Can One Be Critical Without Being Autobiographical

“Can One Be Critical Without Being Autobiographical? The Case of Romans 1:26-27" in Ingrid Rosa Kitszberger, ed. Autobiographical Biblical Criticism: Academic Border Crossings – A Hermeneutical Challenge. (Leiden: Deo Publishing, 2002), pp. 34-59.

Can One Be Critical Without Being Autobiographical?

The Case of Romans 1:26-27

Daniel Patte

Vanderbilt University

What Is the Question?

For many biblical scholars, “autobiographical criticism,” like “reader response criticism,” is an oxymoron. Thus it is appropriate to open the discussion by asking: “What is critical about autobiographical criticism?”¹

Yet, I am surprised. Why do we still need to ask such a question? “Can one be critical without being autobiographical?” For me, this is the real question. Why would any biblical scholar hesitate? Is it not clear that in order to be critical an interpretation must account for the pre-understandings that shape it and, therefore, for its autobiographical character?

I raised these questions with colleagues who, through their vast knowledge and rigorous methodologies, make most valuable contributions to biblical scholarship, yet would not engage in autobiographical criticism. “Can one be critical without being autobiographical?” They were puzzled. But as soon as I formulated this question in terms of pre-understandings, their hesitation disappeared. They readily acknowledged the existence of the hermeneutical circle, as is commonly done for more than a century.² “Of course, a critical interpretation is an interpretation that strives to make explicit the interpretive processes and the evidence upon which it is based. Yes, it makes sense to say that elucidating the autobiographical character of our interpretations – the presuppositions and pre-understandings they embody – is a necessary part of the critical process.”

Yet, following this “interesting conversation about hermeneutical issues,” as we talked about their current and future projects, it became clear that their practice of critical biblical study will remain what it has always been: a practice that does not account for the autobiographical character of their interpretations.

In sum: the question “What is critical about autobiographical criticism?” is not a question concerning hermeneutical theory. Rather, it concerns a gap between theoretical views and the practice of critical biblical study.

As we pursue our conversation, these colleagues and I find that we can readily agree on the theoretical possibility of, and need for, autobiographical criticism. We agree that, when exegesis pretends to be without pre-understandings, vast erudition and methodological sophistication which promised enlightenment bring about obscurantism through positivistic-like denial of the hermeneutical process.³ We agree that, with an approach that ignores the hermeneutical circle and espouses a subject/object dichotomy, the more we strive to free the Bible and its readers from ideological and dogmatic bondage, the more we do what we hate, condoning an ideological and dogmatic bondage in the image of our pre-understandings and of the objectivist frame of our interpretations. We agree that a practice of biblical studies with such objectivist tendencies implicitly claims that a particular interpretation of a text should be viewed as universally normative, and that it is, therefore, appropriately resented by people around us as patriarchal, sexist, anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic, anti-religious, anti-church, Eurocentric, colonialist, pro-apartheid, or racist – according to who our readers or hearers are. We can even agree that assuming responsibility for our interpretations involves overcoming the subject-object dichotomy by elucidating the pre-understandings with which we frame them.⁴

But, despite this awareness, more often than not these colleagues practice a form of bi-polar critical biblical studies shaped by the subject/object dichotomy – as if by default. They strive to reach normative conclusions that should be accepted by everyone, without taking note that, from the perspective of this practice, they seek to gain veto power against any interpretation which does not conform to their own. Despite their theoretical knowledge, their practice is framed by a quest for universal and objective conclusions about “what the text meant” that they posit as the necessary basis for any formulation of “what the text means.” They cannot envision another practice. Why?

I have to confess that, again and again, I find myself tempted to do the same thing, especially when I enter into conversation with colleagues about a text, or when I teach. Why? Often, it is simply because I am tired of fighting the majority of the academic world who cannot think “criticism” outside of this dichotomy.⁵ Indeed, it seems that all of us who strive to develop a practice of biblical criticism outside the subject/object dichotomy are constantly on the defensive. Again and again we have to justify ourselves. Thus, we designate the proposed approach in negative terms, such as “post-structural,” “post-modern,” “post- Holocaust,” “post-colonial.” And instead of moving on to an actual practice of biblical criticism in this new mode, I find that, time and again, I have to address the same theoretical issues, both in discussion with colleagues and in the classroom. Why?

Beyond the Subject/Object Dichotomy: Toward a Comparative Practice of Autobiographical Criticism

Is there any hope that a responsible practice of biblical criticism which is free from the subject/object dichotomy – including a practice of autobiographical criticism – be recognized as a legitimate practice of biblical criticism? None whatsoever, as long as the “critical” practice of biblical studies remains framed by the subject/object dichotomy.

Yet everyone in the Western culture seems to frame it in this way. The first reaction of undergraduate and Divinity students in my classes is that any type of autobiographical interpretation is “eisegesis” – a term they have learned from their annotated Bible, the notes of which they view as embodying “exegesis,” true critical scholarship. Whether these students come to class without any previous knowledge of the Bible, or with a great familiarity of it resulting from years of devotional readings, they expect a critical study to be authoritative, that is, to provide them with a well informed presentation of an “object”: the “meaning of the text.” For them, an autobiographical reading cannot be critical, because it is subjective. Such students in a North-American university are still children of the Enlightenment. The same is true for many colleagues in biblical studies.

