Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities

Clobbering back with the Clobber texts:
Taking the Bible Seriously - Are There Clobber Texts in the Bible?
Rev. Dr. Thomas Hanks

Part 4:
Deconstructing our homophobia: with Paul in Romans

Romans 1:26-27: Recent History of Interpretation

ROMANS 1:26-27: Recent History of Interpretation

Some 40 years ago, even traditionalist academic types began to set aside the 48 biblical references
to Sodom as providing no valid basis for condemning homosexuality -- a considerable retreat from
what had been the main bastion of homophobic misuse of the Bible! For the next 30 years
traditionalists struggled to maintain some biblical rationale for their bigotry by using the six other
purported "clobber texts" we are studying. In the last decade, these traditionalist ideologues
increasingly have had to concede that none of the texts we have studied so far gives any basis for
condemning homosexuality. At present the only prooftext many still cite with any confidence is
Romans 1:26-27, but even in the case of this final bastion, with almost every presentation of the
argument, further concessions are made that weaken their case. Like the last autumn leaf clinging to
a tree, the traditional homophobic interpretation of Romans 1, abandoned by other texts thought to
be supportive, appears exceedingly fragile. When surrounded by a great cluster of 48 texts against
"sodomy" (including two from Jesus) and bolstered by the other five "clobber" texts examined here, it
seemed invincible -- but standing in lonely isolation it is a weak reed that cannot support the great
weight that is bearing down on it.

Since the disappearance of support from 48 sodomy texts and the rapid withdrawal of five other
"clobber" texts, traditionalist academics increasingly turn to the Genesis creation narrative. There
God is said to have created "Adam and Eve," not "Adam and Steve" (leaving unanswered the
obvious question: where did Steve come from?). However, the new desperate recourse to find an
ally in the Genesis creation story creates more problems than it solves: the narrative contains the
clear, explicit command to "be fruitful and multiply" and culminates with the Sabbath institution
(Genesis 2:1-3, which became one of the Ten Commandments). How can traditionalist apologists
practice birth control and break the sabbath commands, but still hope to construct an ethical
absolute from a detail in a narrative (literary genre!) which is not even a command or prohibition?
(Countryman 1992). Traditionalist academics are usually among the first to insist that we cannot get
ethical absolutes from biblical narratives (for instance, to require that every Christian must speak in
tongues, because a few churches in Acts did so).

If we take the modern "sound-byte" approach and read Romans 1:26-27 hurriedly and out of
context, we easily get the impression that Paul is not only grossly ignorant regarding the basic
scientific facts about what we call "homosexuality," but also hopelessly homophobic -- and
xenophobic (giving the mistaken impression that the sexual activity described only occurs among
Gentiles!). However, in fact virtually every Greek term Paul uses, the point of this "sermon
illustration" (literary genre!), its relation to the immediate context, the structure and message of the
book of Romans, and the hermeneutics to be employed (including the correlation of modern science
with Paul's very limited scientific horizon), all have become subjects of intense scholarly debate (in
which even traditionalist academics have begun to get involved -- some 20 years after the basic
questions had already been decided in other circles).

For many, John Boswell's earlier work (1980) opened up the question of the proper interpretation of
Scripture with reference to same-gender sexual acts. Some of his conclusions on details have since
been questioned, but his critics generally seem to fail to grasp his basic point about the historical
and ideological parallels between the anti-semitism that culminated in the Nazi Holocaust, and the
homophobia that has produced an 800-year holocaust against sexual minorities. Conservative
scholars who have begun to show some concern and sensitivity regarding the misuse of the Bible to
foment anti-semitism commonly remain quite bigoted when it comes to the abuse of the Bible to
promote violence against sexual minorities. For instance, commentators rush to assure us that
Paul's reference in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 to "the Jews" do not refer to all Jews, but only to those
who sought to crucify Jesus. But while eager to protect Paul from the appearing to promote the Nazi
Holocaust, many remain eager to promote a Paul who is homophobic and responsible for centuries
of violence against sexual minorities. Boswell's nitpicking critics often look like the cartoon figure
flattened by a steamroller who manages to jump up and shout "Hey, buddy, don't you know you've
got a flat tire?"

The other most influential work in recent history in the interpretation of Romans 1:27 is that of Robin
Scroggs (1983), who concluded that the male same-gender sex practice referred to is pederasty, the
love of an older male for an adolescent. While Scroggs conclusion has been criticized by Brooten
(1996) and Smith (1996), other scholars continue to uphold Scroggs' basic position (James E. Miller
1997a; 1997b). Miller argues that Paul has in view an accepted Gentile practice, and that while
same-gender sex between adult males was not generally approved, pederasty was commonly
accepted. Moreover, he argues, that by using the Greek term arsen (male of any age), instead of
aner (man), Paul implies that at least one of the males involved is not yet a man (1997a).