Some homosexual objections to the Bible
1. 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 behaviour, truth, and morality.
2. Objection Stated
Paul is “trapping” the Jews in Romans 1, and springs the trap in Romans 2, and hence what is in Romans 1 is really irrelevant to the modern situation.
Some revisionists argue that Paul’s entire effort in Romans 1 is in essence disingenuous: He is simply seeking to get his Jewish opponents to agree with him, to “jump on the bandwagon” so to speak, so he can then “spring the trap” on them in chapter two. The hoped-for result seems to be that we can dismiss what Paul says in chapter 1 as merely rhetorical.
Biblical Response
This kind of argument can be very fairly identified as desperate. The consistency of what Paul says in Romans 1 and how he concludes Romans 3 (vv. 10–19), which comes long after the alleged “springing of the trap” in chapter 2, completely refutes this idea. Further, the argument assumes that Paul is speaking only of Gentiles in chapter 1, which is simply untrue.
The connection with chapter 2 and the direct application to Jews is not that Jews do not likewise sin in the fashion of those in chapter 1, but that they refuse to acknowledge this due to hypocrisy. There is simply no basis for rejecting the teaching of Romans 1 on the basis of such an objection.
3. 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 acknowledgement 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 behaviour 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.
10 Is the Homosexual My Neighbour, 67.
White, J. R., & Niell, J. D. (2002). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message about Homosexuality (pp. 134–138). Bethany House Publishers.
