Week 5—This is the Big One

What is the Good News here?

      This week's session is The Big One. Last week's clobber verses were fairly easily dispatched, but our one remaining clobber verse is the one that's usually the sticking point. It certainly was for me. It's one where we need to use all the tools we've gathered throughout our journey to dig in deep to discern exactly what this passage is about. This week we dig into Romans 1.

       So often the clobber verses are pulled out of context, and thrown down in the midst of argument like a prosecutor triumphantly holding up the final damning piece of evidence to convict the guilty party. And yet, Scripture always needs to be read in context—both it's historical context and it's literary context. As we saw last week, the time we spend exploring the background in which a verse is found is one way we demonstrate the respect we have for God's word. It shows that we care deeply enough to really explore what God is saying through the biblical writers.

       The clobber verses in Rom. 1 are found in Rom. 1:26-27:

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. 

       At face value, this seems to be the clearest of the clobber verses, as well as the only one that appears to address lesbian sex. It raises intriguing questions about what is "natural" and what is "unnatural", and what is the "due penalty" for perversion.

       But most important, it should cause us to wonder about the context—what is happening in the world, in the culture, in the church, that prompts this passage? How does it fit into the larger argument that Paul is making in Romans 1?

       Romans is Paul's most comprehensive explanation of the gospel– which, let's remember, means "good news"—so whatever else this passage means it ought to ring as good news. So how does this harsh clobber verse fit into that good news?

       To see that we need to back up and really look at the context of this passage. We need to explore a big chunk of Scripture. Rather than quote it here, I'm going to ask you to open your Bible or search online and read all of Rom. 1:18-28.  But first, pray. Ask God to speak to you through this passage. Trust the Spirit to open your heart and your eyes to see it with new eyes. You might even read it in several translations.

       Paul trained as a rabbi, a teacher of the law. In Romans you can see this background in play, as he builds a complex, logical argument. As you read Rom. 1, try to follow Paul's argument and where he is going. Keep asking, what is this chapter about? What is his point? The clobber verses in v. 26-27 are not a detour or a tangent, they are part and parcel of a complex, broad, sweeping statement Paul is making. Keeping an eye on that bigger, broader argument is key to understanding the clobber verses. So keep your Bible open to this passage as we trace that argument. 

What is Paul's point?

       Paul is making a grand, large argument here—building it piece by piece. It will take two more chapters to fully unfold. So let's parse it out: 

       His argument is about the sinfulness of the whole world, but in this chapter, he’s focusing on the gentile (non-Jewish) world. In Rom. 1:18-21. Paul is demonstrating that even though they don't have Scripture or the prophets, they "have no excuse" because the evidence of God is all around them—in the creation itself, in the innate moral code—the evidence of God is all around us. And yet, there is sin:

       Rom. 1:18-21: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 

       For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 

       Paul's argument about the sinfulness of the gentile world would be familiar to Jewish Christians—they would be nodding their heads, clucking their tongues about those immoral gentiles. But then… in chapter 2 Paul turns the tables on these Jewish Christians and shows how even the Jews were no better than the Gentiles—that they, too, are sinners.

       Rom. 2:1: You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 

       All this is leading up to a very familiar verse: Rom. 3:23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

       Paul's point, unfolded over three deep and complex chapters, is how the entire world—Jew & Gentile—is broken by sin and in need of a Savior. We are all sinners. This is all pointing to what Paul will spend the rest of the book explaining: why Jesus came to rescue us (all of us) from a fruitless way of life, to offer us the gift of salvation. Rom. 5:8: But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us.

So… why pick on the queer community?

       If Paul's point, then, is about the broad, global nature of sin and brokenness, and the universal need for a Savior-- why focus on same sex relationships? Paul's argument is so broad, so global, so comprehensive, to suddenly switch to something so particular just seems… odd. One would expect the culmination of these verses to be a more common sin like greed or pride or lust for power. Something that underlies the very essence of sin and brokenness itself.

       Remember this most important principle of biblical interpretation: context, context, context. So let's begin with the literary context—the paragraph immediately before our clobber verses.

       Rom. 1:22-25: Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. 

       Reread that first verse: they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images.  Reread the last verse: They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator. 

       What does that sound like? Does "worshiping the created rather than the Creator" sound like what is happening when a same-sex couple commits themselves to one another in a marriage ceremony? When they build a life together? Despite the allusion to "sexual impurity" in the middle of the paragraph, it doesn't sound much like it's about sexuality. Rather, it sounds very much like idolatry. And that fits the bigger, broad, global argument, because idolatry is a major concern throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments. 

       So what is the connection between idolatry and gay and lesbian sex? Here we look at the historical context, remembering that in this chapter, Paul is focusing specifically on the Gentile world. So what's going on in Roman culture?

       When we think today about visiting Rome, we might think of visiting St. Peter's Basilica, beautiful sacred spaces devoted to worshiping who we believe to be the one true God. But, we know that wasn't what you would have seen in the 1st c. In the 1st c. Roman world, as you walked down the street, you'd see, not a Catholic cathedral but rather an assortment of temples devoted to the various Greek and Roman gods. Spaces devoted to idolatrous worship. And inside those temples would be both male and female prostitutes. Worshipers of these pagan gods would visit the temple and have sex with one of those male or female prostitutes to join themselves symbolically to that pagan god or goddess. That connection between sexual relations and pagan cult prostitution is lost for us today because we don't have any of those pagan temples around us, but for people living in that polytheistic culture, it would be obvious.

Where is Aphrodite today?

