Why We Hate Paul: Xenophobia (Romans 13)

 

1. Paul the Progressive

As I continue this sermon series on the apostle Paul, I recognize that Paul is indeed one of the greatest saints of the church. Without Paul, we would have a vastly different church. Without Paul, much of the Christian world might not even be Christian. Aside from Jesus, no one has shaped Christianity more than Paul.

Perhaps it’s because of his influence that Paul has been such a controversial figure, a person whose theology and instructions people have debated and argued for centuries. 

One of the passages people debate and argue over is today’s passage from Romans 13. “Be subject to the governing authorities…Pay taxes to whom taxes are due...” How you feel about that command probably depends on how you feel about those who are currently in leadership. “Do what the lawmakers tell you to do” is easy advice to follow, if you think the lawmakers are doing a good job… but what about when they’re not?

When Eric C. Smith was writing his book Paul the Progressive - the book I’ve been using to help me with these sermons - he didn’t plan on including a chapter that focused specifically on this passage. 

But then, while he was working on the book, controversy exploded over immigration policies that the Trump administration was enforcing, with increased deportations even for people who committed no crime, and separating parents and children, and locking children in cages...and then Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended how the administration was handling all this by saying: “I would cite to you the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for his purposes.”

And Eric C. Smith decided that he needed to add a chapter to his book, to address the question: Did Paul really mean for his words to be used this way, to support such xenophobic policies?

2. Fugitive Slaves...

And what about, say, the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which I mentioned last week? That law said that runaway slaves must be returned to their masters. It was one of the most controversial laws of the 19th century. An immoral law, to be sure. Yet those who supported it cited Bible passages, including this passage from Romans 13.

“Be subject to the governing authorities.”

I suppose Romans 13 was also used to justify enforcement of the 1830 Indian Removal Act, which forced the relocation of 60,000 Native Americans, 15,000 of whom died on the Trail of Tears, as our nation committed acts of genocide against this continent's first human inhabitants. 

And I suppose Romans 13 was also used to defend Jim Crow laws and discriminatory policies against African Americans through much of the 20th century...laws that were immoral.

Even today, we have governing authorities who are immoral, whose policies hurt people and cause suffering. They deny the needy the basic necessities of life, while giving billionaires so many breaks and favors. They refuse to pass a desperately needed voting rights bill. They provide lots of talk, but very little action, when it comes to the climate crisis, even though cities like Amsterdam, Kolkata, New Orleans, and Savannah, and many more, could all be underwater within ten years. The governing authorities are letting this happen! 

So what do we do with Paul’s command to obey the governing authorities? How can we even stand by or defend such a command?

3. Paul in prison

And what are we to make of the fact that Paul himself got into trouble with the governing authorities? A lot! 

Many of you already know this. You know that many of Paul’s letters, he wrote while sitting in a prison cell. Obviously, Paul himself did not always obey, or submit himself to, the governing authorities.

In fact, in his 2nd letter to the Corinthians, Paul writes:

“[I’ve had] far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless floggings, and often near death. Five times I have received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I received a stoning…. In Damascus, the governor under King Aretas set a guard on the city of Damascus in order to seize me, but I was let down in a basket through a window in the wall, and escaped from his hands.”

What happened to “submitting to the governing authorities?” Was Paul demonstrating the principle of “do as I say not as I do?” Or is there something else going on here?

4. Jews and Gentiles in Rome

As is often the case, it helps to know a little bit of the background. Throughout much of Paul’s letters - and particularly in his letter to the Romans - Paul writes about how Jewish followers of Jesus and Gentile followers of Jesus are to relate to one another.

It turns out that, in Rome, there was quite a bit of tension between the Jewish Jesus-followers and the Gentile Jesus-followers. One source of tension was whether Gentiles needed to submit to temple leaders - and whether they owed any temple tax, since they themselves were not Jewish.

Indeed, some of the Gentiles were refusing to show honor or respect to the temple leaders, and were refusing to financially support the temple. When asked to show honor and respect to the temple or contribute to the temple tax, their response was: “Why should we? We’re not Jewish; why should we submit to Jewish authority and pay to support the temple?”

