee (ed. J. Neusner; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 207-18; and “Honour and Righteousness in Romans,” JSNT 32 (1988): 61-77.

14 Patte, PaulÂ’s Faith, 263-77.

15 I am summarizing in a few sentences the detailed examination of several texts. See Patte, PaulÂ’s Faith, 277-96.

16 Furnish also presupposes this view of the role of this text as Scripture, although he does not use this metaphor. See Furnish, The Moral Teaching of Paul, 80.

17 Joretta L. Marshall, Counseling Lesbian Partners (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997). See Daniel Patte, The Challenge of Discipleship: A Critical Study of the Sermon on the Mount as Scripture (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1999), 170-73.

18 Hays, like everyone in this category, focuses the attention on Paul’s reference to “natural” and “unnatural” intercourse. Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996), 387, and “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” JRE 14 (1986): 184-215, here 185.

19 Bernadette J. Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 240-41, 281-302, and her annotated bibliography, 363-72, where she mentions the other scholars on this list.

20 Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality.

21 Smith, “The New Testament and Homosexuality.” Smith follows Scroggs.

22 Simon Jan Ridderbos, “Bibel und Homosexualität,” in Der homosexuelle Nächste: Ein Symposion (ed. H. Bianchi; Hamburg: Furche, 1963), 50-73. He emphasizes that the reference might be to cultic prostitution, because of the directly preceding references to idolatry.

23 Klaus Wengst, “Paulus und die Homosexualität,” ZEE 31 (1987): 72-81.

24 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 107-14. See James Miller, “The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual?” NT 37 (1995): 1-11.

25 Brooten, Love Between Women, 302.

26 Brooten, Love Between Women, 264.

27 This is the view of the role of Scripture presupposed by Brooten, Love Between Women, 302.

28 Brooten, Love Between Women, 263, 302.

29 Brooten, Love Between Women, 264.

30 Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 394-403. This is also the analytical conclusion of Balz, Ridderbos, Strecker, and Van de Spijker, as Brooten notes in Love Between Women, 363-72.

31 Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, 403.