Visit the
Arizona Image Gallery

INTRODUCTION

Perhaps no other debate in recent history has provoked such ignitable dialogue as the current one regarding homosexuality. Reams of papers have been written addressing the issue. Theologians and ethicists have struggled with it. Religious denominations have debated it. The media has sensationalized it. The general trend in most all the discussion is moving towards more and more acceptance of homosexuality as an alternate life style which should be respected by all, Christians and non-Christians alike.

There is only one small problem with this trend and the assumptions which it propagates, homosexuality is not only the cause of many social evils and diseases, but it is also, more importantly, rejected completely by God.

THESIS

The purpose of this paper will be to look at the apostle Paul's understanding of homosexuality within the chapter one of Romans. Does he, the inspired author of 13 New Testament books, see homosexuality as an alternative life style that is looked upon favorably by God, or does he see it as a mockery of God's created order? As we take a closer look at this passage, the pro-homosexual interpretation of these texts will first be discussed with a refutation section following. It will be seen that homosexuality is not only condemned by God but it is in fact a punishment in and of itself which will result in eventual eternal damnation.

A. Terms

Before addressing the Pauline texts, it is profitable to define the terms involved and analyze the present social and religious panorama relating to homosexuality.

Homosexuality as defined by Random House is, "sexual desire or behavior directed at an individual of the same sex." It stands in opposition to heterosexuality which is simply the same, but directed at an individual of the opposite sex.

B. Statistics

According to a study conducted by Kinsey, approximately 4% of males and 2% of females are homosexuals for most or all of their lives,and he estimated that nearly 20% of all people have been at some point in their lives primarily homosexual. Up until 1974 the American Psychiatric Association listed homosexuality as a pathological psychiatric condition, and even after its official removal from this list, 69% of APA members still believed that homosexuality "usually represents a pathological adaptation."

C. Social Overview

Socially, however, homosexuality has been gaining rapid acceptance among many. The homosexual community has rallied together to promote their lifestyle and change public opinion about it. Their defense usually follows one of two main ideas; (1) it is my body and I can do whatever I want with it, with whoever I want. I don't tell you what or who you can do it with, so you can't tell me, or (2) its a free country. The weakness in both of these arguments is obvious. A murderer could say the same thing.

D. Religious Overview

Within the religious community, the debate has been equally intense. The liberal position being that homosexuality is not forbidden in scripture, therefore it is permissible as long as homosexuals live by the same fidelity rules as heterosexuals. Among the denominations holding this view are, The Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, Unitarian Universalist Association, and The United Church of Christ. Other major denominations are moving in a similar direction. The conservative position contends that homosexuality is prohibited by scripture and those who practice it and are unrepentant are condemned. Roman Catholics and most all conservative and evangelical protestant denominations are in this category.

II. The Scripture

A. Introduction

Because the scriptures which address the issue come from various sources and are in various contexts, we have chose to focus our attention on one author only, Paul, and his reference to homosexuality in Romans. The scope of the passage to be examined is from Romans 1:18 to 2:16. We will focus on verses 26 and 27, but the context and the implications of these verses will also be addressed. Paul states,

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. (Romans 1:26-27, NIV)

It seems at first sight to be a definite condemnation of homosexual behavior. However, the homosexual community and those who are pro-homosexual interpret these verses quite differently.

B. Pro-homosexual Interpretation

The pro-homosexual positions on this passage center around six basic arguments. These arguments will be explained in this section and refuted in the following section.

The first contention the pro-homosexual "interpreters" have with Romans 1 is that Paul, as an author in a specific social setting and historical time, has written with a cultural bias or twist. Therefore, when Paul seems to be addressing the issue of homosexuality, he is merely talking about some practice that was looked down upon in his day, in his culture. Many of Paul's other writings are viewed as culturally bound, even by conservative theologians. Today's churches are inconsistent in regard to such Pauline commands as those concerning women keeping silent in church and the wearing of hats. The second argument put forward is that within the context of Romans 1 and 2, Paul did not set out to specifically address the issue of homosexuality. He merely mentions it in passing. He is simply giving an illustration, not setting down a law or moral code. In other places where he mentions sexual issues he does not even address homosexuality.