       We don't have temples to pagan gods and goddesses today, and we're unlikely to make idols out of gold or silver. But we do still struggle with idolatry. Paul's point is about how all sin—the sin of gentiles, the sin of Jews—the sin of all people, gay or straight—is idolatry. 

       If we believe that God is good, God loves us, and God wants only the best for us, then sin—violating God's will—makes no sense. If those things are true, then it literally is illogical to sin.

       And yet we do. I do. And when I sin, while I would never say this explicitly, implicitly I am demonstrating that I doubt that God loves me and wants only the best for me. Which means I am turning away from God and putting my trust in something else. If I'm putting my trust in security, I will be tempted by greed and consumerism. If I'm putting my trust in other's approval, I will be tempted by pride and jealousy. All sin is, at root, idolatry—putting my trust in something other that the goodness of God.

       Pagan cult prostitution was, in it's historical context, merely the most visible and obvious example of this bigger truth—that all of us are prone to putting our trust in the wrong things. In the chapters that follow, Paul will share the good news of the gospel: how Jesus has broken into the world to set us free from all that holds us in bondage and set us free to live the life we were created for—a life of love and joy and belonging.

Lucy & Ricky show us the way… or not

       You may or may not be old enough to remember the I Love Lucy Show. It seemed like every other episode entailed Lucy and Ethel needing for some reason to swap roles with Ricky and Fred. As they took on the traditional tasks of the other gender, inevitably, hilarity ensued.

       The fact that 50 years ago you could write an entire sitcom around the casual assumption that it would be absurd for women to work outside the home or men to cook and clean, is astonishing. Even more so If you read up on the leading role that Lucille Ball played as studio executive and producer of the show.

       In our remaining two sessions, we will explore questions around gender identity. In preparation for that, it’s helpful to look at the broader question of gender roles.

       And here we find a sort of clobber verse for women: Eph. 5:22: Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord.  Note the proximity of this verse to an equally troubling one we looked at last week: Eph. 6:5: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 

       There are three main ways that Christians throughout the centuries have interpreted Paul's command in Eph. 5:22: #1. Patriarchy: the notion that men are to be prioritized in home and society. #2. Complementarianism: the notion that men and women have different but complementary roles in marriage, family life, and the church. Though women are given much more restricted roles, complementarians will say they are "equal in moral value and of equal status."  #3. Egalitarianism: all human persons are created equally in God's sight. All are equal in fundamental worth and status, with equal responsibility to use their gifts to the glory of God without regard to class, gender, race or sexuality. 

       It probably won't surprise you that I argue for a Christian egalitarian view. And again, the context of our clobber verse is key.

       The verse immediately proceeding Eph. 5:22 is: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.  How is this verse related to vs. 22?

       Remember that things like verse numbers and paragraph breaks are not found in the original texts, but are added later by the translators for convenience and ease of reading. Some translators will place vs. 21 in a separate paragraph from vs. 22, as if they are unrelated. However, I believe this is an error—and I believe the grammar of vs. 22 supports this. Because, it turns out, there is no verb in vs. 22. The Greek literally reads: Wives, your husbands as to the Lord.  That makes no sense!

       But, unlike in English, in Koine Greek, you can borrow the verb from the prior sentence. So, if you disconnect vs. 21 and vs. 22 you get a nonsense sentence fragment. But if you connect vs. 21 and 22 in one paragraph you can borrow the verb, and it makes sense:

       Eph. 5:21-22:  Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 

       But that means that, whatever Paul is saying to wives in vs. 22 he is saying to everyone—all believers—in vs. 21. In fact, he is using the exact same word.

       If you now look at what follows, in vs. 23-24 Paul uses the analogy of the church and Christ to explain how wives should submit to their husbands.  But then he turns and addresses husbands:

       Eph. 5:25, 28:  Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her… In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 

       Paul doesn't literally use the word "submit" here, but he describes something that looks like submission to me. How did Christ love the church? He gave himself up for her. What does it mean to submit to another? To give yourself up for the other, to serve them in love. I believe what Paul is saying to wives in vs. 22, he is also saying to husbands in vs. 25-28.

       In fact, I think seeing vs. 21 as the topic sentence is the key to understanding the entire passage—including that problematic statement about slavery. An outline of the passage would look like this:

       Thesis statement:  Eph. 5:21: Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 

vs. 22-24: Wives to husbands

vs. 25-33: Husbands to wives

vs. 6:1-3: Children to parents

vs. 6:4-5: Fathers to children

vs. 6:6-8: Slaves to masters

vs. 6:9: Masters to slaves

       Paul gives us six examples of mutual submission in three pairs—first, one that would be clear and obvious to his readers (women, children, slaves)— then a parallel one that would surprise and challenge them (husbands, fathers, masters). I believe his overall point is that we are to submit to one another— to care for and prioritize each other, just as Christ loved and submitted—gave himself up—for us. 

       If you are a husband or father, this changes everything. But if you are a wife, in one way, nothing changes—you're still called to prioritize and care for your spouse. But, on the other hand, it changes everything about our identity. We are not called to mutual submission because we are weak, subordinate, or of lesser priority. We are called to mutual submission because we are following Jesus, who came to serve and to care for everyone.

Lord, I have a lot to learn about mutual submission. It is a hard discipline, and I can be a feisty thing. Help me to see this calling through a new lens. Not to deny my agency or my value or my authentic self. Rather, empower me by your Holy Spirit so that it might be an outflowing of your love and grace poured out for me. Help me to follow you in loving, including and serving all, regardless of gender, race, class, or sexuality. Amen.