How homosexualityhandles Romans 1
Another approach views Romans 1 from the standpoint of the philosophy of moral argumentation. Pim Pronk concludes that Paul by his use of nature does not refer to the normative creation order but to the social conventions of his day, or to the biologically natural.17 This is consistent with the relationship of theology and morality. The reasoning of the “whole human community,” not revelation or theology, determines the proper human response to homosexuality or any other moral concern.
Theology cannot tell us what God’s will is for us. The exegesis of Romans 1 can affirm that homosexuality is sin in a given time and culture, but it cannot tell us whether this is normative and definitive for people today who read Paul’s statements. This issue is the concern of hermeneutics. Theology is not the epistemological source of the knowledge of good and evil; it exists only to affirm the idea that moral reasoning is God’s will. Moral education, critical thinking, and rational argumentation supply the content (the what) of morality. The whole human community in deliberation decides what constitutes good and evil. Moral positions are part of general revelation and are antecedent to the appeal to special revelation.
In Romans 1, Paul does not equate creation with nature because creation is not in the context. He faults the Gentiles for unbelief, not for transgressing the creation order. Paul knew nothing of natural moral law, so he is not dealing with moral law. Since he knew nothing of the homosexual condition, it is up to today’s human community, including homosexuals, to decide whether homosexuality is good or evil. Paul’s disapproval is not normative.
As was noted in chapter 1 (pp. 27–28), this approach broadly covers all moral argumentation and has far-reaching consequences, especially regarding homosexuality. Whereas other approaches are concerned with the interpretation and application of Romans 1, this approach simply removes the text from viable consideration. Pronk asserts that “there is every reason to remove the homosexuality issue permanently from the church’s agendas as a moral and religious, i.e., as a scientific, problem.”18 If this assertion is correct, the meaning of Romans 1 is truly irrelevant for deciding the morality of homosexuality. The question is not exegesis but epistemology. Is this a valid approach?
Worldview
A final approach to Romans 1 combines certain aspects from other preceding views. To explain what Paul means in Romans 1, Martti Nissinen appeals to the influences of Hellenistic Jewish attitudes, the cultural environment, the Jewish purity code, Paul’s rhetorical strategy, Greco-Roman philosophy, and liberation. Paul’s worldview and moral standards are products of his cultural environment. We cannot be sure what kind of sexual conduct Paul has in mind. His experience and his world fashioned his views. He does not address sexual orientation or mutual love in homosexual relationships. Even the law of nature refers to the law of God and is not based in a theology of creation. The moral implications of creation, if present, are subordinated to Hellenistic Jewish ideas of the law of nature manifested “in conventional patterns.” In other words, nature equals culture.19
Nissinen’s combination of views is perhaps the most far-reaching and challenging to the traditional view of Romans 1. He rejects a static view of creation in Romans 1 and a determinist model of creation theology. Such a mechanistic view of “nature” leads to “naturalistic determinism” and “rigid functionalist definitions.” So Nissinen views creation as “rejuvenating.” Creation theology must consider the variation of gender identity, especially the rise of gay and lesbian identities during the twentieth century. This “continuing creation” results from “modern development.” People “create sexual cultures together.… Specific moral commands and norms are born from the needs of the time and place” in a context of love. Regarding homosexuality, one must diverge from the “clear word” of the Bible. Changes in worldview are necessary.20
All of the newer interpretations share certain elements. The effect of each is to remove, on whatever pretext, any condemnation of homosexual behavior as practiced today. Each interpretation is a serious challenge to the church’s historical methods of interpretation and its application for confronting society on the issue of homosexuality. If Romans 1, addressing male and female homosexuality with the most explicit language in the Bible, is unusable or inapplicable, then certainly the less explicit passages are questionable.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 145–146). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
In Romans 1, Paul does not equate creation with nature because creation is not in the context. He faults the Gentiles for unbelief, not for transgressing the creation order. Paul knew nothing of natural moral law, so he is not dealing with moral law. Since he knew nothing of the homosexual condition, it is up to today’s human community, including homosexuals, to decide whether homosexuality is good or evil. Paul’s disapproval is not normative.
As was noted in chapter 1 (pp. 27–28), this approach broadly covers all moral argumentation and has far-reaching consequences, especially regarding homosexuality. Whereas other approaches are concerned with the interpretation and application of Romans 1, this approach simply removes the text from viable consideration. Pronk asserts that “there is every reason to remove the homosexuality issue permanently from the church’s agendas as a moral and religious, i.e., as a scientific, problem.”18 If this assertion is correct, the meaning of Romans 1 is truly irrelevant for deciding the morality of homosexuality. The question is not exegesis but epistemology. Is this a valid approach?
Worldview
A final approach to Romans 1 combines certain aspects from other preceding views. To explain what Paul means in Romans 1, Martti Nissinen appeals to the influences of Hellenistic Jewish attitudes, the cultural environment, the Jewish purity code, Paul’s rhetorical strategy, Greco-Roman philosophy, and liberation. Paul’s worldview and moral standards are products of his cultural environment. We cannot be sure what kind of sexual conduct Paul has in mind. His experience and his world fashioned his views. He does not address sexual orientation or mutual love in homosexual relationships. Even the law of nature refers to the law of God and is not based in a theology of creation. The moral implications of creation, if present, are subordinated to Hellenistic Jewish ideas of the law of nature manifested “in conventional patterns.” In other words, nature equals culture.19
Nissinen’s combination of views is perhaps the most far-reaching and challenging to the traditional view of Romans 1. He rejects a static view of creation in Romans 1 and a determinist model of creation theology. Such a mechanistic view of “nature” leads to “naturalistic determinism” and “rigid functionalist definitions.” So Nissinen views creation as “rejuvenating.” Creation theology must consider the variation of gender identity, especially the rise of gay and lesbian identities during the twentieth century. This “continuing creation” results from “modern development.” People “create sexual cultures together.… Specific moral commands and norms are born from the needs of the time and place” in a context of love. Regarding homosexuality, one must diverge from the “clear word” of the Bible. Changes in worldview are necessary.20
All of the newer interpretations share certain elements. The effect of each is to remove, on whatever pretext, any condemnation of homosexual behavior as practiced today. Each interpretation is a serious challenge to the church’s historical methods of interpretation and its application for confronting society on the issue of homosexuality. If Romans 1, addressing male and female homosexuality with the most explicit language in the Bible, is unusable or inapplicable, then certainly the less explicit passages are questionable.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 145–146). Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
