GAY TRUTH

  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 labelling homosexual acts as sinful can be upheld only if one can show that he used other terms here with an equivalent meaning.” 8   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. 9 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 t...

  Objection Stated Paul is speaking solely of Jewish purity laws, and hence this is irrelevant in a modern, enlightened society . Biblical Response It needs to be acknowledged from the outset, and this illustrates the constant inconsistency found among the revisionist interpreters, that this is an admission that the Hebrew Scriptures do indeed condemn homosexual deeds and desires.  After all, if Paul’s condemnation of such sinfulness is drawn from Judaism, this is a tacit admission that Judaism opposed homosexuality. We have addressed the basic contention of the allegedly limited application of God’s moral laws in our discussion of the Leviticus passages. It seems sufficient at this point to note how such an objection completely misses Paul’s context as well as his argument. Paul surely did not embrace modern views of either God’s law or God’s revelation in the Jewish Scriptures. He would not have held to the concept that the revelation of God’s holy will in Scripture was some...

Objection Stated Paul is only speaking of pederasty here, not of adult homosexual relationships, and hence the passage is misused when applied to homosexuality . This is the viewpoint expressed by Robin Scroggs in his work The New Testament and Homosexuality . 6 It is commonly repeated in liberal theological institutions. Biblical Response The exegesis of the passage has already addressed this common error. Paul speaks of “males with males committing indecent acts.” He does not say “men with boys” (and there are appropriate Greek words that Paul could have employed if he meant to communicate this idea), nor does the text give the slightest hint that this should be read into it as an assumption.  The desire expressed is mutual between both the lesbians of 1:26 and the homosexual males of 1:27; that is, there is no evidence whatsoever that this is written in reference to pederastic relation ships. Indeed, the mutual kind of desire seen in these verses utterly refutes the simplistic ...

  Objection Stated The Apostle Paul did not know about “inversion” and mutuality, and hence this passage does not have relevance today. Biblical Response There are two things to be noted in response to this assertion—an assertion that is, truly, at the bottom of almost every argument on the part of revisionists. The first is the unspoken, but foundational, assumption that the Scriptures are limited in their capacity and hence authority to the knowledge and experience of the human authors by which they were delivered to us.  The second is more overt: Paul did not know about “inversion” or the allegedly “natural” occurrence of homosexuality. Let’s begin with the second objection. Paul came from Tarsus, a major city in the Roman Empire. He was well trained, a learned man, familiar with Roman and Greek culture. He was obviously widely read in the literature of the day as well.  Therefore, the assumption that he did not know of people who professed to be homosexual as their pr...

  Objection Stated What is “natural” in Romans 1 is not what is “natural” in the sense of “natural law,” but what is “natural to me.” The reference is not to homosexuals but to heterosexuals who go beyond their natural bounds and engage in homosexuality . Thus John Boswell writes, On the other hand, it should be recognised that the point of the passage is not to stigmatise sexual behaviour of any sort but to condemn the Gentiles for their general infidelity.… The reference to homosexuality is simply a mundane analogy to this theological sin; it is patently not the crux of this argument.… What is even more important, the persons Paul condemns are manifestly not homosexual: what he derogates are homosexual acts committed by apparently heterosexual persons.  The whole point of Romans 1, in fact, is to stigmatise persons who have rejected their calling, gotten off the true path they were once on. It would completely undermine the thrust of the argument if the persons in question w...

  For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26–27) Few sections of Scripture are more profound, more foundational to Christian thought, than the opening verses of Paul’s epistle to the Romans. The first chapter has provided Christian writers with insights into the human condition that have resulted in some of the most important published works on the Christian worldview.  Western culture’s view of law and ethics has been deeply influenced by these thirty-two verses. So it is hardly surprising that those who seek to undermine that Christian worldview and foundation invest great effort in reinterpreting these words, at least until they can be safely and ...