*Disclaimer- My longest post yet! Since the fundamentalist MAGA-enthusiasts wanted more*
Last week, I wrote a post on one of the few biblical passages that supposedly condemns homosexual relationships. The research I provided is hard to dispute; most fundamentalists cannot wrap their minds around the logical conclusions the real biblical scholars come to. This is evidenced in the hateful and ignorant comments made by such trolls on Facebook. Among these comments, many stated that Romans 1 says homosexuality is a sin.
I first would like to thank these comment trolls for providing me the inspiration to pen this post, as well as some future entries. They thought their faulty, politicized theology (MAGAology) would make me think, “Oh, you’re right! Homosexuality is a sin… whoopsie-daisy!” These comments are pointed at someone who actually studies the Bible and does not echo their pastor’s political beliefs. Well, I am not backing down. I will continue to fight for the basic human rights of other people that the church so adamantly desires to eradicate. Let’s begin.
A Reminder: The Importance of Context
It is too easy to Google what our English Bibles say about the LGBTQ community. When we read these interpretations, we miss the greater picture. That is, the Bible was not written to 21st Century America. The books that make up the Bible were written in different languages, in starkly different cultures, and a long, long time ago. To really understand any message in the Bible, you must be familiar with some of these differences.
Context is key. Before saying, “A-ha! That’s a sin!,” we must ensure that we understand what the authors are saying, where they are saying it, and why they are saying it. Sadly, most Christians cannot even grasp the first point, which is the basis of this article. I am happy to provide the context for you… you are welcome to disagree with me, but if you wish to debate, then please know what you are talking about.
Romans 1:23-28: What the Author Condemning? Hint: It’s Idolatry
(22) Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
Romans 1:23-28, NIV
Clearly, the Biblical writer identified as Paul is condemning something. Most readers, being familiar with only the English texts, believe the author is listing a bunch of random sins. This is quite a narrow-minded approach; sure, it is easy, but that alone does not make it right. As with the verse in Leviticus, our contemporary Bibles do appear to condemn same-sex relationships. However, the modern Bible is not the same as the original texts.
Even if we are to accept such modernized translations, we miss the bigger purpose of Romans 1. The main point in these passages is that idolatry is sinful. We must, again, consider the context. Romans was written in ancient Greco-Roman culture. Christianity was not the biggest religion in the world during this time. In such a time and place, paganism ruled. The biggest fault of paganism, according to the Bible, is the worship of false gods and goddesses. Remember that pagans (and Christians) are not under the scrutiny of Hebrew Law.
We will now dive into the specifics of the true issue Paul is addressing. The pagan religion of Magna Mater (Cybele, “Great Mother”) is one of the oldest religions, existing as early as the 6th millennium BCE and prominent in Greece by the 5th or 4th century BCE.1 Furthermore, this religion was introduced to Rome in 204 BCE, predating the book of Romans by at least 250 years.2 Of course, paganism existed even early on in the Hebrew Bible. Pagans viewed sex as a ritual, not exclusively for procreation as in Judaism and Christianity.
Paul indubitably knew of Cybele. Statues of this goddess decorated Asia Minor, with at least one in Rome dating to 191 BCE (still centuries before the composition of Romans). Many early church fathers, such as Hippolytus and Athanasius, recognized that Paul was condemning the idolatry of the pagans in Rome.3 Paul’s audience did not understand sexuality the way we do today; for ancient Romans and Greeks, their “categories of sexual behavior seemed to prioritize status and power over gender.”4
While on the topic of sexual/gender preferences in antiquity, let us not forget that heterosexuals can commit sexual immorality without being gay. Sexual immorality is a broad term; it does not exclusively consist of gays and lesbians. Anyone who idolizes sex, according to the Bible, is guilty of sexual immorality, straight or not. Dio Chrysostom and Didymus the Blind speak of men who possess “frenzied passion for women.”5 So to all the fundamentalist males reading this, choosing a sexual partner because “she” is “hot” or rejecting because “she” is “not” is wrong ;).
Unnatural Does Not Mean Sin
Oh, the adjectives. I will begin this discussion with an important note on the difference between Greek and English words.
Let’s start with a Sunday school example. In our English Bibles, we find the word “love” multiple times. But for the ancient Greeks, there are four separate words for love, all of which have been translated, merely, as “love” in our Bibles. In this sense, there are four different types of love in the Greek Bible: agápē, érōs, philía, and storgē. But in English, we just have “love.” See how important it is to have at least a basic understanding of these original languages? Our English Bibles can hardly differentiate Godly love from erotic love, or brotherly love from family love.
The word Paul uses for “nature” (phusis) is not a term with religious connotations. To exemplify this, the word never occurs in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament, by the way).6 This term is cultural, not religious. “Unnatural” is not equivalent to “sin.” Not even close. It is “in ‘notable discontinuity from what would previously have been expected’, but is not itself sin.”7
Likewise, the argument can be made that Paul is speaking of heterosexual men in this passage. The argument goes as this: it is natural for a heterosexual man to have sex with a woman, but it is unnatural for a heterosexual man to engage in intercourse with another man. It, therefore, goes against their own nature to engage in such acts.8 The passages are silent on homosexual men engaging in homosexual relations. Why? Because homosexuality, as we understand it, did not yet exist in their culture. Paul, and his audience, did not understand sexual orientation the way our postmodern culture does!
