Bible - Homosexuality is a degrading passion or indecent act
Objection Stated
Paul does not identify homosexuality, which is indeed mentioned in Romans 1:26–27, as sin.
This seems to be the thrust of L. William Countryman when he writes, “The idea that Paul was labeling homosexual acts as sinful can be upheld only if one can show that he used other terms here with an equivalent meaning.” And in a public debate, this was ACLU board member and head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State Barry Lynn’s common refrain when dealing with Romans 1, that Paul specifically avoided saying homosexuality was a sin.
Biblical Response
This revisionist attempt is surely one of the weakest offered, for it requires us to believe all of the following propositions: first, that in the midst of demonstrating the awful sinfulness of idolatry and its punishment, Paul would insert a sentence where he switches subjects to something that, while possibly “unusual” in a social sense, is not actually sinful; second, that the context is to be broken up with no connection seen (despite the summary statement of 1:32); and finally, that when Paul spoke of “degrading passions,” “indecent acts,” and how those committing them would receive the “due penalty of their error,” these are not indications of sinfulness. The mere repetition of the assertions in light of the exegesis of the text already provided is sufficient refutation.
Objection Stated
Paul is not giving a binding, for-all-time concept here, but is speaking only about what was then “natural” in a conventional or social sense.
Biblical Response
The basis of Paul’s discussion in Romans 1, aside from establishing the very foundation upon which he intends to present the gospel for all people (and, it can be argued, for all time), gives us no hint that the author intends his words to be limited geographically or temporally. The concepts he presents reach back to creation itself, apply over and beyond all cultural boundaries, and speak to men and women at the very level of their existence, not merely in their cultural climate.
It is to completely remove the passage from its original context and purpose to say that it merely speaks to what is “unusual” and hence to be avoided for the mere sake of appearance. Human convention or social morality is not in Paul’s thinking here, for he grounds his words in God’s creative purpose and decree. This argument is really based upon the assertion that Scripture not so much does not as cannot give binding, eternal, extra-cultural norms of behavior, truth, and morality.
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 133–135). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
