Comments on: Barack Obama, first-rate theologian: on Romans 1, Matthew 5, and “obscurity”

By: Russ

Russ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:52:10 +0000

Sorry for the typo - the page # is 387, not 87.

By: Russ

Russ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:51:37 +0000

I could be wrong, of course, but I’m guessing the author (or preacher) of the “nice summary” you link can’t actually read Greek. Someone who can is New Testament scholar Richard Hays of Duke Divinity School (not exactly a bastion of fundamentalism), who argues that so far from being obscure, _para physin_ was “commonplace,” “abundantly used” by both Romans and Hellenistic Jews to refer to homosexuality, as opposed to _kata physin_ (in accordance with nature) for the sexual relation of men and women in marriage. _The Moral Vision_ p. 87 (it’s available on google books)

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:18:10 +0000

Thanks, Profane, for an excellent and expanded exegesis.

And yes, I’m a small “e” evangelical like I’m a small “c” catholic.

By: Profane

Profane — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 15:36:31 +0000

Side point: I would distinguish between an ‘evangelical’, which describes all Christians who spread the ‘Good News’, and an ‘Evangelical’, which describes a particular subset. To extend the analogy, I consider myself to be catholic, evangelical, and orthodox without being Catholic, Evangelical, and Orthodox.

While the ‘para physin’ phrase is certainly ‘obscure’, I do not find the Chapter itself to pose significant problems of interpretation. Paul’s thought here really begins at verse 18. To break it down:

18-21 God’s wrath’s has descended upon those who suppress the truth, in particular those who have knowledge of God but fail to honor God.

22-23 These ‘wise fools’ turned to idolatry.

Consequently, God imposed the following punishments upon them:

24 Lust and the degradation of their bodies
26-27 Degrading passions and ‘unnatural intercourse’
28 debased minds
29 ‘evil, covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness’
30 [they are] ‘gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious towards parents’ . . .
31 ‘foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless’

But the real enter-point of Paul’s argument here does not occur until the first verse of chapter 2 (which he then elaborates on in the rest of the chapter):

“Therefore you have not excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgement on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.”

‘Para physin’ in this passage is but the first sin (or more precisely, consequence of sin) in a long laundry list. It disturbs me that many Evangelicals denigrate this sin, whatever it means, above others, especially their own. One of my personal struggles is not judging them as a result!

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 02:43:28 +0000

Bill, “cranky” is always a matter of perception; gender invariably colors perception.

But do let’s get back on the thread. Search for my Hillary thread and comment there… this is for Barack and the bible…

By: Funt Of A Thousand Faces

Funt Of A Thousand Faces — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:20:42 +0000

The last line was said with a wink for those who don’t know me as well as he does.

By: Funt Of A Thousand Faces

Funt Of A Thousand Faces — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 01:19:01 +0000

I’m well aware of the last platform you said and I don’t even patently disagree with it. But, to me, she DOES come across the way I described. I’m not even saying she is that way off the podium(how would I know?) but on it I find her off putting. Sorry. It’s easy to say that there’s a double standard but sometimes a person (man or woman), however worthy in other respects, might just come across as cranky.

And why would attacks against her be an excuse for her demeanor in return. Jesus was attacked.

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:57:07 +0000

No, she doesn’t. She strikes me sometimes as exhausted and sharp, two qualities that, given the hellacious personal attacks against her (unprecedented in modern politics) make perfect sense to me. What is contentiousness in a man is crankiness in a woman; what is laudable ambition in a man is perceived as power-hunger in a woman. Sexism works that way, alas.

By: Funt Of A Thousand Faces

Funt Of A Thousand Faces — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 22:06:02 +0000

This is off topic but since this is your latest reference to ‘the junior senator from New York’ I’ll pose this question here.

As usual, I’ll boil things down to their most basic.
Barring whatever else you like about her, does it ever bother you that she often comes across as cranky and mean, assuming that she has ever struck you that way as she does me.

By: Victoria

Victoria — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:16:10 +0000

I’m so glad you wrote this. Citing the bible is such an accepted reason for being against homosexual relationships that you rarely hear real debates on the subject. As someone who is very much not religious this still confuses me because while I think the Bible clearly supports any number of positions that I don’t agree with, homosexuality isn’t one of those positions. The Bible isn’t clear on it at all and it’s incredibly frustrating that right wing evangelicals have won the public perception on this issue.