These colleagues are, of course, more sophisticated. They are fully aware of the hermeneutical circle and of the principle of criticism; there is no exegesis without pre-understandings, and one has to be content with an interpretation that has a higher degree of probability than others.⁶ They acknowledge that a critical study should elucidate the personal pre-understandings that the subject-interpreter brings to the text as object. But, from their subject/object dichotomy perspective, “autobiographical criticism” would be an introspective critical approach exclusively focused upon the interpreter as an autonomous individual, who should disclose the interpretive pre-understandings hidden in the depth of her/his self. But, since this introspective disclosure is always illusory, an autobiographical practice of biblical studies does not make sense and would not be truly critical. If its goal were to eliminate the subjective features from the interpretation, a long history of scholarly research shows that such an autobiographical practice would fail. If its goal were to develop a subjective interpretation of a text, such a practice would have completely stepped out of critical biblical studies. There would be no objective way to assess what are greater or lesser degrees of probability (in terms of Troeltsch’s “principle of criticism”). In subjective interpretation, anything goes, doesn’t it?

In order to be recognizable as “critical,” a practice of autobiographical biblical studies must be freed from the subject/object dichotomy, and thus from a view of “meaning” as some kind of object that exists apart from interpretation. From this other perspective, a “critical” biblical interpretation can not be defined as an interpretation that represents this “meaning” of the text in an accurate way. Rather, a critical interpretation is simply defined as an interpretation that makes explicit the particular interpretive processes and choices of evidence through which it constructs meaning with the text (and then opens the possibility for an assessment on theological and moral grounds of the relative value of this interpretation as compared with other interpretations). Then, a critical interpretation is by definition autobiographical; its goal is to make explicit the autobiographical character of the interpretation.

The stranglehold in which the subject/object dichotomy maintains biblical scholarship is broken as soon as one recognizes that autobiographical criticism is not primarily introspective and one adopts a comparative approach envisioned from an autobiographical perspective. For this it is enough to acknowledge that:

kinds of textual features that the interpreter views as more significant than others. Non-scholarly readings make analytical choices, although they most often are intuitive, taking the form of the aesthetic identification of what is most significant in the text. In scholarly interpretations, such autonomous analytical choices are made explicit in the selection of particular exegetical or analytical methods: for instance, a historical method when the most significant is found behind the text as a window; a literary or structural method, when the most significant is found in the text as figurative; a rhetorical or reader-response method, when the most significant is found in front of the text as discourse. Such analytical choices frame the interpretations in a first step. Thus, they are clearly recognizable when one focuses the comparison of different interpretations on their analytical frames – how they are framed by taking certain textual features as most significant.

The interpretations of biblical texts are also framed by contextual choices. Many biblical scholars have learned from feminist and other advocacy scholars to pay attention to these contextual choices. These choices mirror or confront the relationality (including the structures of power/authority) of the life-context in which the interpreters are directly or indirectly involved. These contextual choices are pragmatic in that they concern bridge-categories between life and text; they seek to address concerns and constraints of our relational mode of existence. Such contextual choices also frame the interpretations, and the way they frame each interpretation can be recognized in a comparative study.

The interpretations of biblical texts, and of any other religious texts, are also framed by heteronomous theological or hermeneutical choices that include coming to the text with certain theological concepts that reflect the interpreters’ positive or negative religious experiences (including experiences of the silence or absence of God). These interpretive choices are as important as the preceding ones, and should not be ignored, despite the fact that they are more difficult to describe.

A brief reference to a situation in which I found myself while writing the first version of this essay illustrates how these three autobiographical frames of interpretations are interrelated in a concrete experience.

The Autobiographical Context of this Essay and Heteronomy in Interpretation

As I started to write this essay, I saw the Pulitzer winning play, W;T by Margaret Edson.⁸ In it, a professor of English literature and a specialist of John Donne, who is hospitalized with terminal cancer, reflects on her experience as she struggles with her disease and mortality while undergoing intensive and invasive treatments in the hospital. Of course, she reflects on this experience out of her scholarly knowledge of the Holy Sonnets. However, in the process, her interpretation of the Holy Sonnets is also transformed; she now understands them from the perspective of her own experience with dying.

A week after seeing this play, I too was in the hospital, obviously, not with a terminal disease, but still a life-threatening one. Within minutes, I passed from a situation in which I was, for the most part, in control of my life, to a situation in which I was totally “at the mercy” of others.

In the middle of the afternoon, I was still an autonomous person with a private life, a sense of dignity and purpose, and a sense of decency which required from me to cover up a part of myself and of my feelings. Thus, I was in control of my life, even as I interacted with others in a relational network – including family members, friends, students, colleagues, and administrators at Vanderbilt University – in which, consciously or not, I participated in the power games of daily life. In this relational network, I was also wielding power, hopefully for the better, from my privileged position as a male, a European-American, and a professor, even as I was under the powers of persons and institutions that set limits to my own projects and interactions with others.

