Homosexuals who twist scripture - read what they try to do!
Objection Stated
The sinners mentioned in Romans 1:26–27 are, in context, only idolaters who have taken specific and serious steps to deny the existence of God. Christian homosexuals do not take these steps, hence, the passage is not relevant to them.
Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott likewise seem to have this kind of argument in mind when they write regarding Romans 1:
The key thoughts seem to be lust, “unnaturalness,” and, in verse 28, a desire to avoid acknowledgment of God. But although the censure fits the idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex—not because of lust, but because of sincere, heartfelt love. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God’s existence?10
Biblical Response
This entire argument begs the question. It assumes a particular biblical conclusion with its insertion of the idea of “Christian homosexuals” right from the start and, having done so, uses its conclusion to reinterpret the Scriptures. The term “Christian homosexual” as it is being used by Scanzoni and Mollenkott in the above quotation is an oxymoron, just as using “Christian inventor of evil” (Romans 1:30) or “Christian who practices regular wickedness” (Romans 1:29) would violate all canons of logic and truth. Further, the argument makes idolatry a separate and distinct sin rather than seeing how it is related to everything the passage is addressing. Those who are suppressing the knowledge of God (a universal charge) express that rebellion in many ways, including homosexual behavior and all the other sinful activities listed in 1:28ff.
An advocate of homosexual behavior once presented this argument to the authors of this work on a radio program. He outlined what he called the “seven steps” of idolatry that had been mentioned in the previous verses, and proclaimed that since neither he, nor anyone in his congregation, had taken these seven steps, the passage had nothing to do with him. In response we pointed out that if, in fact, one had to undertake the various steps of attempting to deny God, etc., that he insisted one had to do before this passage was relevant, then it followed inevitably that all the other sins mentioned at the end of the chapter would likewise require one to engage first in the “seven steps” and then in those sins before they would truly be sins. But such is obviously not the apostle’s intention. Such reasoning leads one to believe that it is okay to murder (1:29) as long as you have not sought to suppress the knowledge of God! Obviously, it is not the apostle’s intention to limit his condemnation of the practice of lesbianism and homosexuality to a particular group of people who have first fulfilled a certain set of sinful attitudes and actions.
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 136–138). Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers.
