Doing what comes...Naturally?
Romans 1:26-27
New Testament Passages
Traditional viewpoint: Homosexuality is contrary (“unnatural”) to the way God created man and woman. It is viewed by some as an indication that God has abandoned those who practice such behaviors. (i.e., v.26 “God gave them up” in the KJV) In recent times, these verses have even been cited as evidence that AIDS was God’s judgment on gays. (v.27 “received in themselves the due penalty for their error” in the NIV), which is seen as proof of God’s disposition toward homosexuals. Many particularly like this passage because, in their opinion, it addresses the issues of lesbians, which is conspicuously absent in other sections, particularly the “abomination” texts.
If we look at these two verses, they appear to be clear and (pardon the pun) straightforward. Paul writes to the Roman church that he’s heard of women having sex with women and men having sex with men, and it’s not “natural.” Paul also details God’s disapproval of such “dishonorable” actions.
So there you have it, plain and simple. Case closed, we can all go home. (As long as we go home with an opposite-sex partner.)
But wait!
The problem with this explanation is that it doesn’t follow the “natural” methodology of traditional Biblical interpretation (hermeneutics), which leads to an “unnatural” conclusion and a “dishonorable” application.
Consider the following aspects which would call this interpretation into question:
- The fact that the sentence begins with the word “therefore” (in other translations, “For this reason”) lets us know that what’s being presented is the summation of previous thoughts. While Paul is obviously drawing a conclusion (that’s the idea of “therefore”), we would be in error to draw our conclusions based solely on this one section. We must go back in the text to get an accurate perspective, known as context in hermeneutics.*
- The key to this anti-gay interpretation (and application) is based on the words “natural” and “unnatural” without a proper etymology (word meaning), foundation of the entire chapter, the rest of the book or other usage in Scripture. In addition, the concept of “normal” and “abnormal” (or “right” and “wrong”) is often superimposed over the meaning, becoming the basis of interpretation.
The word “natural” in the original Greek can refer to that which is customary or expected. When used of a person, it could connote their “natural” disposition, or what comes naturally to them. In other words, instinctual.
EXAMPLES: In I Corinthians 11:14, Paul uses the word and says that it’s natural—taught by nature—for a man to have short hair. (And by the way, that would make it “unnatural” for a man to have long hair. But where’s the outrage on that one?)
We learn the Gentiles acted “naturally” by living according to the law, even though they didn’t have the law. (cf: 2:14) It is seen as instinct, inherent. (The NSAB actually translates it as “instinctively.”)
In Galatians 2:15, Paul uses the word to refer to those who were born Jews, rather than those who converted. In other words, it’s inherent—part of who they are.
As for “unnatural,” the Greek word is probably best translated as “unexpected,” as in something not done in the usual or expected way. It can mean “unusual” or “outside of the customary.” Please note: it does not have to mean something that’s bad, in a moral sense.
EXAMPLE: God offered salvation to the Gentiles and even brought them into the fold. Paul says that was “unnatural.” (cf: 11:21-24) Definitely not a moral connotation, just something unexpected.
- Worship is the primary theme and the context is a warning against idolatry. (cf: 1:21) This is in keeping what we saw in the Old Testament “abomination” and “Sodomite” passages and would point to the fact that Paul was addressing similar problems. (i.e., cultic, temple practices involving sexual activities and sexual sacrifices) In other words, Paul is condemning as “unnatural” the practice of having sex as part of frenzied, out-of-control worship for the Christian.
Many of the Gentiles in the Roman Church at that time had been active participants in this pagan cultic worship before their conversion. Some think they were seeking to incorporate the practices into their new-found Christian faith. Or perhaps they were attempting to maintain worship in both their Christian faith and their former pagan practices.
- The sequence of events—the downward moral spiral described in verses 18 through 25—point to personal choices more than sexual nature. The people being discussed made a conscious decision to abandon God and follow their own desires/lusts. (cf: v.16)
So, if a person did not make this conscious choice to turn their back on God—to deny God—these verses are not talking to them nor about them, beyond a general warning of what could happen. Therefore, it’s very difficult…not to mention unfair…to universally apply these passages to sincere gay and lesbian Christians who are actively seeking to know God in a personal way.
- Paul is not talking about mere sexual desires. It’s not about attraction or even passion. It’s certainly not about love. This is about conscious lust (cf: v.24, 25)…out of control and with a total disregard of what impact it has on one’s self or others. Those being portrayed here are hedonists, in the truest sense of the word. Their lives, through a series of choices, are ruled by lust.