This is the question that Paul responds to in Romans 13. Paul basically says, “Look: these Jews were the first Jesus-followers. If it weren’t for them, the good news would never have come to you. So, show them some respect. Show them the honor they deserve. And, out of respect, contribute your share of the temple tax. You think you owe them nothing? You think you are separate from them? In truth, you owe everything to them, because it is through them that you have received the good news. So show them some support, and do your duty.”

In Romans 13, Paul isn’t talking about civil authorities at all. He’s talking about the religious authorities, the leaders of the synagogue and the temple. 

So it seems that those who use Paul’s words in Romans 13 to prove the importance of submitting to civil authorities and lawmakers are twisting the meaning of the scripture and taking it out of context in order to support their own agenda… something that happens way too often, unfortunately. 

Paul never intended for his words to be used to convince people to blindly submit to unjust authorities and unjust laws. 

5. Running the Red Light

Rather, we should follow the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., who argued that it is good to obey the law; it is good to obey traffic laws, for example; to go the speed limit, and stop at a red light… 

But there are times that call for an exception. An ambulance rushing someone to the hospital, for example, or a fire truck on its way to a fire, are allowed to break those laws, because of the emergency situation.

And when we find ourselves in an emergency situation, when people’s lives are being jeopardized by unjust laws, we always have the right - and even the obligation - to run that red light, to disobey that law, in order to pursue greater justice and greater good. 

And that’s why we can honor the lives of those who instigated nonviolent civil disobedience on behalf of the oppressed, on behalf of the poor, and on behalf of the earth itself. Paul’s words do not condemn such actions; instead, Paul’s own actions call us to engage in such actions when it is right to do so.

Members of Disciples congregations in Arizona and elsewhere work to show compassion to immigrants traveling through the desert, providing water, helping immigrants, even though it is not always legal to do so. They’re not submitting to the authorities on the issue of immigration… and I think Paul would agree with them.

Eric C. Smith points out that the apostle Paul had a lot more in common with the immigrants and refugees who have suffered under our country’s immigration policy than he had in common with authorities like Jeff Sessions. Paul himself was often persecuted; he ran from the law, and was thrown in prison.

So whenever anyone uses Paul’s words to condemn those who today find themselves in a similar situation, we need to remember that Paul himself suffered from the injustices of the world, and that he was a passionate follower of Jesus, who preached good news to the poor, release to the captives, sight to the blind, and freedom to the oppressed...including those oppressed by the governing authorities.

Paul knew that sometimes, being true to the gospel means taking a stand against unjust leaders and their policies.

Why We Hate Paul: Homophobia (Romans 13:7-10)

1. The Apostle Paul

Last week, I began a sermon series focusing on all the writings of Paul the apostle that many Christians - and especially many progressive Christians - have problems with. 

For this sermon series, I was inspired by a book I recently read titled, Paul the Progressive?: The Compassionate Christian’s Guide to Reclaiming the Apostle as an Ally. The book is by Eric C. Smith, an ordained Disciples of Christ minister who teaches at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Colorado, and who gave a wonderful presentation at this summer’s Disciples Virtual Gathering.

The structure of this sermon series comes from his book. However, the ideas I’m talking about are ideas that I’ve been familiar with for some time. I’ve encountered them in articles and commentaries, and in a book called The First Paul by Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan, which I serendipitously found while browsing the collection at the Signal Hill Public Library not long after I moved here thirteen years ago. 

It was in reading The First Paul that I realized how important it is to understand that not everything in scripture attributed to Paul was actually written by Paul.

This is important information to know when trying to figure out what Paul the apostle actually thought concerning women in church leadership. Last week, during the sermon time, we learned that scriptures which say that women are to be silent in church weren’t actually written by Paul. None of them! 

The actual Paul was very supportive and affirming of women in the church, teaching and exercising authority. It was later writers writing in Paul’s name who decided that women should be silent, and that Paul’s ideas about women in leadership were just too radical.

2. “Homosexuality” in Paul’s writings

Today’s sermon is about Paul’s views on homosexuality. And on this topic, things are a little bit more complicated. 

