<p class="MsoNormal">Romans 1 is probably the biblical passage that poses the most difficulty for gay Christians when it comes to same-sex relationships. The Church has used this passage to judge and guilt many gay Christians into lives of mandatory celibacy and even caused many to abandon Christianity completely.<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Romans 1:26-27 says: <i>“</i><span class="text"><i>For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”</i></span><span class="text"> (NKJV)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="text">As we think through the context, interpretation, and application of Romans 1:26-27, I will draw a lot of quotes from 2 books, namely “Changing our Mind”, by David P. Gushee and “God and the gay Christian” by Matthew Vines.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="text">Although this above passage seems to speak against same-sex intercourse, looking at the context is very important to understand what this passage communicates. From the start, as we talk about context, it is important to note that this passage is not an exposition of what sexual sin or immorality is, but rather Paul is addressing the tragedy of idolatry and the nations of the world’s inability to recognize God and Paul references the consequences of idolatry.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="text"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">In his book, “Changing our Mind”, David Gushee confirms that as he writes: <i>“</i></span></span><i>Scholars historically have agreed that Paul’s purpose in Romans 1-3 is to paint a theological picture of the world, leading to the conclusion that every human being desperately needs the salvation offered by God through Jesus Christ.<span class="text"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">”<o:p></o:p></span></span></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="text">Sexual orientation is not a choice that a person makes. I never chose to be gay – rather I tried my very best to not be gay, to date girls and be as straight as possible. If I could choose, I most certainly would not choose to be gay. Again, this seems to be very different from the context that Paul is writing about. In the words of Matthew Vines:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Paul’s words indicate not only that the people he described exchanged opposite-sex for same-sex relations, but also that they were capable of heterosexual attraction. This understanding would match the expectations of ancient societies, and it would also fit with the rest of the Romans passage.”</i> (God and the gay Christian, pp. 102-103) <i>“Remember, the most common forms of same-sex behavior in the Greco-Roman world were pederasty, prostitution, and sex between masters and their slaves. The majority of men who indulged in those practices also engaged in heterosexual behavior, often during the same times in their lives.” </i>(God and the gay Christian, p. 104) <i>“The context in which Paul discussed same-sex relations differs so much from our own that it can’t reasonably be called the same issue.”</i> (God and the gay Christian, p. 106)<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal">Gushee agrees by writing:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>“By using the language of “exchanging” or giving up “natural” for “unnatural” intercourse, Paul may be saying that he thinks those engaging in same-sex intercourse were capable of “normal,” natural heterosexual relations but perversely chose same-sex. But, at the hermeneutical level, we now know that a small sexual minority is not at all capable of heterosexual attraction or relations. It does not seem that they can be fairly described as exchanging or giving up natural for unnatural sex. This raises reasonable questions about the fairness of applying this description to that part of the human community today.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p><span style="font-size: var(--bs-body-font-size); font-weight: var(--bs-body-font-weight); text-align: var(--bs-body-text-align);">Gushee also adds:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>“Harvard classics scholar Sarah Ruden, in her bracing book Paul Among the People, sharpens the cultural issue considerably. She describes widespread and quite vile Greco-Roman cultural practices authorizing often violent anal rape of powerless young men, especially slaves, but really anybody of lower social status. This practice was cruelly accompanied by moral condemnation of the victims rather than the victimizers, the latter of which were often celebrated for their virility. Ruden is convinced that this is what Paul had in mind when he thought about same-sex interest and activity, and this is why he links it to other vices of excess and debauchery in Romans 1.”<o:p></o:p></i></p><p class="MsoNormal">Matthew Vines continues:<o:p></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>“From the church’s early centuries through the nineteenth century, commentators consistently identified the moral problem in Romans 1:26–27 as “unbridled passions,” not the expression of a same-sex orientation. Furthermore, no biblical interpreter prior to the twentieth century even hinted that Paul’s statements were intended to consign a whole group of people to lifelong celibacy.”</i> (God and the gay Christian, p. 116)<span class="text"><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="text">The common understanding of same-sex relationships and same-sex intercourse in the time that Paul wrote these passages were much different than today. In Rom 1:26-27, Paul describes a sexual situation that is purely lustful, and not loving, monogamous or committed, which we find in many same-sex relationships and marriages today. W. Loader in his argument, in the book “</span>Two Views on Homosexuality, the Bible, and the Church<span class="text">”, for adopting an affirming view on same-sex relationships writes:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>“…we need to acknowledge that Paul’s understanding about the nature of human sexuality was limited, we cannot simply apply his judgments to the situations where people are genuinely gay.”</i> (p.45) <i>“It is not disrespectful of writers of Scripture and, in particular, of Paul, to suggest that their understanding of human reality needs to be supplemented.”</i> (p. 47) <i>“If we accept the need for a revised understanding of human sexuality, then it is hard to justify imposing laws which were grounded on the understanding of human sexuality which we acknowledge needed supplementing.”</i> (p. 48)<span class="text"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="text">David Gushee adds: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="text"><i>“</i></span><i>This would not be the only subject on which the contemporary application of Paul’s statements has been reevaluated in this way, leading to the setting aside of his implied or explicit directives (head-coverings, hair length, women keeping silent in church, instructions to slaves to obey their masters).<span class="text"><span style="background-image: initial; background-position: initial; background-size: initial; background-repeat: initial; background-attachment: initial; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial;">”</span></span></i><span class="text"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">It is very ironic that the Church has often used this passage (Rom. 1:26-27) to attack and condemn gay Christians (and often asked them to leave or even hatefully chased them away) and they fail to read just a few verses further:<o:p></o:p></p><p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><i>“You may think you can condemn such people, but you are just as bad, and you have no excuse! When you say they are wicked and should be punished, you are condemning yourself, for you who judge others do these very same things.”</i> (Rom. 2:1, NLT)<o:p></o:p></p>
💕 They love it! 💕
1
There are no comments to display!