| Romans 1 is a text that frequently surfaces with respect to the question of sexual ethics, especially same-sex sexual activity. Obviously there is much ink that could be (and has been) spilled on this topic, but here are a few brief observations on the text of Romans 1-2. 1. There is a connection between idolatry and sexual immorality |  |
This would have been a typical theme and obvious fact to all Jews in Paul's day, in part because pagan temples were not only a place of idolatry but also often occupied by priests and priestesses who would engage in sexual acts with those who visited the temples. So in Romans 1, Paul is making an observation about Gentiles that would have been obvious to most first-century audiences.
2. Sexual immorality is not the cause of God's judgment, it is the result of God's judgment.
In other words, the point is not that God is going to judge you because you've done this horrible thing (sexual immorality). Rather, the point is that humans have exchanged the truth of God for idols, and therefore God "gave them over" (1:24, 26, 28) to sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is the punishment, the natural outcome of forsaking the true God for idols. As Karl Barth put it, "The forgetting of the true God is already itself the breaking loose of His wrath against those who forget Him (1:18)" (Epistle to the Romans, p. 51). God's wrath is not God stepping in to send down an extra thunderbolt or two on the wicked; God's wrath is simply leaving the wicked to themselves. As New Testament scholar Richard Hays puts it: "Homosexuality, then, is not a provocation of 'the wrath of God' (Rom. 1:18); rather, it is a consequence of God's decision to 'give up' rebellious creatures to follow their own futile thinking and desires."
3. There is a logic of "exchange of otherness for sameness" in the text.
People exchange the truth of God for idols. Instead of properly worshipping God (the other), people worship creatures (the same).
People exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Men stopped properly engaging with women (the other) for other men (the same).
This makes sense of why Paul would mention same-sex sexual activity here--not because it's the sin of all sins but because it maps well rhetorically onto what he's saying. Of course, the fact that it maps well on to his rhetorical point doesn't mean it's not sin.
People exchange natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. Men stopped properly engaging with women (the other) for other men (the same).
This makes sense of why Paul would mention same-sex sexual activity here--not because it's the sin of all sins but because it maps well rhetorically onto what he's saying. Of course, the fact that it maps well on to his rhetorical point doesn't mean it's not sin.
4. The terms "natural" and "unnatural" can't be equated with 21st century social-cultural constructs, such as "sexual orientation."
Paul says that women and men exchanged "natural relations" for "unnatural" ones. Some people argue that Paul is criticizing men who are naturally attracted to women but engage in sexual activity with men. But what about men who are "naturally" attracted to men? Some scholars argue that the text simply doesn't speak to that--it only criticizes those whose orientation is toward the other sex but engage in sexual activity with those of the same sex. On this line of thinking, the text isn't criticizing same-sex, monogamous sexual activity for those for whom it is "natural."
Now, it seems to me that this line of reasoning would make sense if one could argue that Paul (or any first-century Jew for that matter) means by "natural" what contemporary thinkers mean when they talk about "orientation." But having read a number of scholars on both sides of this discussion, I haven't seen a strong case for that point. It would be analogous to arguing that the author of Genesis was thinking about modern scientific issues when they wrote Genesis 1. We're talking about thought worlds a couple millenia away. It seems much more probable that Paul is making a basic point that draws on Genesis 1-2, Lev. 18, and the words of Jesus regarding normative human sexual activity. The natural order, as set out in those texts, points to monogamous male-female marriage as the norm.
Now, it seems to me that this line of reasoning would make sense if one could argue that Paul (or any first-century Jew for that matter) means by "natural" what contemporary thinkers mean when they talk about "orientation." But having read a number of scholars on both sides of this discussion, I haven't seen a strong case for that point. It would be analogous to arguing that the author of Genesis was thinking about modern scientific issues when they wrote Genesis 1. We're talking about thought worlds a couple millenia away. It seems much more probable that Paul is making a basic point that draws on Genesis 1-2, Lev. 18, and the words of Jesus regarding normative human sexual activity. The natural order, as set out in those texts, points to monogamous male-female marriage as the norm.
5. This passage is not just about sexual sin.
The text mentions numerous other sins, including greed, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossips, slanderers, insolent, arrogant, boastful, disobey parents, no love, no mercy. Here's the problem with a lot of Christian approaches to same-sex issues: we single it out as the sin above all sin. But it's not. Even Romans 1 doesn't do this. I know plenty of Christians who are willing to slander others (including those in the gay community), but somehow manage to consider this less a sin. My point is not to excuse sexual sin, but to make sure that we are all holding one another accountable so that we may all grow in holiness.
6. The climax of the text is Paul's rhetorical zinger, not against Gentile sinners, but against people who are feeling pretty good that they're not like Gentiles sinners.
The fact that many people wield Romans 1 as a weapon against others shows that they haven't actually read the text in context. Romans 1 is meant to end so that we righteous ones will be feeling pretty good about ourselves and pretty disgusted with those Gentile sinners. And then Paul pulls the rug out from under us. When we pass judgment on others, we are condemning ourselves, because we too are sinners (2:1-4). As he will say later: "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (3:23)." There are too many people who toss Romans 1 around as though Paul stops at the end of that chapter. They may do so out of old-fashioned ignorance about how to read the Bible, or out of spiritual pride. Either way it's a problem.
7. God's grace accepts us where we are, but God's grace does not leave us where we are.
The fact that we are all sinners is not an excuse to sin so that grace may abound (Rom. 6:1-2). Paul's point in Romans 2 about God's judgment still holds: trouble and distress for those who do evil and glory for those who do good. Is this salvation by works? No. Paul recognizes that we are set right with God because of Jesus and that the Holy Spirit has enlivened us so that we may truly walk by the Spirit and not by the flesh. The logic of God's forgiving grace shown to sinners in Jesus (Rom. 3-4) is no excuse to ignore the empowering grace of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 6-8), which enables transformation (Rom. 12:1-2). In sum, this means that people who use Romans 1 to bash others over the head are wrong. It also means that people who would use Rom. 3-4 to excuse sin ("hey, because we're all sinners, my sin doesn't really matter"), including sexual sin, are wrong.
RSS Feed