By the end of the afternoon, both the give-and-take of relational life and the sense of control as an autonomous individual were challenged as I entered the Emergency Room and was admitted to the hospital.

Of course, my first instinct was to struggle to keep my autonomy, that is, to keep some privacy and control, and even to maintain some status, by explaining to the doctors the Greek roots of some of the terms they used to describe my condition. “Calling an attack ‘ischemic’ does not say much, since you are simply saying that it is due to a ‘reducing’ or ‘stopping’ (from the Greek verb, i0sxa&nw) of the flow of ‘blood’ (the second part of the noun, from the Greek, ai[ma).” But they simply took this as a sign that my memory was not affected, and continued their diagnostic by asking me – actually, demanding from me – to address all their probing questions even as they were prodding my body. I was a patient in the relational network characterized by its very definite structure of power and authority in which chiefs of service, doctors, residents, interns, nurses, nursing aids, and technicians, were all working to keep me alive and therefore demanded from me full cooperation and obedience. I was at the bottom of this authority structure, and as such, I very quickly lost any pretense at privacy and control. One could say that I had been stripped off of my autonomy, and reduced to the status of an object in their hands. And I was. As such I could readily be the object of abuse or mistreatment – as occurred a single time in a minor incident. Yet, as a whole I finally did not resent this relational authority structure. On the contrary, hearing and sensing the caring competence of the entire staff as a team and of each member of it, I readily abandoned myself in their hands, giving in to their care. I entered a different mode of existence, heteronomy, giving in to the merciful rule of Others. Being in the hospital, which was a new experience for me, was being in another world where I was totally in the care of others, to whom I abandoned my self, in trust. Letting go, being totally at the mercy of the medical staff, discovering myself as totally dependent upon them, was also experiencing them as Others. My time in the hospital became for me a liminal time and space.

Whether we recognize it or not, each of us has such heteronomous experiences, be it in secular loci, such as a hospital with its medical staff or a relationship with a loved one, or in religious loci, such as private contemplative prayers or communal religious services. I readily made sense of my experience in the hospital in terms of the interactions among autonomy, relationality, and heteronomy, because a few months earlier, through an analysis of the work of the SBL Seminar on “Romans Through History and Cultures,” Cristina Grenholm and I had recognized how these three modes of existence framed biblical interpretations.⁹

As an autonomous interpreter, especially if one is a scholar, each of us is in control of the interpretation. Here, the subject-interpreter seeks to master the text as an object by discerning, and thus choosing, what is most significant in it, and analyzing it from that perspective. Yet, critical biblical interpretation, including this analytical part of it, is always simultaneously framed by contextual and hermeneutical-theological choices.

Contextual choices reflect the interpreter’s hope to use her/his knowledge of the text for a certain purpose in a specific relational context in life today, e.g., for addressing certain needs or assessing a situation in this life-context.

Hermeneutical-theological interpretive choices reflect how the text as Scripture is or is not related to the interpreter’s heteronomous experiences - be they encounters of the holy Other in personal and communal religious experiences or in other persons with whom she/he shares her/his daily life, including life in hospitals. These heteronomous experiences might be directly related to the reading of the text as Scripture; the experience of being affected by a scriptural text, transformed by it, subjected to it, as she/he allows the text to interpret her/him as much as she/he interprets the text.

Being critical involves making explicit the autobiographical character of my interpretation, that is, the interpretive choices I made, including my analytical, contextual, and hermeneutical-theological choices, and how these choices frame my interpretation. And it is through a comparative practice that I can hope to make explicit my interpretive choices.

Such a comparative critical practice that acknowledges the autobiographical character of any interpretation is best explained by considering a text, Romans 1:26-27, and some of its interpretations.

Readings of Romans 1:26-27

A few years ago, I argued in a lecture that there were several equally legitimate and plausible readings of Matthew 4:18-22, by referring to several divergent scholarly interpretations of it. A colleague conceded my point regarding such a narrative text, but raised objections when I claimed this was true of any biblical text. “Is it not the case,” she argued, “that a text like Romans 1:26-27 cannot be read in any other way than as a condemnation of homosexuality and of homosexuals?”

So it seems. For many, this is “self-evident.” This is the “literal” meaning in the sense that it “obviously” respects the letter of the text. But a “self-evident” or “literal” reading is not critical, because it does not acknowledge its autobiographical character. In fact, it does not even acknowledge that it is an interpretation. Yet, as most readings of biblical texts, it is a faith-interpretation of the text as Scripture that needs to be brought to critical understanding. As we do so, we will see that in its lack of precision this teaching of the text might refer to three different kinds of interpretation.

