Twisted Bible LGBTQ arguments
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 behaviour as practised today.
All of the newer interpretations share certain elements. The effect of each is to remove, on whatever pretext, any condemnation of homosexual behaviour as practised 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.
This book cannot deal with all the epistemological implications raised by this debate. It is important to recognise, however, that the various approaches are really different ways of dealing with the authority, or lack thereof, of the passage. As Richard Hays points out, we have to decide what Romans 1 means (exegesis) and then decide what authority the meaning carries.
This book cannot deal with all the epistemological implications raised by this debate. It is important to recognise, however, that the various approaches are really different ways of dealing with the authority, or lack thereof, of the passage. As Richard Hays points out, we have to decide what Romans 1 means (exegesis) and then decide what authority the meaning carries.
To decide the latter (hermeneutics) involves how the text functions (as moral law, principle, analogy, understanding the world and humankind, and understanding God) and how other authorities speak to the issue (other Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience).21 As will be shown, revisionists fail to assess the function of the text properly and elevate the authority of reason, science, and experience over Scripture and tradition. All of these are matters determined by worldview.
We will approach the matter by making a grammatical, historical, and contextual study of the Bible’s use of nature. The results of this study can be used to evaluate the merits of the leading views.
We will approach the matter by making a grammatical, historical, and contextual study of the Bible’s use of nature. The results of this study can be used to evaluate the merits of the leading views.
Essentially this is a religious analysis of differences in worldview: belief in the God of the Bible; belief in the deities of the mythological pantheon; trust in the self as a source of meaning and ethics.
17 Pim Pronk, Against Nature? Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274–78. Pronk summarizes his position on pages 322–25.
18 Ibid. Emphasis Pronk’s.
19 Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, trans. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 103–13. By this approach, Paul is merely a man of his time and culture—of Hellenistic Jewish tradition—and presents no independent ideas (112). Yet Nissinen acknowledges in an apparent contradiction that Paul’s mention of women’s homoerotic relations is not found in Jewish sources (108). In effect, Nissinen says that Paul writes out of a worldview that no longer has relevance (113, 126, 132, 140) and must give place to a modern one.
20 Ibid., 126; 138–40.
21 Richard B. Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” JRE 14.1 (Spring 1986): 205–9. Hays concludes that the text functions in the last two ways (understanding the world and humankind; understanding God), and that the witness of Scripture on homosexuality is univocal, as is tradition. Reason may “counterpose” Paul’s judgment. Experience (whose?) may tell us that Paul is uninformed about orientation. But reason and experience may be distorted, as Romans 1 warns. Hays finds Boswell’s exegesis faulty and his hermeneutical application “a foolish anachronism.” Since Paul knows nothing of orientation, according to Boswell, how can he be found condemning only those who violate it (i.e., heterosexuals who pursue homosexual experience)? Hays clarifies the issue of authority, but he misses the point that Paul continues a moral law begun in the Old Testament, as will be shown below. David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 215, also rejects the idea of Boswell that Paul would distinguish innate homosexuality from unnatural. Paul would not “have found homosexuality acceptable under any circumstances,” especially in light of his comments on heterosexual relations.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 145–147). Kregel Publications.
17 Pim Pronk, Against Nature? Types of Moral Argumentation Regarding Homosexuality, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 274–78. Pronk summarizes his position on pages 322–25.
18 Ibid. Emphasis Pronk’s.
19 Martti Nissinen, Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective, trans. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 103–13. By this approach, Paul is merely a man of his time and culture—of Hellenistic Jewish tradition—and presents no independent ideas (112). Yet Nissinen acknowledges in an apparent contradiction that Paul’s mention of women’s homoerotic relations is not found in Jewish sources (108). In effect, Nissinen says that Paul writes out of a worldview that no longer has relevance (113, 126, 132, 140) and must give place to a modern one.
20 Ibid., 126; 138–40.
21 Richard B. Hays, “Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell’s Exegesis of Romans 1,” JRE 14.1 (Spring 1986): 205–9. Hays concludes that the text functions in the last two ways (understanding the world and humankind; understanding God), and that the witness of Scripture on homosexuality is univocal, as is tradition. Reason may “counterpose” Paul’s judgment. Experience (whose?) may tell us that Paul is uninformed about orientation. But reason and experience may be distorted, as Romans 1 warns. Hays finds Boswell’s exegesis faulty and his hermeneutical application “a foolish anachronism.” Since Paul knows nothing of orientation, according to Boswell, how can he be found condemning only those who violate it (i.e., heterosexuals who pursue homosexual experience)? Hays clarifies the issue of authority, but he misses the point that Paul continues a moral law begun in the Old Testament, as will be shown below. David F. Greenberg, The Construction of Homosexuality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988), 215, also rejects the idea of Boswell that Paul would distinguish innate homosexuality from unnatural. Paul would not “have found homosexuality acceptable under any circumstances,” especially in light of his comments on heterosexual relations.
De Young, J. B. (2000). Homosexuality: Contemporary Claims Examined in Light of the Bible and Other Ancient Literature and Law (pp. 145–147). Kregel Publications.
