The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Was the Apostle Paul Gay?

Practices Christian Living
#1

I’ve just been wondering about this lately. Not that I have any real proof, it’s just a sort of “thinking out loud” hypothesis, really.

We know that Paul talked about how he wished that everyone could be as he was (unmarried, and presumably celibate) for the sake of the kingdom/ gospel, being able to focus on that without distraction; although he clearly realized that wasn’t possible for everyone. We also know that Paul had a “thorn in the flesh, a messenger of satan”, sent to him by God in order to keep him humble. We don’t really know what this was, we only know that he asked God to remove it three times; for which God’s final answer :mrgreen: was, “No, Paul; My grace is sufficient for you.”
We also know that Paul spoke against at least certain homosexual acts; but interestingly, neither he nor Jesus ever said a word directly against actually being homosexual.
I bring this up for a couple of reasons. One is that the debate over homosexuality rages on in the church and between the church and the rest of the world. We know that the scriptural evidence against homosexuality itself is a bit sketchy, even though at least certain acts are specifically spoken against (pederasty, for example). But interestingly, consistently across all cultures and people groups, there is about 6% of the population that is homosexual. One of our Sunday class leaders suggested that perhaps homosexuality was a misdirect (based on, say, the fall) of a God given ability to be celibate due to lack of attraction for the opposite sex; perhaps in order to be able to be set apart for the work of the kingdom without the usual distractions…
Anyway; is it possible that God “makes” people “homosexual” and they just misuse it?

#2

Hi Melchizedek,

New poster here. This is a very interesting thought and one I hadn’t seen before. “Was the Apostle Paul gay?” I think it’s certainly possible. The evidence you present certainly makes me wonder and you very well may be right. My views on homosexuality have changed quite a bit over my life. I have been dragged “kicking and screaming” you might say to the point where I accept both the homosexual orientation and homosexual acts as being OK. I suspect homosexuals that have attraction to the same sex is due to the randomness of evolution or life experience as opposed to being a specific work of God. Do they need to fight these impulses? I think not, (though this is a recent conclusion for me). Certainly pederasty etc cannot be condoned, but consenting relations between adult homosexuals is (I believe) something that God would approve of. To be honest, it’s hard for me to say that as the “yuck” factor when thinking of specific acts kicks in, but I can see little harm and much good in people loving each other whether heterosexual or homosexual. Certainly there can be “misuse” of sexuality, but that is true of heterosexual and homosexual people and given the numbers, heterosexuals are far more at fault there. Just my thoughts.

All the best,

Steve

#3

I think sincere and passionate love between people of the same gender is good in every way. But I don’t think it should be sexualized. It’s pretty clear that’s not what those bits were made for.

#4

Hi Allan,

I can appreciate your position but as I’ve mentioned, I’ve come to accept that the sexualization of homosexual love is not evil. The argument that

has some validity but it’s difficult to draw a sharp line and certainly I don’t see anything in scripture that does.“Those bits” are certainly used for things other than reproduction in heterosexual relations, and more often than in homosexual relations, I would suspect. Not many heterosexuals would accept your implied restrictions (and I recognize that doesn’t make it right). Was my leg meant to kick a football or my fingers to play a piano? Certainly not the primary purpose for survival, but organs can be multifunctional. Who’s to say what various organs were designed for? I do think that there are limits that seem obvious,i.e. my eyeballs were not meant to stick needles in, but as far as homosexual sex goes, I don’t think this argument from design is very compelling.

All the best,

Steve

#5

If I pour acid over my rose bush and it dies, it’s not unreasonable to conclude that roses are not “designed” to be doused with acid. By carefully considering the biochemistry etc of the rose, we can reasonably conclude it needs water, not acid, to fulfill its nature, to do what it’s meant to do.

By carefully examining our reproductive bits, we can determine their primary function, that of getting a sperm to an ovum. Once fertilized, other physical bits begin to nurture the growing baby, and psychological bits (including the desire to have lots more sex) hold the couple together. Sex may well be about bonding, but this particular sort of bonding is all about the baby, and keeping it alive to adulthood. If the bonding is not about the baby, why should sex be limited to faithful monogamy? Surely, the more bonding between friends, the better. And where would the harm be in adults bonding with children etc?

