Does Being A Christian Mean Condemning Homosexuality?

There is a lot of conversation being had about Duck Dynasty’s, Phil Robertson’s, comments about the so-called Biblical prohibition against homosexuality. Since I have yet to see anyone present a different biblical perspective than Phil’s, I thought it important to add a different voice to the conversation.

            There seems to be an unquestioned assumption that to be Christian is to accept that Paul (the writer of the biblical passages Phil referred to), and God (by extension) were condemning all same-sex relationships. The following is meant to offer a different perspective on Paul, and, more importantly, on what it means to be Christian.

Natural and Unnatural

There are two claims I wish to make about Paul’s use of the words “natural” and “unnatural” in Romans 1:18-32. First, they refer to the social customs of the society in which Paul lived, not to biological categories. Second, the social customs in Paul’s time and place were not the same as ours. What this means is that an interpretation of any Pauline condemnation of contemporary same-sex relationships is highly problematic. So, the question that concerns me is this: Was Paul condemning the sort of same-sex relationships we see today, relationships based in mutuality, love, and long-term commitment, or was he condemning something else?

Nature and Morality

Paul was not concerned about getting Gentiles to follow holiness codes. A lack of circumcision in Greek culture, for instance, was not, for Paul, a manifestation of idolatry. The holiness codes were laws given to the Jews only. They were part of the covenant established between God and God’s chosen people, meaning the Jews. Therefore, Paul does not condemn Gentile behavior according to their lack of adherence to covenant-specific Torah laws. Rather, the Gentiles have, as a result of idolatry, neglected morality.

Morality, not holiness codes, has been evident “since the creation of the world” (Romans 1:20). So Paul says that God’s will regarding moral behavior is plain and easily understood by all. The Gentiles, even though they exist outside of the covenant between God and the Jews, have no excuse for abandoning God’s moral law. Key here is the assertion that Gentiles are accountable because nature itself provides clear instruction regarding God’s moral wishes concerning sexual acts.

            Paul then, after establishing the knowable-through-nature-itself aspect of God’s moral will, provides examples of just how the Gentiles have neglected the self-evident morality from which idolatry has blinded them. Paul’s examples include murder, deceit, gossiping, heartlessness, ruthlessness, and certain types of sexual acts about which more must be said. For Paul, nature itself attests to the immorality of such acts. The connection between the knowledge of what is moral and nature itself is a prominent theme for Paul.

The Nature of “Nature”

Two methods are instructive for trying to understand Paul’s meaning in Romans 1:26-27. One is philological (which involves looking at how contemporaries of Paul used language) and the other is inter-textual (how did Paul himself use language?).

            Corinthians 11:14-15 raises questions about just what Paul means when he uses the word “natural.” Paul writes to the Corinthians, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.” It is difficult for many contemporary readers of this passage to understand what nature has to teach us about hair length and how it relates to gender degradation. One serious possibility is that Paul is alluding to social convention and cultural mores. As one author put it, “Paul mistakes custom for nature.”

            The possibility that Paul may be pointing to Greco-Roman ideas about sexuality and deviant sexual behavior invites the question: What were the cultural attitudes about same-same relationships, and how would their investigation influence an interpretation of Paul’s claim that “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with one another, were consumed with passion for one another”?

The Nature of Effeminacy and Same-Sex acts in Greco-Roman Literature

Common contemporary ideologies about sexuality include the idea of mutuality in sexual relationships. This attitude, however, would have been foreign in Paul’s time. To be clear, relationships in Paul’s time were not based on the notion of mutuality. Equally significant, same-sex acts were not in and of themselves seen as unnatural or immoral in Greco-Roman culture. One New Testament scholar, Bernadette Brooten, noted, “Roman authors did classify the penetration of certain categories of subordinate males, such as a boy or a slave, as natural.” Referring to the practice of pederasty, Plato’s Symposium provides evidence of just how different cultural attitudes were in Greco-Roman culture. “I cannot say what greater good there is for a young boy than a gentle lover.”

Male to male relationships were, in some cases, seen as more pure than male-female relationships.

But the offspring of the heavenly Aphrodite is derived from a mother in whose birth the female has no part … Those who are inspired by this love turn to the male and delight in him who is more valiant and intelligent in nature … For they love not boys, but intelligent beings whose reason is beginning to be developed, much about the time at which their beards begin to grow.

Though attitudes regarding same-sex acts in Greco-Roman literature seem to include a sense of their being natural, effeminacy and masculinity remained important and fixed aspects of the sexual milieu. Whereas sexual orientation, as understood in our contemporary context, seems to be absent in antiquity, the “disease of effeminacy” is a common theme among many writers of the era. As one New Testament scholar noted, “At issue here is the ancient horror of the feminine.”  

 Many inhabitants of the Roman world viewed asymmetrical sexual relations as the norm; that is, one active, superordinate person with a passive, subordinate partner. Cultural attitudes toward women naturally placed them in the subordinate role. Females were seen as naturally passive. As a result, same-sex acts that involve a woman taking on a dominate role would be perceived as unnatural. Similarly, adult men were naturally dominant. For a man to be passive in any sexual relationship would be unnatural.

            For the culture in which Paul writes, the natural relationship between a man and woman is not based on biology. Nowhere does Paul point to procreation to support his “nature” argument. Rather, just as it is when Paul is speaking about gender and hair length, the natural relationship is based on cultural attitudes regarding socially acceptable roles of men and women. Such a thesis aligns to a male-dominated society in which women belong to men and are seen in relation to them. Adding another layer, New Testament scholar Dale B. Martin asserts that “To be penetrated was to be inferior because women were inferior.”

Conclusion

What Paul is condemning is not loving, dedicated, and nurturing same-sex relationships as they exist in contemporary western culture, but the unnatural effeminacy and unnatural dominance men and women experience in same-same acts. In other words, what Paul is condemning is the effeminacy inherent in the act of male same-sex penetration. The difficulty with this interpretation is more theological than historical. As Martin says, “I myself would not advocate reading a condemnation of effeminacy out loud in church as the ‘word of the Lord.’”  

What Martin and others are alluding to is that Paul’s version of heterosexism, which informed his theology and therefore his moral prohibition against same-sex acts, was a very different form of heterosexism experienced today. Whereas Paul’s heterosexism was akin to misogyny, contemporary forms are often more aligned to homophobia. As such, suggestions of a Pauline condemnation of contemporary homosexual relationships result from a gross misreading of the text whereby the reader clothes Paul in his or her own cultural biases. An exegetical survey of Romans 1:18-32 indicates that Paul’s condemnation of same-sex acts is based in his culturally conditioned belief that men and women should not stray from the socially constructed expectations of male superordination and female subordination. Accordingly, Paul’s descriptions of “natural” and “unnatural” sex acts offer no insight into moral concerns regarding contemporary same-sex relationships. Rather, Paul’s use of the words “natural” and “unnatural” refer to the social customs and mores of the society in which Paul lived.

There is a sense of irony that emerges as I bring this piece back to the current issue surrounding Phil Robertson’s mention of I Corinthians 6:9. Nowadays you find the Greek terms Arsenokoites and Malakos translated as “male-prostitute’ and “sodomite.” However, from the end of the 1500s to the twentieth century, the preferred translation was “effeminate” and “abusers of themselves with mankind” (found in the Douai-Rheims, King James Version, and ASV). What exactly was Paul calling into question? The issue is anything but clear.