There are three main passages attributed to Paul that appear to condemn homosexuality: 1 Corinthians 6:9–10; Romans 1:26-27; and 1 Timothy 1:10. 

Using the tools we talked about last week, scholars have determined that the 1 Timothy passage was not actually written by Paul. In fact, the entire book of 1 Timothy, along with several other New Testament books attributed to Paul, were written by someone who used Paul’s name, but who was, in fact, not Paul. 

This was a common practice in ancient times. Writers would use a respected name to give authority to what they were writing. Probably, they believed that what they were writing was a tribute or honor to Paul. One scholar called it a type of “fan fiction.”

Since this sermon series is focusing on the real, authentic Paul, we can ignore the 1 Timothy passage.

However, the other two passages, from 1 Corinthians and Romans, scholars do believe were written by Paul himself.

Which means that, if we want to know what Paul thought, we can’t just dismiss those two passages. We have to take them seriously. We have to study them.

Both of these passages present lists of vices, of practices that are “unnatural” or characteristic of unspiritual people. Lists of vices like these were common in Paul’s time. Paul may even have been using lists that were commonly recited when people were pointing out who not to be like. 

And the things on these lists were related to worship of idols. The things on these lists are bad because they are what people who worship idols do. People who worship idols do these things, so you should avoid them.

Now, if someone were to practice these things who wasn’t worshiping idols, would they still be bad in Paul’s eyes? Some of them, I’m sure, would; but I don’t know about all of them.

The point is that Paul’s focus isn’t on these specific practices, these specific vices. Paul’s focus is on the worship of idols. Paul’s emphasis is that his readers not be idol-worshipers like “those people.” 

The worship of idols is the context. That is not the context for people today who practice and who identify as homosexual. So: does Paul’s condemnation still apply?

It’s almost certain that Paul had no concept about homosexuality as a person’s orientation. Since they were associated with idol worship, the homosexual acts Paul’s talking about were associated with cultic rituals. And if we study the Greek words Paul used, we discover that Paul certainly did not have in mind a loving, sexual relationship between two consenting adults.

3. Malakos and arsenokoitai

Paul uses two words here which in Greek are malakos and arsenokoitai. The New Revised Standard Version translates them as “male prostitutes and sodomites.” It’s an unfortunate translation - especially that word sodomites - because the Greek word makes no reference to Sodom, and a close study of the story of Sodom shows that the real sin there is inhospitality and hostility toward immigrants, manifesting itself in the form of rape. It has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex relationships, and nothing to do with what Paul is talking about.

Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality, and “sodomy” has nothing to do with Sodom.

But what do these two Greek words mean? 

Malakos is a word that means “weak,” “effeminate,” or “soft.” It’s used elsewhere in the Bible, and not always in a sexual way. It could refer to someone who’s wishy-washy, or who has no integrity or no morals. How does Paul want us to understand that word? Well, scholars aren’t really sure. 

The other word - arsenokoitai - it appears Paul made that word up. There is no other writing where that word appears, other than these New Testament passages. This makes it very hard to define precisely, but since it is a compound word made up of two separate words that mean “man” and “bed,” it does seem that some sort of same-sex interaction is implied. 

But because this list of vices is in the context of idol worship and cultic ritual ceremonies, what is probably meant is some sort of situation where a dominant male uses or forces a younger or less powerful male for sex - a boy, even - because that’s what happened during these rituals. A social inequality of some sort is implied. 

4. Money, power, & abuse

What Paul is talking about could also be financial. It could be a master/slave relationship. It could be one person who owed another person money, and this was a way to pay off part of the debt.

Again, it’s an unequal relationship.

When I came across that idea, it got me thinking. Paul talks a lot about debt. When Paul talks about idol worship, he talks about how those who worship idols are constantly in debt to those idols, always having to pay them back in order to stay in their good favor. 

And Paul condemns this.

And in our passage today, Paul encourages people to pay what they owe, so that they don’t owe anyone anything. Don’t owe anyone anything, except to love. 

Financial matters like debt, we think of as having nothing to do with faith and spirituality, so we often overlook them when we worship and when we read our Bibles. Yet every week we pray the Lord’s Prayer, which includes the words, “forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”

Are we really thinking about financial debts when we pray that? 