I readily perceived the interpretive, and thus autobiographical, character of these readings of Rom 1:26-27, because this is not at all the teaching I find in these verses. Conversely, by respectfully considering these three kinds of interpretation as autobiographical and by elucidating their respective interpretive choices, the autobiographical character of my own interpretation became clear.

Reading # 1 of Rom 1:26-27: My Own Reading

The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. For me, this passage teaches Christian believers both to denounce destructive passion-filled homosexuality as idolatrous and to discern and affirm what is “good and acceptable and perfect” in homosexual relations.

My formulation of this teaching paraphrases Rom 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” Let me explain.

According to my reading the behavior described in Rom 1:26-27 is rejected because it is “idolatrous.” Life in idolatry is portrayed as shameful (avtima,zesqai). It is a life under the destructive and deadly power of one’s idols, and as such it is a manifestation of God’s wrath that the gospel reveals (Rom 1:18, read together with 1:16-17). A “shameful” behavior vitiates one’s good relationships with others and the community; one is estranged from the community; a life in idolatry generates destructive behavior toward oneself, others, and the community. What makes the behavior described in Rom 1:26-27 shameful and destructive? Although using different vocabulary Paul repeats the same answer: “lustful passion” (evpiqumi,aij tw/n kardiw/n auvtw/n, 1:24), “degrading or shameful passion” (pa,qh avtimi,a, 1:26), “burning with lustful passion” (evxekau,qhsan evn th/| ovre,xei, 1:27). Thus, passion-filled, lust-filled, destructive homosexual relationships are idolatrous and must be rejected.

Idolatrous homosexuality must be dealt with as any other idolatries of the “present world” (tw/| aivw/ni tou,tw|): Christian believers should “not be conformed” to it, but nevertheless “discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect” in it (Rom 12:2). Thus, 1:26-27 offers both a warning against idolatrous homoeroticism (the teaching for homosexuals) and a call to discern what is “good, and acceptable and perfect” in non-idolatrous homosexual relationship (the teaching for heterosexuals).

For my colleague, and possibly for many readers of this essay, this reading is far from self-evident. I readily concede: this is nothing more than one “interpretation” among other plausible ones, resulting from a series of interpretive choices – as is also the case with those interpretations for which the teaching of Rom 1:26-27 is a condemnation of homosexuality and of homosexuals. The autobiographical character of this interpretation becomes clear as I make explicit the interpretive choices that form the analytical, hermeneutical-theological, and contextual frames of my interpretation, through a comparison with the other interpretations (presented below). My analytical choices are rooted in a particular aesthetic sensibility focused upon the mythical and other symbolic structures of the text by my fascination for the religious and the great variety of its manifestations – a fascination due in part to the tension between my belonging to a religious community and family in the midst of a secular culture. My hermeneutical choices are themselves rooted in the basic conviction that a biblical text as Scripture interprets life and life interprets Scripture, and thus results in a transformation of the believers’ perception of their daily life – a conviction that calls me to look for those around me who, in their otherness, manifest the Presence of the Other for me. Similarly, but more specifically, my contextual choices reflect my need for a Scriptural teaching that would allow me to make sense of my confusion as a heterosexual who strives to be an enemy of his own homophobia (as Alice Walker speaks of those who are “enemy of their own racism”) – both rejecting the appalling discrimination of homosexuals in contemporary societies and finding that I have constantly to keep in check a deeply-seated homophobia.

Analytical Frame. My conclusions regarding the teaching of this text are different from the following ones, because unlike them I read Rom 1:26-27 as a part of Paul’s entire letter, including Rom 12:1-2.¹⁰

For me, together with Victor Furnish,¹¹ what is most significant in the text is that Rom 1:26-27 is found in the midst of an argument about idolatry: “They exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator” (1:25; cf. 1:23).

For Furnish, this textual feature comes to the fore when one views as most significant the intertextual (and thus figurative) features of the text. He thus identifies and underscores the parallelisms of Rom 1:18-32 with Wisdom 11 - 14 (in particular 11:15-20; 12:17, 13:1-19, 14:12, 25-27). Furnish makes two essential points: First, as in Wis 14:25-27, Paul presents “sexual immoralities among those vices to which the pagans have been led by their own idolatry: lustful impurity and the degradations of their bodies (1:24), and ‘dishonorable passions’ as evidenced by homosexual intercourse (1:26-27). In this connection he too can speak of the Gentiles having received ‘the due penalty for their error’ (1:27).”¹² Thus, “homosexual intercourse” is a “dishonorable passion” which is the consequence of idolatry. Second, Paul adopts his culture’s view of homosexuality (as expressed, e.g., in Seneca, Dio Chrysostom, and Philo) as a “freely chosen” behavior, driven by insatiable shameful lust, and against the natural order. Furnish concludes: “We must remember that it was the more degraded and exploitive forms of pederasty that the Apostle and his contemporaries had in view when they condemned homosexual practice.”¹³ Thus, Furnish (and many other commentators, including Brooten) insists: both in 1:26 (about women) and 1:27 (about men) Paul did not speak about what today we call “homosexuality” or “homoeroticism.” He spoke of degrading, violent, abusive relationships.

