Other Sheep - Multicultural Ministries with Sexual Minorities

Romans: Paul Deconstructs the Jewsish Homophobic Propaganda Line

Amongst his opponents and fellow Jews, mainly married, whom he was soon to face again in

Jerusalem, with almost fatal consequences, Paul's law-free Gentile mission created suspicion

about

his manhood and that of his mainly unmarried co-workers (see the evidence from 1-2

Corinthians

presented by Jennifer Larson 2004:85-97; also Jennifer Glancy 2004:99-135).

Hence, in

Romans 1:

24-27

Paul first echoes the traditional Jewish propaganda line against

Greco-Roman homoeroticism,

which he had imbibed from his youth (Wisdom of Solomon 14:

24-27) and assimilated in the form of

interiorized homophobia. This approach would have

reassured Paul’s potential allies in the Roman

house churches that not all rumors arriving

from Jerusalem were true. However, once the party line

had been echoed, Paul first springs a

trap on judgmental readers, showing that those who

condemned common pagan idolatry and

deviant sexual behavior (

Romans

2:1-29

) were even more guilty

than the Gentiles who

applauded it (

Romans

1:32). In the succeeding chapters Paul then proceeds to

deconstruct

the Jewish homophobic propaganda line, showing:

that the queer Jesus’ shameful experience of being crucified was in fact the decisive
revelation of God’s liberating justice (Rom 3:21-26), then

that behavior “against nature” was precisely what God himself engaged in when
ingrafting believing Gentiles into the Olive tree of Israel (Rom 11:24; by referring to
Gentiles as uncircumcised “by nature” Paul makes the very rite of circumcision itself a
human cultural imposition, an act “against nature”;(Rom 2:27; see 2:14);

and finally, that behavior traditionally condemned as “unclean” (Rom 1:24) had now
been cleansed (Rom 14:14,20)

Chapter 16

Paul wisely avoids reducing his gospel to any narrow “identity politics” of a

single

oppressed group. The three married couples are warmly greeted and affirmed without

any sense

that such support might threaten or endanger the stability, felicity and sanctity of

the many sexual

minority partnerships and living arrangements. The Apostle had made quite

clear elsewhere that he

thought those who decided to become heterosexual and get married

had settled for something less

than God’s best (1 Cor 7), but he would not condemn them for

their weakness. If they would be co-

laborers in his law-free Gentile mission, their handicap

would be graciously overlooked.

Although many imagine that Paul sought to condemn all male slaves subjected to same-sex

and anal

intercourse (the dominant interpretation of Rom 1:27), that definitely could not

qualify as “good

news to the poor,” since slaves (male and female) commonly were expected

to satisfy their owners

sexual desires (Craig Williams 1999:30-38; Jennifer Glancy 1998:481-

501; Karen Lebacqz 1987:21-

22, 42-43). Had Paul really intended to demand that Christian

slaves be willing to face the death

penalty rather than fulfill their sexual obligations to their

masters, he surely would have made that

clear when he gave his instructions concerning

Christian sexual behavior later in the epistle (

Rom

13:11-

). However, Paul’s epistolary

exhortations address agents who are free to fulfill them, such as

Christian males tempted to

visit prostitutes (see 1 Cor 5-7). For Christian slaves to be “free from

sin” (

Rom 6

) and free

from the wrath of God (

Rom 5:9

) did not imply that they became free from

fulfilling their sexual

obligations to their owners. The common interpretation of Romans 1:27 as

condemning all

males involved in any kind of “homosexual act” in effect has Paul proclaiming God’s

wrath

against the poor, the oppressed, victims of violence and rape, and not just their

oppressors.

The Twelve Young Tress That Make A New Forest

José P. Miranda and Tom Hanks

Oppressed sexual minority churches with slave

members and women leaders

(Rom 16)

Elsa Tamez

Justification of the oppressed as acceptance and vindication of

marginalized --poor slaves, sexual minorities, led by women

(Romans 3:21-5:3; 14:1;

15:7).

Dale Martin and David Frederickson

Excessive desire/covetousness prohibited—

transcendent norm:

(Romans

1:24, 26-27; 13:8-14

)

Elizabeth Stuart and Eugene Rogers

n excess of / against nature, deconstructed

norm (1)

(Romans

1:26-27; 2:14, 27; 11:24

)

William Countryman and Daniel Helminiak

Uncleanness, deconstructed norm (2)

(Romans

1:24; 14:14, 20

)

Halvor Moxnes and Robert Jewett

Shame / loss of honor

(1:24, 26-27)

and the

Gospel of a crucified Messiah as Redeemer-liberator, deconstructed

norm (3)

(Romans

1:16-

17; 3:21-26; 5:2-3,11

)

James Miller

Romans 1:26 not lesbians

(Bowen 1997; cf. Brooten 1996; Moore 2001).

Robin Scroggs

Paedofilia and Rom 1:26

(since 1:26 does not refer to lesbians, Scroggs

remains unrefuted).

Matthew Kuefler

Cultic Prostitution

(Romans

1:25, center of

Romans

1:24-27;

Romans

18-23; Lev 18:21-22; 20:1-5, 13

)

Saul Olyan

Lev 18:22 and 20:13

condemn only male-male anal sex, not males of

homosexual orientation nor male homoeroticism in general.

Freed from the Law

(Rom 10:4; 7:1-25) but

filled with the Spirit for a praxis of

liberating justice

(2:12-29; 8:1-4) and

walking in love

(12:1-14).

Diana Swancutt

(2003):

Our limited hermeneutical perspective: caught in the

Rhetorical Trap of a “repressed homosexual”

(Gerd Theissen 1983/7): Rom 2:1-16.

Excursus

. Philip Esler:

Sodom and Gomorrah in Rom 9:25-26, Paul’s lost rhetorical

opportunity?

A Gay Apostle’s Queer Epistle for a Peculiar People: Romans 1:24-27 in its Context
Rev. Dr. Tom Hanks

Part 2
Introduction:
Twelve Young Trees That Make a New Forest

Note: The pound sign (#) indicates that more detail or related treatment
of the marked subject is discuessed in other place(s) in this docuemnt.