In some churches, they’ve changed those words to “forgive us our trespasses,” or, “forgive us our sins,” but the words Jesus taught his disciples actually had financial connotations. “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.”

You know what I want? I want some scholar to write a book about this. I want some scholar to research whether or not there is a connection here, between Paul’s condemnation of same-sex practices, and Paul’s words against debt. 

Because I’m starting to wonder if there is a connection. They both refer to oppressive, abusive relationships in which one person has power and control over another, and Paul wants all followers of Christ to be free - free from that sort of abuse, free from situations in which one person has that kind of hold on another.

There’s a lot of uncertainty here, even among scholars, since we’re trying to define a word that Paul basically made up. But it does seem that Paul is not condemning consensual same-sex relationships characterized by love, the type of loving relationships that many gay and lesbian couples are capable of having and do, in fact, have. Paul is not condemning homosexuality as we understand it. What Paul is condemning is abusive relationships, oppressive relationships, relationships that do not have love at their center.

Romans 13 says: “Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. [All the commandments] are summed up in this word, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.”

5. Free to Love

So when it comes to homosexuality, I find no reason to hate Paul. It’s not entirely clear what Paul is talking about in these passages, but it is clear that he’s not talking about homosexuality as we understand it today.

That’s not to say that Paul would be out there, marching in pride parades, writing in all his epistles about the importance of being open and affirming. I really think there’s just no way to know how supportive and affirming Paul would be, given our modern awareness of homosexuality as a sexual orientation, and the possibility of two people enjoying a same-sex relationship based on consent, caring, and mutual love. 

But I do know that Paul did believe in equality between Jews and Gentiles, and between slaves and free, and between women and men, and that these were radical ideas in his time. So who knows? 

I also know that you and I do live in a time when it is clear that same-sex couples can have relationships characterized by consent, caring, and love. And if love is present in those relationships - if love is at the center of those relationships - then so is God, because God is love; and those relationships are sacred.

Furthermore, there is throughout the Bible a movement toward openness, inclusion, equality, and affirmation. God is constantly at work widening the circle, so that those who were once condemned are no longer condemned, and are brought in and welcomed and affirmed. 

Case in point: the foreigners and eunuchs who are forbidden to enter the temple in Deuteronomy, but whose worth is affirmed by Isaiah when he declares that God’s house will be a house of prayer for all people, including and especially foreigners and eunuchs. And so when the disciple Philip actually encounters someone who is both a foreigner and a eunuch in the book of Acts, Philip welcomes him into the church and baptizes him - despite Deuteronomy’s prohibition.

And who are we to ignore this leading of God’s Spirit? And don’t you think that Paul - who seemed to be intimately connected to the Spirit - would follow this leading?

Anyway, as I’ve said before: it’s not in spite of what scripture says that we are Open and Affirming - it’s because of what scripture says. All of scripture - including those parts written by Paul - emphasize love as the first and most important command. And all of scripture emphasizes an overcoming of barriers, and an end to oppression, and an end to persecution, and the removal of the barriers that keep people separated from God.

Scripture emphasizes a coming together of Gentiles and Jews, slaves and free, women and men, and a welcoming of foreigners and eunuchs and anyone else who had been told they don’t belong in God’s house. 

Our job is not to close the doors to the kingdom, but to open them wide, for God’s house is a big house - a big, big house, with room for everyone. In God’s house, the barriers are broken down, and all are welcome and given access to the place at the table which God has set just for them.

True Love (Romans 12:9-20, 13:8-10)

I don’t do it very often, but it seemed fitting today to break away from the normal lectionary readings, and to preach a special sermon on the topic of love.  I do this for several reasons:

1.      Valentine’s Day is this week.

2.     Despite the fact that Valentine’s Day is this week, there is a lot in today’s world that passes for love that isn’t true love.  There is a lot of cheap sentimentality as well as a lot of sexual stimulation in society and in the media, but neither of those are true love.  Maybe you saw Beyonce at the Super Bowl, or that Calvin Klein ad, and said, “Oh my God, I love his body!” or “I love her body”  but of course, that’s not love.