My own interpretation follows the same line, with one additional and important point regarding idolatry, which becomes apparent in my analysis according to which the most significant in the text is the “structure” (actually, mythical structure of the system of convictions or “fundamental semantics”) of Paul’s religious discourse. What is idolatry for Paul? It is the absolutization (the taking as a complete and final revelation) of a true revelation or gift from God. In Rom 1:18-32, and everywhere else in Romans and his other letters, idolatry is always based upon a true revelation that becomes a destructive power in which the idolaters are caught. As Wis 11:16 claims, “One is punished by the very things by which one sins.” Or as Paul puts it, regarding the Law (Torah) out of which Paul, the zealous Jew, had made an idol: “… the very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me” (Rom 7:10); it became a destructive monster.¹⁴ And so it is, with the revelation of God in creation, which is absolutized to the point that pagans worship the creatures instead of the Creator (1:18-23). And so it is, in a more specific case, with homosexuality: by absolutizing a precious gift from God (sexuality? constructive and fruitful intimate relationships between women or between men?), idolatrous homosexuals have transformed this gift of God into a destructive, depraved practice.

Then, it follows in my interpretation that an idol, whatever it might be, should never be totally rejected. So, in the case of Paul the extremely zealous Jew, being freed from his Torah-centered idolatry does not mean that Torah should be rejected. On the contrary, he affirms all the more “the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good” (Rom 7:12). So it is for all other idolatries of “the present age” or “this world.” What is necessary on the parts of believers is to discern what is the true revelation in it – what is “holy, just and good” in it. Thus Paul writes: “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God – what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (12:2).¹⁵

In sum: My interpretation of the teaching of Rom 1:26-27 for believers today is grounded in the convictional structure of the text (and can also be grounded in the figurative intertextual dimension of the text emphasized by Furnish) that I chose as the most significant feature of the text. Thus my reading is legitimate: it is supported by the text. Yet, of course, one can choose to ground one’s interpretation in other significant dimensions of the text – as Readings # 2, # 3, and # 4 legitimately do.

Hermeneutical-Theological Frame. My interpretation is framed by the hermeneutical-theological presupposition that the primary role of a scriptural text such as Rom 1:26-27 (as a part of the entire letter) can be designated by the metaphors “Corrective Glasses” or “Holy Bible.” We will see that the other readings have chosen to approach the text by presupposing quite different roles that need to be designated by other metaphors.

For Christian believers, the text functions as “Corrective Glasses” when it allows them to discern what is happening around them in life.¹⁶ Through the corrective lenses of Rom 1:26-27, I can recognize that the manifestations of homosexual violence (and heterosexual violence!) around me are consequences of idolatry. Thus, still looking at these through Romans as Scripture, I find that I have to strive to discern in these manifestations what is the “good and acceptable and perfect” which has been absolutized and turned into monstrous and oppressive sexual practices. Then, lo and behold, I discover that these homosexual idolaters have received a revelation or gift from God that I as a heterosexual do not have, and that I need, therefore, to receive from them.

For me, this text as Scripture also functions as “Holy Bible”; it brings about an encounter with the Holy One, a shattering experience. This is especially the case for me, a heterosexual Christian believer, who has for so long considered homosexuals through the dark glasses of my homophobia (here, an idolatrous bondage in which I was caught and still risk to be caught at any time). Discovering that those whom I despised are bearers of a precious gift from God, a revelation that I and other heterosexuals need to receive from them, is a “goose bumps” experience in which my homophobia is shattered by finding myself in presence of the Holy Other by reading this text and by encountering homosexuals who are bearers of this divine gift for me. This “goose bumps” experience includes a no less shattering reaffirmation that heterosexual relationships are themselves a good gift from God, provided they are not absolutized; otherwise they similarly become an abusive and destructive monster.

Of course, my interpretation is framed by my emphasis of other hermeneutical-theological categories, such as idolatry, the Gospel as a power which liberates from all kinds of bondage, especially the bondage to the power of idols, also known as bondage to the power of sin.

Contextual Frame. My reading presupposes a situation where homophobia is rampant both in society or culture, and among heterosexual Christian believers like me. At first, this teaching seems to reinforce homophobia, since Rom 1:26-27 presents homosexual relations as lustful, degrading, violent, and abusive, in the same way as homophobic people think of pedophilia and rape when they hear about homosexuality. But when it becomes clear that Rom 1:26-27 presents idolatry and its concrete manifestations, homophobia is itself challenged. According to this reading, homophobia is itself an idolatry, from which I and others in my context need to be freed again and again by encountering homosexuals as brothers and sisters from whom we have much to learn and to receive, precisely because of their difference. This was my experience as I read the amazing book by Joretta Marshall, Counseling Lesbian Partners, from which I learned so much about intimate covenantal relationships as gifts of God.¹⁷

This reading also presupposes a situation where degrading, oppressive and abusive homosexual relationship exist. As in any case of abuse, the cycle of violence cannot be broken without on-going help from outsiders. Paul’s letter to the Romans promises such help, from brothers and sisters who offer their bodies in living sacrifice (Rom 12:1), even as they recognize themselves as members of a very diverse body of Christ (12:3-8) in which everyone should “outdo one another in showing honor” to other members (12:10), or, as Paul says in Philippians 2:3, “in humility regard others as better than yourselves”).

