Does Romans 1:26-27 speak against homosexuality?

[AgnosticBoy]

When I was a Christian, I always believed that the Bible classifies homosexual acts as immoral. As an agnostic, I still believe this to be the case. I believe the strongest and clearest case against homosexuality can be found in Romans 1:26-27. Romans 1:26-27 (NIV)

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

Some debates I've seen involve people just asserting their position in different ways rather than engaging with the other sides arguments, like explaining how or why the other side is wrong. So let's debate that here.

Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuality?

*Keep in mind that the debate question does not speak to whether or not the Bible is correct on homosexuality.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Does Romans 1:26-27 condemn homosexuality?

Here are two views to consider. The first one is a standard view that I've encountered a lot, and the last one, I've only encountered recently...

Interpretations of Romans 1:26-27:
1. From Crossway.org:

It is not sexual passion or pleasure in general that is described here. It is rather their misuse, which results in being handed over to “dishonorable passions.” What does this mean? Paul is not vague, nor does he single out either men or women. Both alike run afoul of God’s “good and acceptable and perfect” will (Rom. 12:2) when they exchange “natural relations for those that are contrary to nature” (Rom. 1:26). By “nature” Paul does not mean that which is culturally acceptable but points to that which man’s moral nature compels him to affirm innately.

The description of lesbian activity in verse 26 is matched in verse 27 by a description of same-sex attraction running amok in men. Four phases of the misdeed are listed: (1) men devote to other men the romantic ardor God gives men for women; (2) men are inflamed with defiling desires3 for other men; (3) men perform, literally, “the shameful act” with other men; and (4) as a result these men suffer the implications of the sin in which they have indulged. Such implications could be the guilt and burden of their sin in this life, the punishment of their sin in the day of judgment, or both.

 

2. From an article on Medium...(this article makes the case that Romans 1 does not speak against homosexuality...

Steve Chalke makes the argument that “Idolatry, promiscuity and shrine prostitution are what Paul is addressing [here] in Romans 1 — not same-sex relationships between faithful and committed partners.”

Steve is right. This passage is clearly not about same-sex behavior carte blanche. It’s about gross misuse of power, Roman elitist overindulgence, and misguided over-sexualized spirituality.

If you are looking to get really Biblical about this passage and all of these verses, go no further than James Brownson’s tremendous Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships.

Jim is a New Testament scholar in Michigan who takes the Bible incredibly seriously. He thinks this passage is about excessive lust: the central problem with lust in Romans 1 is that it is an expression of idolatry in a specific sense: lust involves serving one’s own self-seeking desires rather than worshiping the one true God.

But more so than just excessive lust and how the early Christian communities should reject it, Brownson argues that this lust was being exhibited at a colossal scale by members of the Roman imperial court.

Emperors Gaius and Caligula conjure up all sorts of sexual indulgence.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

As I mentioned in post 1, my view is that Romans 1:26-27 is against homosexuality. I've been spending some time reading alternative views, and one pattern that I've found is that a lot of this boils down to context. Those that argue against my view tend to rely heavily on life in the Roman world and use that as part of their historical/contextual interpretation for Romans 1. But I question, why isn't the historical and cultural context of the Jews being factored in more? Although, they existed in the Roman Empire, but they had their own culture and customs. So again, I would imagine that a debate on this would turn into a battle of context - determining which cultural context to bring in, or how much of it, etc. Sure, in Romans, the apostle Paul was writing to the gentiles in Rome, and not to the Jews. But Paul is a Jew, his philosophy is derived from Jewish thought.

Another aspect of context is not just historical but within the text itself (i.e. the passages surrounding Romans 1:26-27). One explanation mentions that Paul was only referring to same-sex acts within the context of idolatry. The idea of idolatry is in the preceding passages, i.e. Romans 1:22-25. If you remember in post #1, one explanation puts it like this (article in Medium):

Jim is a New Testament scholar in Michigan who takes the Bible incredibly seriously. He thinks this passage is about excessive lust: the central problem with lust in Romans 1 is that it is an expression of idolatry in a specific sense: lust involves serving one’s own self-seeking desires rather than worshiping the one true God.

The author then goes on to distinguish gays involved in relationships not involving lust to compared to the ones the passage talks about.

In my view, even if idolatry was involved (e.g. same-sex acts/desires being an effect of idolatry), they are still described as being shameful. They are still talked about as being a consequence, and a negative one (aren't all consequences, negative?) at that.