The third matter of interpretation comes from Paul's usage of the terms "natural" and "unnatural." Chris Peck states that "'Natural' is a powerful, evocative word which appeals to common sense notions of what is right or wrong, so that what can be described as 'unnatural'...can be assumed to be 'wrong'. The appeal to nature then is based upon prior notions that we have about what makes and ordered society. Paul is not talking about a nature ordained by God, but rather a general, culturally bound idea, it is unnatural for him and those of his specific culture. In Paul's time there was no clearly defined concept of "natural law." What is natural for some may be unnatural to others. Paul does not give a uniform picture of what "natural" is. In Ephesians Paul says that Christians "were by nature children of wrath." This is a perfect example of how Paul would not have us live according to nature. Romans 1, therefore, may be this idea that Paul borrowed from the Stoics of his day.

The fourth argument is in almost opposition to the third. It follows the idea that Paul does condemn that which is unnatural, (against the God-ordained plan) but for some, that God ordained plan is homosexuality. God made me gay therefore it would be unnatural for me to become a heterosexual. This passage then appear to be about those who leave one sexual orientation for another, not about those whose primary sexual orientation is homosexual. For invert homosexuals then, there is no relationship to give up and therefore it is not a sin.

The fifth argument turns in another direction, stating that it is the acts which are condemned by Paul, not the orientation. Paul says that men committed indecent acts with other men, he does not say that it is wrong to be a homosexual, but acts of sexual violence or indecency, such as rape or incest are condemned. Neither here nor anywhere else does Paul write specifically about those who chose to enter into an affectionate, same-sex relationship.

The final contention again switches back and claims that what Paul is condemning here in Romans 1 is lustful homosexuality. The sin is not in the orientation or the acts but the lust involved. Lust is wrong for all heterosexual and homosexual. Paul states that men were "inflamed with lust." He does not talk about genuine loving and caring fidelity between two people, whether homosexual or heterosexual. Romans 14:14 is often quoted by those holding this view. It states that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it is. Paul therefore is declaring that homosexuality without lust is clean.

C. Summary

All of these positions attempt, via verbal gymnastics, to water down or rationalize Paul's statements. Each argument has obvious flaws its exegesis, structure, historical assumptions and theology. We will now address each of these pro-homosexual contentions.

D. Refutation of the Pro-homosexual Interpretation

To begin with, the belief that the biblical authors, especially Paul, were culturally bound exposes a deficient view of biblical inspiration. If Scripture is not inspired by God, why worry about what it says at all? And, whether women are allowed to wear hats or not does not affect what Paul's testimony about homosexuality is. The mere accusation of hypocrisy, justified or not, does not suddenly make homosexuality acceptable. Moral commandments are not situational. Wearing hats may be considered unimportant by some, but when it comes to moral issues such as rape or incest, no one will attempt to scream "culturally specific!" It is recognized by most everyone that all persons regardless of epic, era, language, race religion, or culture are all basically the same. We have the same need, problems, desires and sins.

With regards to the second contention about Paul's intention not being to discuss homosexuality, this is true in one aspect. Paul was describing God's wrath against man for his rejection of the creator for the created. Man's idolatry was what God, and Paul, are condemning. However, when Paul wishes to give a poignant example of how corrupt the world has become, how twisted and evil it is, he then mentions homosexuality. This context actually supports the idea that Paul sees homosexuality as condemned evil. The fact that he does not mention it is other areas in dealing with sex, is an argument from silence, and most likely his audience was more concerned about problems of marriage and fidelity and not the despised notion of homosexuality.

The third issue raised by those who argue from a pro-homosexual standpoint attempted to negate Paul's usage of the terms "natural" and "unnatural." Paul was a part of a culture that was hellenistic, and he used many of their traditional views and ideas and turned them around and used them to related God and Christianity. The Greek idea that nature and law had two opposing spheres, that which is according to nature, and that which is against nature, is borrowed by Paul and placed within the framework of God's created order--God's natural order. The term jusikoV (natural) refers to what is the constitution of man, his being, as derived from the Creator (Genesis 1 and 2). Paul borrows other Greek ideas in this same way elsewhere (when he quotes what was said about Zeus and applies it to God).

The fourth argument is probably the most adhered to among those who claim Paul is not condemning homosexuality. Its assertion that a persons natural inclination may be for someone of the same sex and what Paul is condemning is giving us your natural disposition for something else. This idea of "what is natural for me" is not supported. In fact, never does the term jusikoV have such a meaning in Greek literature or Biblical contexts. Those who hold this view (Boswell), presuppose that Paul is describing some specifiable group of heterosexually-oriented individuals whose personal life pilgrimage has led them beyond heterosexual activity into promiscuous homosexual behavior. However, Paul is not providing biographical sketches of individuals, but rather offering a overview of fallen humanity, which exhibits itself in such practices as homosexuality. In fact the idea that some individuals have and inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore continually gay is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the New Testament or in any other Jewish or Christian writings of the ancient world. To introduce a notion, such as this, which is entirely foreign to Paul's thought world and then to insist that the distinction is fundamental to Paul's position is ludicrous. This argument is a prime example of the pro-homosexuals reliance on eisegesis rather than exegesis.