It is helpful to identify the root-problem that characterizes the basic need of Christian believers in this context. I have presupposed that this root-problem is lack of ability, bondage. Christian believers need to be empowered to overcome either their homophobia or their oppressive homosexual relationships. In order to overcome my homophobia, I need, again and again, the help of others, and in particular of homosexuals who can be Christ for me.

My reading of Rom 1:26-27 as presented above is critical, not because it argues that it is the only legitimate reading of this text, but rather because it acknowledges its autobiographical character, its analytical, hermeneutical-theological, and contextual choices. Yet, these became apparent only because I compared it with other readings of this text, and because I viewed these readings as other autobiographical interpretations, based on equally legitimate and plausible, though different, interpretive choices.

My own interpretation is not worthy of the qualification “critical” as long as I do not affirm the equal legitimacy and plausibility of these other interpretations. I will do so (in an abbreviated way due to lack of space) by presenting these interpretations following the same format for easy comparison. It is only afterwards that, together with interpreters who have chosen other interpretations, we can debate what “the best interpretation” is (ethically and theologically) in specific contexts.

Reading # 2 of Rom 1:26-27

The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. According to this reading, Rom 1:26-27 offers a moral teaching for Christian believers who are tempted to be homosexuals. This teaching can be summarized by the phrase, “You shall not commit homoerotic acts.”

Analytical Frame. This conclusion results from reading this part (and many other parts) of Romans as paraenetic literature. This type of literature, epitomized by the Book of Proverbs, strings together moral teachings that can be read independently from each other. Thus, the text which is read is: Rom 1: 26-27 by itself.

Choosing to read these verses by themselves, as a stand-alone moral teaching, might be surprising, when one remembers that this is a part of the letter that Paul, the apostle to the gentiles, writes to the Romans in order to proclaim the good news of God’s grace and the central role of faith. But, one can justify the choice of this analytical frame by noting, for instance, that Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” (u`pakoh pi,stewj, 1:5), and that this letter like any other letter includes exhortations to the moral life, besides other things. In the same way that it is legitimate to read this letter thematically to identify what Paul has to say about God’s righteousness, Christology, or any number of other themes found in it, so it is legitimate to read this letter to identify what Paul presents as sins and vices. Rom 1:26-27 presents homoerotic behavior as sinful and, therefore, as a behavior that one should not commit.

When the text is read as a paraenetic teaching condemning a certain behavior, what is most significant in it is, of course, the description of this behavior. One needs to have a clear view of what one should not do. Consequently, in this reading, one closely examines the connotations of each of the words, as a window upon a sinful reality that needs to be avoided. What is the behavior that Paul condemns? In this reading it is argued that the most probable and legitimate conclusion is that here Paul refers to, and condemns, any homoerotic act by lesbians and gays (so, e.g., Hays,¹⁸ Brooten, as well as Bahnsen, Becker, Strecker, Van de Spijker, and many others listed in Brooten’s annotated bibliography¹⁹). This analytical (largely philological) conclusion is the necessary basis for the above teaching. Yet, in interpretations supporting other conclusions, scholars have strongly argued that Paul was condemning pederasty (Scroggs,²⁰ Smith²¹), or cultic homosexuality (Ridderbos,²² Wengst²³), as well as (less convincingly in my view), homosexual acts by heterosexuals (Boswell on the basis of John Chrysostom²⁴).

Hermeneutical-Theological Frame. This reading presupposes that the primary role of Rom 1:26-27 as Scripture is to be “A Lamp to the Feet and Light for the Path” of the believers (Ps 119:105). Scripture teaches believers God’s “righteous ordinances” and “precepts,” i.e., what they should or should not do, step by step. This teaching also gives them the sense of direction for their lives that they lack, because they do not know what is good or evil. The concept of sin presupposed here is one in which sin is grounded in a lack of knowledge of God’s will, possibly resulting from a “suppression of the truth” (Rom 1:18, 21). Acknowledging God’s will is then expected to overcome sinful conduct.

Contextual Frame. This interpretation and its teaching presuppose concrete situations – for instance, a permissive society with lax morality – in which individuals lack direction for their lives and more specifically do not know what they should do or not do, what is God’s will (as a law). This passage from Scripture teaches them one thing that Christians should not do: “You shall not commit homoerotic acts.”

This teaching is addressed to people who are inclined to have homoerotic relationships, and it presupposes that such people (“they”) have such an inclination, because they lack the knowledge that homoeroticism is against God’s will. From this perspective, sins such as same-sex intercourse are a matter of free choice that reflects a lack of (or wrong) knowledge, rather than a matter of sexual orientation. But is this the reality of the situation? This question will need to be raised in the debate regarding the relative value of the different readings.

