Ah, the ol' arsenokoitai debate

I think I've read pretty much every major theological article and book on the Pauline references to homosexuality, and my conclusion is that we just can't know. Curse Paul for not including a glossary. The view I find most likely is that Paul was indeed opposed to homosexuality, for much the same reasons that he opposed non-submissive women – because he believed that homosexuality went against the natural gender order of the created world. Bernadette Brooten, who devotes no less than one hundred pages to the Romans passage in her book, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism, makes a persuasive argument in this regard. However, an evangelical acquaintance of mine from Bridges Across has made an equally persuasive case that the gender disruption that Paul was opposing was that of the gender-variant priests and priestesses of the goddess religions. http://php.iupui.edu/~jtownsle/papers/paulcybl.html The view that Paul was opposing homosexuality for non-gender-related reasons also has a strong case. The theories that I don't think hold water are those of John Boswell (whose attempts to soft-peddle Paul's condemnations even his own supporters find embarrassing) and Robin Scroggs (who makes an interesting but ultimately unpersuasive case that Paul was just worried about child molestation). "Not conclusive" is exactly how I'd describe the Pauline passages. Even if we could agree on what Paul is condemning, it's not clear why he is condemning whatever it is he's condemning. I think that the Pauline passages need to be examined in light of the overall framework of Christian views of sexuality, rather than read in isolation. Heather [E-mail]   [Home Page] Links on pederasty in the New Testament