As a university student in the late 60s, I bought the common interpretation of Paul promoting male domination over female and also reading theologian interpreters such as John Calhoun in the 18th/19th Century about how races other than whites were inferior therefore slavery was not only justified but essential for well being.
Then I actually read what he wrote. Not what one theologian or politician said, but actually to read the text. Studying literature at university should have taught me how to read entire passages in order to glean meaning.
That was even before I carefully read NT Wright’s 1,700-page study Paul and the Faithfulness of God.
For example, a favorite verse pulled from context is used to say Paul called for men to rule the wife and family. But reading the entire paragraph (which you must do to understand anything), a careful reader approaching without preconceived philosophy seeking justification, sees that Paul is calling for mutual submission. Doesn’t that sound a lot like Jesus?
Another time the subject of a passage talking about Greek homosexuality is passion. It’s part of a passage condemning all sexual passion. (People speculate whether he had a wife. I think he didn’t. For one, he was never home. For another, he seemed to have a dim view of marriage, suggesting we’d all be better off single. I bet I’ve given my wife reason to wonder about that.)
I don’t necessarily agree with everything Paul wrote. I have many questions. But we should be fair enough to at least read the entire context before condemning.
Faith Venture 
Leave a comment