Reading # 3 of Rom 1:26-27

The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. According to this third reading, Rom 1:26-27 teaches: Homoeroticism is one of the sinful practices that are unacceptable in the Christian community, as the vices described in 1:28-32 are. This teaching is primarily addressed to heterosexual Christian believers. They should shun and/or ostracize homosexuals and other sinners, condemning their behavior in the hope that they will repent. Until they repent, these sinners are not full and legitimate members of the community. If they remain in their sin, the church might have to exclude them from the community. This teaching is also addressed to Christians who are practicing homosexuals; it demands that they repent from their sin. Such is, in brief, the conclusion reached by Brooten, who rejects this teaching.²⁵

Analytical Frame. This conclusion is closely related to the preceding one, yet it is distinct, because Rom 1:26-27 is now read together with 1:28-32 as a part of a “Rule for Community Life.” This focus is quite appropriate, since it is clear that this letter is concerned with issues of community life.

The rest of the analytical focus is the same as the preceding one. Since the text is read as a “Rule for Community Life,” what is most significant in these verses is, once again, the description of this behavior. Consequently, here also, the connotations of each of the words are most significant; each descriptive term used by Paul is a window upon a sinful behavior which needs to be banned from the community. The conclusion is once again that in Rom 1:26-27 Paul refers to, and condemns, any homoerotic acts by lesbians and gays; these are particularly serious sins, as is signaled by their relatively lengthy description at the beginning of the list of sinful behaviors.²⁶

Hermeneutical-Theological Frame. The primary role of Rom 1:26-27 as scriptural text has changed. This reading presupposes that the role of Scripture for Christian believers is to be an authoritative “Canon,” that is, a “measure” for assessing the quality of behavior of the members of a community; an authoritative “Rule for Community Life.”²⁷Ultimately, this authoritative Canon is expected to mold the will of believers so that they will conform to the norms of the community. This authoritative Canon has this power of persuasion, because it includes threats against sinners, who are without excuse, because “they know God's decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die” (Rom 1:32), as Brooten emphasizes.²⁸

This reading presupposes a concept of sin according to which sin is grounded in a lack of will to do God’s will, a rebellion against God that brings about a “suppression of the truth” (Rom 1:18, 21) – instead of the reverse understanding (see Reading # 1, for which sin is rooted in a lack of knowledge of God’s will).

Contextual Frame. This interpretation and its teaching presuppose a Christian community life in a permissive society with lax morality. The major pragmatic problem in this context is a lack of will to do God’s will – because people want to follow their desires, rather than respect “the social order established by God at the creation”; thus, sin is “not a private sin against a system of private morality as contemporary Christians may understand.”²⁹

Reading # 4 of Rom 1:26-27

The Teaching of this Text for Christian Believers. According to this fourth reading, Rom 1:26-27 teaches heterosexuals who condemn homosexuals: Homoeroticism is a sin among others; hate the sin, but love the sinners, as God loves them. Homosexuals are like any other sinners, and thus, should not be singled out as “them”! Christians should recognize as full members of the community those homosexuals who struggle with God’s grace to overcome their homosexual inclination (as other people also struggle to overcome their own sins), even though, like everybody else, again and again they need forgiveness, because they failed in their struggle against sin. All of us, Christian believers, and members of the community of faith, are “recovering sinners” by God’s grace and through faith, whatever might be our sin. Consequently, according to this reading, the teaching that Rom 1:26-27 (together with the rest of the letter) brings to homosexuals is the good news of God’s unconditional love for them.

Analytical Frame. This conclusion is different from the preceding ones because Rom 1:26-27 is now read as part of Paul’s argument in Rom 1:16-3:31, or even Rom 1:16-5:21.

According to this reading, what is most significant in the text is, first, the way in which Paul ties together the description of homosexuals with that of other sinners, not only in 1:28-32, but also in the following chapters, and second, the place of this description in the rhetoric of the letter. From this perspective, one recognizes that 1:26-27 is part of a “rhetorical sting.” Through the description of homoerotic acts and other vices, Paul coaxes his readers to condemn those who commit such vices (as Readings # 2 and # 3 do!). Then, Paul continues: “Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things” (Rom 2:1). From the perspective of this interpretation, the point is that all people, whatever might be their sins, are equally sinners, in rebellion against God the Creator and in need of God’s grace. “For there is no distinction, since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (3:22-24). In other words, Rom 1:26-27 is part of the proclamation of the Gospel as good news of God’s reconciliation with all human beings, while they are still sinners: “But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us . . . For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son” (5:8, 10). Such is, in brief, Richard Hays’s interpretation.³⁰

Hermeneutical-Theological Frame. The primary role of a scriptural text such as Rom 1:26-27 (as a part of 1:16-5:21) has once again changed. Now the interpretation presupposes that Scripture functions like a “Family Album” and/or as “Good News.” By the metaphor “Family Album” I seek to express that according to this interpretation the role of Scripture is to establish and reinforce the believer’s identity and vocation as a member of the family of God. Here, it gives believers a true sense of relationship to other children of God – all of whom, including homosexuals, are sinners – and to God who is in the same relationship with every member of this family (God does not show partiality, 3:22). The more traditional metaphor “Good News” expresses that the message of the Gospel for sinners, including homosexuals, is not a negative word of condemnation, but a positive word affirming God’s unconditional love for them, and, therefore, that God’s will and commands are to be trusted; it requires from them what is good for them.