If sex, by nature, is all about babies and bonding (but bonding for the sake of said babies), then homosexual acts must be unnatural on both counts. They are inherently infertile, and the bonding that occurs has nothing to do with babies. At least, homosexual bonding serves no obvious function in keeping babies alive.

Just some thoughts. I’m quite confused on this issue, and realize how easy it is to hurt people inadvertently when throwing these sorts of ideas around.

#6

Hi Allan… in all honesty I suspect that for the majority of heterosexuals mutual “bonding” for its own sake would be far more in the picture when it comes to making love, as opposed for such to be “all about” making “babies”; babies of course should they be, being an even richer bonus.

#7

Agreed, but this change in heterosexual perspective is quite recent, and is due to the availability of effective contraception (which is also unnatural.)

#8

No worries,Allan. Just thinking aloud here myself. :slight_smile:

Here’s a thought…as God is love, perhaps the primary purpose of sexual organs is for the “bonding” mentioned, for eros both for the pleasure and joy it brings but also to lead to deeper forms of love, agape. Reproduction would be a secondary purpose and so erotic love within certain boundaries for the protection of those involved would be, not only permitted, but desired by God.

Steve

#9

Was Jesus gay, I wonder? The evidence does seem to point that way: he hung out with a bunch of blokes, never had a girlfriend - and, if the renaissance artists are to be believed, had long girly hair. Very suspicious if you ask me.

#10

An interesting pushback against all the homosexual acceptance (acceptance of homosexuality itself, not the people) here:

georgesarris.blogspot.com/20 … stles.html

#11

There’s absolutely no doubt that Paul was gay. Consider the following passages from his letters:

Romans 16:19 For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.
1 Corinthians 16:17 I rejoice at the coming of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus, because they have made up for your absence…
2 Corinthians 7:9 As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us.
2 Corinthians 7:16 I rejoice, because I have perfect confidence in you.
Philippians 1:18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice… .
Philippians 4:10 I rejoiced in the Lord greatly that now at length you have revived your concern for me. You were indeed concerned for me, but you had no opportunity.
Colossians 1:24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church…

So, as you can see, Paul did a lot of rejoicing. Yes, Paul was happy and gay! No doubt about it.

If the title of the thread is asking whether or not Paul was a homosexual… well, that is a different question.

I refuse to employ the beautiful word “gay” as a description of same-sex attraction. I don’t care how many people currently use the word in this way. I REFUSE TO DO SO.

Consider the following passage from the King James Bible:

For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool:4 Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? (James 2:2-4)

What do you think the “gay clothing” was to which James referred? Maybe cross dressing? Or men wearing a yellow shirt on Thursdays? No. It referrred to splendid, magnificant, or elegant clothing.

And how about the Xmas song, “Deck the Halls”? Do the words “Don we now our gay apparel” refer to dressing as homosexuals? No way. It refers to putting on festive clothing.

When I was growing up, and a girl said, “We really had a gay time” she wasn’t referring to a homosexual experience.

#12

There is no scriptural evidence that Paul was a homosexual. After all, there are some men who are able to maintain virginity. Paul himself said this, but if one can’t contain himself, then he should get married, according to Paul.

It is possible that Paul had been married. He used the word “agamos” (unmarried) to describe himself, and that word was often used of a person who had been married, but was no longer married. Some say that it is likely that Paul had been a member of the Sanhedrin, but there is no established evidence of this. I understand that members of the Sanhedrin had to be married.

#13

As I pointed out in the original post, there is no direct evidence that he was homosexual. It’s purely speculation.

#14

That’s a funny argument :confused: . The things about gay people is that they are attracted to the same sex in the same way that heterosexual people are attracted to the opposite sex. So if a gay person embraces celibacy for the sake of the kingdom they have the same level of potential distraction as a straight person who embraces celibacy for the sake of the kingdom.