3.     This year our congregation is discerning what it means to be open and affirming in regards to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Christians.  This year at the General Assembly, the Disciples of Christ will consider a resolution on open and affirming at the denominational level.  While most in our congregation and in our denomination support being open and affirming, there are good people who have some concerns.  I always want to take whatever concerns anyone has seriously, and today seems like a good day to do that.

To begin this sermon on love, I will remind you that in Greek – the language of the New Testament – there are three different words for love, representing three different types of love.

One of these words is eros.  During a speech he gave at U.C. Berkeley in 1957, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Eros is a sort of aesthetic love.  It has come to us to be a sort of romantic love and it stands with all its beauty.”  I did not hear the speech and I don’t know if there is an audio recording of it, but in reading the transcript it seems to me that King is, perhaps, just a little embarrassed to be talking about eros love – we preachers often are – and he quickly moved into the second kind of love.

He said: “The Greek language talks about philia and this is a sort of reciprocal love between friends.”  It’s the kind of love that many of us here have for one another.  You’ve heard that Philadelphia is the “city of brotherly love,” and that’s not just a motto; it’s actually what the word Philadelphia means in Greek.

Then King said: “The Greek language comes out with another word, and it is agape.  Agape is understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all… It is an overflowing love which seeks nothing in return.” 

In other speeches and writings, King pointed out that agape love recognizes that all humans are interrelated, that there is some of you in every person, and it recognizes that both you and that other person are created in the image of God.  That’s why agape is a love you show even to your enemies.

All three types of love are powerful.  All three types of love are good.  All three types of love have the power to change lives.  But I think it’s safe to say that only agape love has the power to change the world.

All three types of love are discussed on the pages of scripture.  Agape  is talked about more than the other two, and it is the type of love usually preached about.  Agape love is universal.  Jesus made it clear that God’s love is for everyone.  Some people were so offended by that idea that they tried to kill Jesus by dragging him to the edge of town and throwing him off a cliff.  They wanted God to love all the people they loved, and they wanted God to hate all the people they hated.  They wanted God to save all the people they cared about, all the people who were like them, and they wanted God to condemn all the people they cared nothing for, all the people who were different from them, all the people who threatened their sense of security because of their “different-ness.”

But God’s love is for everyone.

It is agape love that the scripture speaks of most often, but much of what can be said about agape love can also apply to the other two types of love.  And sometimes, scripture does talk specifically about philia love and eros love.

The scripture reading we heard a few moments ago from the book of Romans talks mainly about philia love, brotherly love, love among friends, but what it says can also be applied to eros love.  It began with this sentence:  “Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with mutual affection; outdo one another in showing honor.”

Right here are several criteria for true love.

One is that true love consists of mutual affection.

Agape love is given regardless if the recipient is ready to receive it.  But philia love and eros love are mutual.  A love between friends, and romantic love, are not one-sided.

1 Corinthians 7 speaks specifically of the eros love that exists within marriage; and it agrees that that kind of love is mutual.  The two marriage partners belong to each other; neither partner holds all the authority or power in the relationship.  The relationship is based on mutual affection.

Now some of you who know your Bible well may want to stop me and point out that both Ephesians and Colossians contain verses which instruct wives to be subject to their husbands, and for husbands to assert their authority over their wives.  Where’s the mutuality there? 

It’s interesting, isn’t it, that we have in scripture passages that are so contradictory, so opposite?

I’ll tell you what I know, and then you can decide how best to interpret.  I know that scholars who have studied and examined the books of the New Testament have determined that some of these books, like the letters to the Romans and the Corinthians, claim to have been written by the apostle Paul and very likely were written by the apostle Paul.

But other books that claim to have been written by the apostle Paul – like Ephesians and Colossians – contain such a different vocabulary and writing style, and address such different issues, that they were most likely written by someone else, someone who used Paul’s name because they believed they were writing in the spirit of Paul, presenting his ideas to a new generation or a new location.

Now of those letters that scholars have determined to be authentic letters of Paul, this is where you find the emphasis on mutuality in marriage.  The authentic letters of Paul are also where you find instructions for women (as well as men) who wish to speak or teach in church, and instructions for women (as well as men) who feel called to prophesy.