This reading presupposes a concept of sin as grounded in a lack of will to do God’s will, a rebellion against God that brings about a “suppression of the truth” (Rom 1:18, 21) as in Reading # 3. But according to Reading # 4, such a wrong will is not changed by an authoritative condemnation and the threat of exclusion from the community (as is presupposed in Reading # 3), but by an invitation to respond to God’s love, as well as by the compassionate inclusion of the sinners in a church community with the help of which all sinners struggle to progressively turn away from their sinful inclinations, whatever they might be, including homosexual orientation. The Christian community must remember that it lives in the tension between the “now” and the “not yet” of the gospel that gives all Christians, including homosexuals, the possibility to overcome their rebellion against God and their wrong will, and to have a “disciplined” life free from homoeroticism.³¹

Contextual Frame. This reading offers a teaching for members of the church who have a wrong will as they show by being judgmental and by rejecting homosexuals, in a knee jerk reaction. It is a teaching for heterosexual Christians who are homophobic – when homophobia is understood as resulting from a wrong will (that can therefore be freely changed by an act of will). These heterosexual Christians are led to recognize that their church community is not a community of people free from sin, but rather a community of “recovering sinners,” whatever might be their particular sin. Homophobic Christians are thus challenged to conceive of the church as an inclusive community, in which everyone needs to benefit from God’s grace, and everyone needs the support of the other members of the church as all strive to overcome their particular sins. They should “hate the sin” (homoeroticism), “but love the sinners” (homosexuals).

This reading also offers a teaching for homosexuals. In a homophobic society, homosexuals are victims of homophobia. They are constantly marginalized, excluded, rejected, ostracized, psychologically abused, if not physically abused. As a consequence, they often lose any sense of self-worth. Victimized by homophobia, they end up seeing themselves as victims. The good news of the gospel is that, without pre-conditions, homosexuals, as well as other sinners, are fully accepted and loved by God, by contrast with their being ostracized in society.

In sum, proclaiming this good news and living by it involves welcoming homosexuals without conditions – with the convictions that God’s loving Word transforms people in rebellion against God.

Epilogue

What is a comparative practice of autobiographical criticism that can also be called scriptural criticism? From this brief example, it should be clear that it involves the scholarly analysis of a selection of diverse interpretations. This scholarly analysis should aim at “showing honor” to each interpretation, even to the most humble one, by elucidating its legitimate analytical choices and its plausible hermeneutical-theological choices, as well as its contextual choices.

Then, should not this practice of autobiographical criticism conclude by arguing that one of these interpretations is “better” than the others? As a biblical critic, I am tempted to do so by claiming that my own interpretation is better grounded in the text. How much do I long for the subject/object dichotomy and the closure it promises! But, this would “close down” the critical process, instead of promoting it. This is why I want to insist that the comparative practice of autobiographical criticism should remain open-ended. Its role is to open up the possibility of a debate, a true live-debate, in a community, regarding the best hermeneutical-theological and contextual choices in given situations.

Obviously, I favor my own reading. I have very good reasons for choosing it. But the prophetic word needs to be heard, claimed, and proclaimed by a community. Thus, my interpretation is placed on the round-table of a debate in which proponents of other interpretations will also participate. Our respective elucidations of the characteristic analytical, hermeneutical-theological, and contextual frames of several interpretations demonstrate the need for a debate. There are real choices before us, requiring a decision from the community. Should we reject any homoerotic act? Should homosexuals be shunned in the Christian community? Should homosexual inclinations be viewed as a sin from which homosexuals should strive to free themselves with the help of the community? Or should homosexual abusive relationships, as any other abusive relationships, be rejected as monstrous idolatrous behaviors, even as the community is gratefully enriched by the God-sent gifts of “holy, just and good” homosexual and heterosexual relationships? Such a round-table debate – a debate in which each interpretation is recognized as equally legitimate and plausible – is called for by the fact that our interpretations are autobiographical and scriptural. I cannot impose on others my own choice of an interpretation, although I hope to convince them to adopt it, as they hope to convince me to adopt theirs. A scriptural interpretation must be examined and validated within a debate in a community of believers, because it is an interpretation of Scripture for their life as believers in a concrete context. This debate is, therefore, regulated by two kinds of questions related to the twofold commandments of loving God and loving neighbors. What is the “best” interpretation, when “best” is assessed in terms of convictions, and thus of the hermeneutical-hermeneutical categories that frame each interpretation? What is the “best” interpretation, when “best” is assessed in terms of the positive or negative effects it has upon believers and upon people around them in particular life-contexts? <