- From the context, it’s appears not just that men were having sex with men and women having sex with women. It could imply there were many men and many women, all having sex. In other words, it’s essentially what would be called an orgy. Again, this would be in keeping with the worship practices of local pagan religions.
- The terminology used (cf: v.26 “exchanged” // v.27 “abandoned”) point to the idea of sexual choices, not sexual orientation as we understand it today. The people being discussed made a choice to engage in same-sex activities. It’s not about inherent sexual attraction.
- If we take it literally, then the practice of attempting to “cure” or “heal” (or even convert) gay people would be pointless, since they have been abandoned by God and given over to their lusts. (cf: v. 28) In other words, if we want to be literal, it is Biblically “unnatural” to attempt changing a person’s orientation!
Author’s Note: But the good news is, the context of the chapter has to do with the power of the Gospel and the universal nature of God’s grace. Yes, “all have sinned” (3:23), but the Gospel is for all and all are welcomed. (1:16)
One of the clear themes of the book of Romans is that the Jews, who saw themselves as exclusively God’s children, are not better than the Gentile, whom they saw as excluded by God. In 2:11, we are told “For there is no partiality with God.” God acted in an “unnatural” way and welcomed those seen as outcasts! (cf: 11:21-24)
- This interpretation elevates the “sin” of homosexuality to a greater significance than any other transgression, practices, attitudes and behaviors that are also given (cf: v. 28-32) as evidence of God’s judgment. In the context of this chapter, other “sins” are also evidence of this downward moral spiral. (e.g., greed, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slanderer, arrogance, disobedience to parents, unloving, unmerciful)
Author’s Note: Some of those very traits are evident in many of the Christians who work so diligently and speak so harshly in their opposition to gays and lesbians. (deceit in presenting inaccurate facts about gays and lesbians, malice of intent in excluding gays and lesbians, arrogance about the Truth with an “us” versus “them” mentality, unloving and unmerciful in both attitude and approach)
Ironically, it’s similar to the situation being address by Paul: the Jews were suspicious of the reality (or possibility) of a Gentile’s faith in Christ. (“Those kind of people can’t share our faith!”) So after Paul listed all these negative vices, he called for personal self examination, while warning against judgment and elevating one sin—or sinner—above another. (cf: Romans 2)
So, even if (and I don’t believe this) we’re dealing with a condemnation of same-sex activity (different from sexual orientation), in order to stay with the context, we must also look past the verses to what follows, because that’s still the context. The clear truth of Romans 2 is judging makes a person just as guilty!
Important Lessons:
There are definitely some valuable lessons that can be learned from this wonderful passage. Consider just a few:
¶ God desires (and deserves) to be known and worshipped; we were created to worship, with God as intended Object and Focus.
¶ We were created to know and worship God. In fact, God put that desire within all of us.
¶ We can, by choice, divert our attention to that which God created rather than God, the Creator. That’s idolatry! It’s “unnatural” to worship the creature rather than the Creator.
¶ When we divert our attention away from God, the results can be far-reaching and degenerative.
¶ Not just questionable/objectionable sexual actions, but also attitudes are evidence of our choice to divert attention away from God. (e.g., greed, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossip, slanderer, arrogance, disobedience to parents, unloving, unmerciful)
¶ Lust without restrains only leads to more lust. With our passion (desires) out of control, lust becomes predominate. Lust controls, then needs more and more to satisfy. We become capable of all forms of “unnatural” activities.
¶ This kind of lust-out-of-control “lifestyle” can lead to an inability to discern right from wrong. (KJV “reprobate”) All moral/ethical choices become relative to the needs and desires (cravings) of the moment, and determined solely by the person making the choices without regard to consequences. The person has become “god” of their own life!
¶ It’s easy to point out the sin of others, but judging others makes us just as guilty as those we judge.
Possible Alternative Explanations:
No one (NO ONE!) can give a definite picture of what acts are being addressed by Paul, nor the ones committing the acts. I don’t claim to have the authoritative, absolute explanation; what I’ll share out are possible explanations, based on interpretation and observation.
What I do believe: since the target and intent is so vague, a universal application against homosexual orientation is unwarranted, outside the realm of Biblical scholarship and smacks of bigotry. My hope is that these alternatives will show that it’s not as black-and-white as many in the anti-gay camp make it sound.