It appears, however, that these ideas were too radical for the later writers who “borrowed” Paul’s name.  It is these later writers who said that women should submit to their husbands, or that women should be silent in church.  They liked most of what Paul wrote, but the teaching that women and men could speak in church and that they should be mutual partners in love were just too much.

But in the New Testament books that are authentically Paul’s women are recognized as teachers, preachers, and prophets; and, more importantly for our topic today, they were considered equal partners in marriage; loving relationships of eros and philia love were characterized by mutual affection and mutual authority.

Both of these contradictory ideas are a part of scripture.  Both are contained in the book of holy writings that we refer to as God’s Word.  And because they are contradictory, we find that we must choose one or the other to emphasize when it comes to applying the scripture to our lives today.

I don’t know about you, but the insight provided by biblical scholars helps me make that decision.  In addition, the overarching themes of scripture help me make that decision.  In last week’s sermon I talked about the major theme that is present throughout scripture, in the stories of Ruth, Jonah, Job, as well as in the teachings of Jesus, all of which emphasize welcome and acceptance and equality.  The idea of mutual affection and shared power and authority fits well with the larger theme that is present in scripture, while the idea of a more hierarchical relationship, in which one partner is dominant over the other, does not.

So, getting back to our scripture reading for today, from the 12^th and 13^th chapters of Romans… Near the end of this reading, we heard the phrase, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor.”  Other translations render it as “love does no harm.”

I first studied this verse in a workshop I attended many years ago, a workshop on preventing sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. Pretty much all religious leaders, clergy and lay, do what they do out of love for God and love for God’s people.  But as we know from news headlines, a few of them have made terrible mistakes, abusing those they love, or hurting them through inappropriate conduct.

Hardly any of them intended to cause hurt or harm.  But at some point, they neglected to ask if what they were doing was, in fact, harming the people they claimed to love.

The participants in that workshop were told that one of the best ways to make sure we are properly and appropriately caring for those we love is to ask whether or not expressions of love for that person could possibly be doing harm.  If the answer is yes, then its’ not true, genuine love, because true love does no harm.

More positively expressed, the guideline that love does no harm could be rephrased as, love is always concerned with the other person’s well-being.  I always prefer to emphasize the “positives,” the “shoulds,” and not just the “negatives,” the “should-nots.”  So I flip it around to the positive, although in this case, I won’t completely get rid of the negative; it’s too important. 

So now we have two guidelines for true live:  one is that love is mutual; and the other is that love does no harm, but instead looks out for the other person’s well-being.  I think if we can remember those two things, we’ll go a long way to having healthier, more loving relationships.

Now, to address the concerns about whether we should affirm romantic love between people of the same sex.  One of the things I’ve heard is that this might lead to an “anything goes” mentality. 

It won’t.

It won’t, because we have some very important guidelines to prevent that:  one is that love is mutual, and the other is that love does no harm.

Same-sex relationships are just as capable of being characterized by mutual affection and consideration of the partner’s wellbeing as any other relationship.  Nearly all of the gay or lesbian people I know – and, living in Long Beach, that’s quite a few – are, or have been, in stable, committed relationships based on mutual love and a commitment to do no harm.

That cannot be said for all those other situations that come to mind when I hear the phrase “anything goes.”  I won’t spell out what all those situations are; you can use your own imagination to do that.  But those “other situations” are not based on mutual love or concern for another’s wellbeing.  Without mutual love – when authority and power are not shared – it becomes a relationship of abuse; when one partner does harm to another, it becomes a relationship of abuse.

The scriptural guidelines I’ve talked about today, when followed, will prevent inappropriate and abusive situations and relationships, and it is right for the church to continue speaking out against relationships that are unhealthy, inappropriate, or abusive.

But based on my understanding of God’s love, my interpretation of scripture and the themes I see on the pages of scripture, a relationship of mutual love between two people who share power and authority in the relationship and who are committed to one another’s well-being … that relationship is worthy of the church’s blessing, no matter what the gender is of the two people involved.

Love is the greatest power in all of creation.  Love is stronger than any army or any force of nature.  Love is a gift from God, to be treasured, honored, and celebrated.