P.S. I think you are arguing that gay people are created to be celibate (because the existence of around 6% of gay people in any given population suggests a measure of intelligent design); but because of the Fall they have become enmeshed in sinful same sex desire (the intentions of the Designer have been frustrated for the moment). St Paul then, according to your argument, may - just may - have been a gay man who through his dependence on the grace of God was able to fulfil his true vocation of celibacy and completely subordinate any of his same sex desires that came from his fallen nature (although he always had to struggle with these desires - God would not simply take them away). It a way of saying that homosexual desire is disordered and not according to the plan of creation without arguing that homosexuals are actually heterosexuals engaged in depravity who need to repent and/or be cured. Well it doesn’t stack up for me.

#15

i’ve heard people argue that eunuchs may refer to homosexuals. Jesus (or was it Paul) talked of some being eunuchs by birth, these are who they speak of.

#16

It was Jesus who said:

“For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” (Matthew 19:12 )

I don’t think the word “eunuch” EVER meant “homosexual”. Rather the word was normally used to refer to a castrated man.
Jesus said:

  1. There are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb.
    Some men are born without the normally functioning equipment.

  2. There are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men.
    In early times some men had been castrated in order that a king could trust them to supervise his harem.

  3. There are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.
    This either refers to men who have castrated themselves so that they could devote their entire lives to serving in the Kingdom, or else it refers to men who have succeeded in being celibate without undue tempation, for the sake of the Kingdom.

#17

Hello Melchizedek,

It is most certain that Paul was **not gay. Homosexuality is totally condemned in the Bible. And, Paul and the Apostles are slated to be in the Kingdom of God. Perhaps these three articles will shed some more light on the subject:
**
googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/ASK?sitesearch=askelm.com&q=gay+homosexuality&sa=Google+Search

Thank you for the question.

Ken

#18

Here we go again.

Of course God hates fags! Doesn’t everybody? How I love my poor sinning homosexual brethren. If only they’d get down on their camp little knees and pray away that ghastly icky sex stuff, I could love them properly, like Jesus does.

Thank you for sharing!

#19

You know I really think the question about Paul being gay is a red herring. I think it was first fully articulated by John Spong in Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism. Paul argues that he was blameless according to the law - the Torah - but here was still something missing. When he speaks of being at war with his flesh I think the word he uses is ‘sarx’ - dead flesh, the metaphor for a life that is not submitted to God - rather than ‘soma’ which means the physical body. I’ve always been convinced by Krister Stendhall’s analysis that Paul’s primal sin of which he speaks is that he was the persecutor of Christians because of his dedication to the law. And while Rabbis were normally married and saw it as a religious duty to marry, a prophet cold have a vocation of celibacy.

I don’t think the question of Paul’s sexuality -of which we know nothing - can do anything to clarify the issues of how to live compassionately with our gay brothers and sisters.

#20

The idea of marriage being the ‘queen of friendships’ and a place of affective bonding – of ‘never marry but for love’ is fairly recent too as a widely accepted idea in the West – it seems to really gather pace in a big way in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (and one of the things it leads to is ‘the domestication of heaven’, the idea that heaven will be a place where families are reunited.

The idea of sexual desire as a window on to higher Divine love is certainly found in Plato’s Symposium – although the context is originally homo-erotic. Indeed I’ve seen moving and very ancient Chinese poems that are infused with romantic longing that transcends reproductive surges. In the middle ages – when the teachings of the Churches were generally full of extreme sexual pessimism – it surfaces in Courtly Love and the poems of the Troubadors. Ideas of the refinements of courtship and the making gentle of lovemaking all come out of this. God made us playful and creative and affectionate, as well as giving us a genetic urge to reproduce. All of these shifts in the culture of love were there before the 1960’s contraceptive revolution.

Its’ a tricky one Allan :slight_smile: – but I think the question of what is ‘natural’ is very complex. I ten dot agree with Steve about Eros and Agape.