The fifth argument that claims Paul is only concerned with the immoral acts can almost be refuted by the sixth argument sighted. The language Paul uses is entirely more inclusive than a condemnation of acts alone. In verse 24 Paul claims that "sinful desires" are involved along with "shameful lusts" in verse 26. And, in verse 28, Paul states that God gave them over to a "depraved mind." The idea that Paul is only concerned with indecent acts and not orientation is entirely erroneous. Homosexuality is in and of itself indecent and a perversion (v.27) and, actually a punishment or penalty for an idolatrous mind.

Related to this is the sixth contention that holds Paul is only concerned about "lustful" homosexuality. As noted above there is no such thing as good homosexuality. It is a punishment and a sin. It knows no other way than lustfulness and indecency and promiscuity. Figures regarding the promiscuity of homosexuals bear this out.

A prime example of the failure of those who hold these last two positions is their claim that Paul, in Romans 14:14, has declared all things to be clean. However, this ignores the obvious context of this passage, which is food offered to idols and religious holidays. He is not dealing here with moral or ethical commands, and he certainly is not overthrowing all of Moses' and Jesus' commandments about sin. To emphasize this even more, one cannot speak of clean adultery or unclean adultery. Like homosexuality these are unclean by the nature of what they are.

A. Context

Based on a proper interpretation of this text, it is obvious how not only Paul regards homosexuality, but also how God views it. The context of this passage paints a desolate picture for the godlessness and wickedness described within it. Paul declares that man knows what is right and what is wrong "because God has made it plain to them" (Romans 1:19). Paul also closes the door on the arguments against this by stating in verse 20 that men are without excuse.

The primary idea within the passage, as mentioned earlier, is Paul's description of God's condemnation of idolatry. Because men are idolatrous, God gave them up to their sin (v. 26). God gave them over to the shameful, unnatural lusts and actions of homosexuality. Homosexuality then became a punishment in itself, as Paul describes in verse 27, "Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." Surveys of homosexual individuals have shown far greater frequencies for social diseases, alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, and depression, than heterosexuals. The guilt and lack of self-esteem is the immediate penalty for their sin. AIDS is a glaring example of this. Close to 90% of all those infected with the HIV virus have practiced homosexual activities. AIDS is for most a homosexual disease and a penalty for perversion.

B. Conclusions

Homosexuals have twisted the known truth about God and exchanged it for a lie. Not only do they practice these things, says Paul, but they also approve of those who practice them. Homosexuals, as is evident by their attempted refutation of the Bible, go to great lengths to try to rationalize and convince others that their position, their sin, is acceptable. As evidenced by the movement of political and religious debates, they have had a degree of success in saturating societies opinions about homosexuality.

The short term penalties are visible, but what is the long-term outlook for homosexuals? Paul addresses this issue in Romans 2. In verse 5, he states that "because of your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed." Paul promises the unrepentant that God will give to each according to what he has done (v.6). 1 Timothy 1:10-11 declares that homosexuality along with other sins are contrary to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. Likewise in 1 Corinthians 6:10, Paul declares that homosexuals, along with all the other unrepentant and sinful persons in the world, should not be deceived but understand that they will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

C. Summation

There can be no doubt, from Paul's viewpoint, how God views homosexuality. Any attempt to water this truth down is simply further proof of the fallen, unwise and sinful men who perpetuate the lie. There is hope however, in that God's grace is sufficient to a repentant person. Those who are homosexual are not precluded from saving grace. What is necessary however is a rejection of that sinful lifestyle and an acceptance of God as Lord of their lives. He promises that they can be a new creation in him if they only repent and are saved.

The Christian community must remain firm in its biblical and moral stance against homosexuality. Yet lost people must be reached, confronted with the sinfulness of their ways, and helped to see the shining light of Jesus Christ. Then we can welcome them into the body of Christ as fellow brothers and sisters, and "encourage one another and build each other up" (1 Thes. 5:11) in our mutual Christian walk.