Returning to Romans

This week in A Women's Lectionary for the Whole Church, we have a reading from Romans. It happens to be one of the parts of Romans that has been important to Christians across the centuries. In seminary this spring, we devoted a week to the study of Romans 5: 1-11, which tries to answer the question, “What shall we do to be saved?” Paul’s answer is that we can do nothing, but through Jesus, we have access to God’s grace, and we can be reconciled. God made these arrangements even before humanity knew it wanted to be saved. In other words, the initiative comes from God, not from humans. This passage can be interpreted through the lens of atonement theology: Jesus had to die so that humans can have eternal life.

In Romans 5: 1-11, I can see the power of Paul’s ideas, but I can also see how they have been misused through the ages. I am most distressed by Romans 5: 3-4: “Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope” (NRSV). I read these verses, and I sense a huge history of this passage being used across centuries to tell people not to work to alleviate suffering. Or worse, I see this passage being used to tell people that suffering is actually a positive thing.

I don’t think that Paul would approve of his writing being used this way, of course. I do understand that this passage can be used to give us comfort during the times that suffering does come into our lives. I also think these passages can be dangerous because sometimes (often?), suffering does not bring perseverance, character, and hope. It’s just as likely that suffering breaks a person and for a variety of reasons, recovery isn’t possible.

This theology seems to be a sibling of the “God never sends you more than you can handle.” What do we then say to the person who suffers and doesn’t see themselves as persevering and developing character? What do we say to the person who loses all hope because of the immense suffering they have endured?

I am also troubled by the language of humans being God’s enemies and needing the blood of Jesus to save us from God’s wrath. I understand the centuries of Christian theology that have stemmed from these ideas, but I find substitutionary atonement theology problematic: God, who is so creative in other areas, can't think of any other way to save humanity? The fact that this theology is easy to misuse to manipulate people makes it even more troubling. We know that crucifixion was used for enemies of the state, threats to the Roman empire. Jesus wasn't crucified because of the sins I would commit 2000 years later. Jesus was crucified because worldly authorities saw his teaching as so threatening that it justified this punishment, so that others would take heed and be obedient to the state.

I do see the appeal of God saving humanity without humanity needing to perform actions to prove themselves worthy of saving. I am a Lutheran, and the concept of grace is important to me. But Paul’s theology in Romans has so much potential for misuse that I just can’t escape my feelings of unease as I read this passage.


It's important to realize that Paul wasn't writing for us. Paul thought that Jesus would be returning to earth in a year or two. Does that knowledge change how you see the passage? For a group of seminary students in the spring of 2022, it did. We were able to appreciate the positive parts of Paul's message in a new way.