- Given the religious practices of that region, it most likely refers to heterosexuals who in the course of fanatic and frenzied religious ecstasy, go against their own “natures” by performing homosexual acts as part of pagan worship.
- This could be simply another warning against temple prostitution–males and females–and those who utilize them as part of worship practices. That is an “unnatural” practice.
- It’s feasible that Paul was condemning orgies (group sex) as part of worship or personal practices.
- Perhaps Paul was only giving a cultural “snapshot” of how things were in that particular place and that particular time. It’s his commentary on the times, and his perspective on how and why it happened.
- Coming from a strict Hebrew background, Paul could be referring back to the idea of male dominance and accepted gender roles in sexual expression. The idea of men having sex with men would conflict in his mind since one of them would have to assume a submissive role. Likewise, women, turning from “natural” sex with a man (the initiator of sex) to seek physical intimacy with another woman would be wrong to him. Also, neither of these sexual encounters could produce children, which in that day was seen as the primary purpose for intercourse.
- This may refer to heterosexual people who engage in homosexual acts. This is evidenced by Paul’s language, when he speaks of those who have abandoned their “natural relations.” That is, they knew and experienced heterosexual affections but acted in an “un-natural” fashion. As such, it does not condemn those who are homosexual by nature. (And to force them into heterosexual relationship would be just as un-natural.)
Author’s note: Personally, I don’t think the Apostle Paul had in mind the complex concept of sexual orientation at all. That would not have been part of the understanding of that day, and Paul would not have been able to make a distinction between the choice of sexual behavior (what I do) and the innate attraction of sexual orientation (who I am). Sadly, the same is too true today with many schooled in an outdated paradigm of sexuality. They still see homosexuality as a choice, so this passage fits well into their preconceptions and proof-texts their dogma.
While the Bible definitely presents life-changing Truth, it is not a textbook on psychology nor a guidebook on sexuality. The writers of Scripture, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in the language of their times, with the understanding of their times. We do an injustice when we try to superimpose modern concepts on the limited understanding of ancient times and vastly different cultures. (This would also include other modern concepts. We don’t beat our children with rods to force obedience and we don’t stone them to death when they refuse to obey. We don’t see women as property of her father or husband. We don’t practice slavery.)
Conclusion:
To me, it’s clear that this is talking solely about sexual activities/action. The people choose to act on their sexual impulses. The use of such words as “exchanged” (v.26), and “abandoned” (v.27) support this position.
The impact of turning one’s back on God and living with lust out of control cannot be ignored. However, it would be difficult to force this application to those homosexual Christians who are seeking a ongoing, personal and meaningful relationship with God, through Christ. (i.e., if this were a universal description of all homosexuals, I would not be here seeking to explain this passage…and perhaps neither would you…because none of us would even care about what God thinks! We would be “reprobate” in our minds. (v.28 in the KJV)
What I find interesting is there’s an obvious and slanted literalism used to interpret this section which is not used in regard to many of Paul’s other admonitions to the church (and Christians) in general. These other passages are usually explained away with cultural interpretations…or simply ignored.
ü Christians are commanded not to associate with believers who are covetous, an idolater, a reviler, a drunkard, or a swindler. We are not even to eat with these folks. (I Corinthians 5:11)
ü It’s a “shame” for Christians to use the court systems to solve internal problems with other Christians (I Corinthians 6:1-7)
ü It’s better not to marry; the higher position in life is that of the unmarried
(I Corinthians 7:27-40)
ü Wives should not leave their husband, and if they do, they should remain unmarried (I Corinthians 7:11)
ü If you are converted as a slave, you should remain a slave (I Corinthians 7:20-21)
ü Women should have their head covered while praying (I Corinthians 11:5-6)
ü Men with long hair are a disgrace to nature (I Corinthians 11:14)
ü Women are to be silent in church (I Corinthians 14:34; cf: I Timothy 2:11) Note the passage says “they are not permitted to speak.” That seems pretty clear, but most churches interpret it in light of culture and other passages of Scripture.
ü If women want to know/learn something, they should ask their husbands at home
(I Corinthians 14:35)
ü Greet one another with a holy kiss (I Corinthians 16:20; II Corinthians 13:12)
ü Women should not wear jewelry or expensive clothing (I Timothy 2:9)
Indeed, the content of the entire book, the intended audience, the reason/purpose of the book as well as the culture of the times must be considered in order to get a true picture of the meaning of this passage.