OCR Text |
Show The heterosexual trying to decide what is morally right and wrong for the homosexual, is like the Quaker deciding the moral standards fora 99 Mormon polygamist. f r I V I i I V ' t 4 f 4 . I I I V f ) The Third of a Four Part Series is continued as the writer answers his BYU professors lecture on homosexuality with a retort called i A i t ' i "I .Ji wupini ' ' '!' jj-r prefer to separate Paul personally from his writings at this point since the real live Paul (as much as we can know of him) presents complexities and paradoxes not easily accounted for in modern Church programs and doctrinal interpretations. First is Pauls unmarried status. As the Church has become increasingly anxious about homosexuality and the many single adult males, it has renewed its efforts to prove Paul was married. The argument is extremely weak and is a most disingenuous reconstruction of historical and ST. PAUL A CLOSET? The accurate interpretation required here, however, does not dismiss what appears to be Pauls general condemnation of homosexuality. This fact we must face, Paul was very personally concerned about homosexuality. Those who understand the complex phenomenon of homosexuality see the evidences of the struggle Paul was possibly laboring under. Speculating about Pauls sexuality is dangerously difficult, but certain things can be responsibly pointed out and need to be since his statements on sexual matters, particularly homosex-ualitbear so much weight. Many theological i authorities7 i scrip-turaldat- It certainly flies in the face of the details surround-tin- his ministry, to the y, ? a. far-flun- g g have been married is his possible memberhip in the Sanhedrin. Marriage was one of the requirements to. belong to this group. Paul was no ones fool and a mast er at circumventing in the face of his overpowering rhetoric. Concomitant with of logic they were ill prepared to counter, even at one time conFor verting his jail keeper. years, Paul held the Roman courts and executioner at bay. If Paul did join the Sanhedrin, it isn't likely that a minor marriage was the requirement that a member of the Sanhedrin should also be a father. There is no indication, scripturally or historically , that Paul complied with this requirement either. Any mention by Paul of his children is conspicuous by its absence. Most Biblical authorities agree that Paul was prob-a- b ly unmarried. But even if it is granted that he was, the question of his sexuality is not muted. That the Church makes such an issue of his marital status only makes us wonder all the more. Why all the fuss about proving Paul was married when not have been quickly set aside escape this peculiar refabrica- - legal technicalities through adroit application of his legal acumen, and his rights as a Hebrew and a Roman citizen. Even more to the point was his ' unusual ability to overwhelm his opponents with an articulation - - : - ' 'uuj.'i tion of history to fit our modern concerns? Was John the Baptist ever married? What do we now do with the recent mounting evidence from latest Dead Seai scrolls that John the Beloved, "that disciple whom Jesus loved," never married? Paul's attitude towards marriage for others is, at best, ambivalent, and he unmistakably recommends celibacy on several occasions. His statements on marriage are. for the most part, studiously eschewed by the modern Church. His attitude towards women ranges from a benign condescension, to almost outright mysogeny. Much of this mav be attribu- - v branches i of the Church. -- The: ..I i'onlv remote hint that Paul might toward women at that time, but s I i ,i r |