What about Shame?
“What is shameful is any impulse or behavior that diminishes life and dignity, as that life and dignity is portrayed in the gospel of Christ.”9
The nature of the act itself is what Paul considers “shameful.” Heterosexual intercourse can be shameful as well—if it is performed out of lust, licentiousness, or force. Again, this is more of a cultural/anthropological issue than a theological one. In this culture, it did not matter whether partners were of the same gender; it was shameful if the receiver was of a higher status than the giver. Obviously, this line of thought is archaic to prideful Americans, but there is no sugar-coating the truth.
Furthermore, gender roles still existed in this culture. What could be considered shameful was for a man to take on the role of a woman in intercourse (“receiving”), thus degrading the male’s status.10 Again, this is very much outdated, but it must be noted. Greco-Roman men would not identify as another gender, as seen today (at least you fundamentalists get one minuscule victory). But still, the issue is cultural, not spiritual.
Conclusion: Romans 2:1 Applies to the Fundamentalist Trolls
Well, we have reached the end of this rather brief survey of Romans 1:23-28 and homosexuality. I know, I know, some of you cannot wait to close this window and fire away in the Facebook comments. But we should review what we learned first, before I scold you for sinning in those comments.
Number one, Romans was not written with you in mind. It was written for an audience long before your time, likely in a different country from where you are sitting. Paul was not a wizard; he was not gazing into a crystal ball, seeing that the LGBTQ movement would become what it is today. It did not exist then and it would not exist for quite some time. He did not know that these fundamentalists would desecrate his writings the way they do every day.
Number two, Romans 1:23-28 addresses cultural matters, not religious issues. Yes, of course, he wants you to live a godly life. But when he speaks of sexuality, he is speaking in the context of his time and culture. It was unnatural for such behaviors in that day; unnatural is not synonymous with sin. Shameful concerns the intent behind such behaviors, which can apply to heterosexual or homosexual relations. Also, to state my presupposition going into this post, I believed Paul was speaking of the harm of orgies. And, I believe my conviction is valid. The pagans engaged in sexual rituals, often involving many partners.
Number three… if you are about to write some lengthy condemnation in the form of a Facebook comment, you are about to sin. Immediately after speaking about sexual relations, Paul issues these words just for you:
“Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, passing judgment; for when you judge someone else, you are passing judgment against yourself; since you who are judging do the same things he does.” (Rom. 2:1)
You probably did not read this verse when you read my two previous posts and Googled, “Verses that allow me to hate gay people.” If you are a Christian, and the Bible is your book (I am just a student), then you are going against the grain of what you preach.
Stop judging. If somebody wants to love someone of their own sex, let them. Nobody needs your opinion. Whether you agree or disagree with what I have written, you need to respect the basic human rights of other people. You are acting just like the Pharisees and Sadducees by condemning others. Stop trying to take out the speck in someone else’s eye, when you have a giant sequoia growing out of yours.
Jesus’ mission was to share the love of his father with a cruel, cold world. He called you to be the salt of the earth, not the salt in the wound. Let others live their own life, and you focus on yourself. As a former Christian, that right there is being a good Christian. Get off your Facebook trolling and go immerse yourself in your community. Feed the homeless or partake in prison fellowship. Let Jesus reward you for that instead.
A Note to My Faithful Readers
To my faithful readers, thank you for your support. Together, we will put an end to the fundamentalists’ campaign of hatred. I hope you enjoyed this post. I was putting together an article on Ecclesiastes as it relates to suffering and trauma when I suddenly ticked off a bunch of MAGA worshippers. Soon, I hope to return to that, but these religious nuts have begged me to address some other “weapons” in their arsenal. I will return to my original content soon!
Yours truly,
Luke.
1. Townsley, Jeramy. “Paul, the Goddess Religions, and Queer Sects: Romans 1:23-28.” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 4 (Winter 2011): 716-717, doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/23488275
2. Ibid., 717.
3. Townsley, Jeramy. “Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26—27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and ‘Sex Contrary to Nature’?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81, no. 1 (2013): 59. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23357876
4. Ibid., 57.
5. Townsley, Jeramy. “Queer Sects in Patristic Commentaries on Romans 1:26—27: Goddess Cults, Free Will, and ‘Sex Contrary to Nature’?” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 81, no. 1 (2013): 60. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23357876
6. Brownson, James V. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013, 164.
7. Loader, William. 2017. “Reading Romans 1 on Homosexuality in the Light of Biblical/Jewish and Greco-Roman Perspectives of Its Time.” Zeitschrift Für Die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Und Die Kunde Der Älteren Kirche 108 (1): 121, https://doi.org/10.1515/znw-2017-0004.
8. Brownson, James V. Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church’s Debate on Same-Sex Relationships. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013, 167-168.
9. Ibid., 161.
10. Ibid., 177.