BuddhistCatholicContemplativeEvangelicalGeneral ChristianHinduJewishLatter-day SaintMuslimNew VisionsProgressive Christian
Beliefs
- Buddhist
- Catholic
- Contemplative
- Evangelical
- General Christian
- Hindu
- Jewish
- Latter-day Saint
- More Voices
- Muslim
- New Visions
- Pagan
- Progressive Christian
Topics
- Religion News
- Food and Religion
- Sports and Religion
- Religious Art
- Religious Music and Entertainment
- Religious Events
- History and Religion
- Style and Religion
- Politics and Religion
- Women in Religion
- Recreation Outdoors and Religion
- Business Finance and Religion
- Careers Workplace and Religion
- Education and Religion
- Family Parenting and Religion
- Health Fitness and Religion
- Home and Religion
- Relationships and Religion
- Technology and Religion
- Travel and Religion
Columnists
- Buddhist Columnists
- Business Finance and Religion Columnists
- Careers Workplace and Religion Columnists
- Catholic Columnists
- Contemplative Columnists
- Education and Religion Columnists
- Evangelists Columnists
- Family Parenting and Religion Columnists
- General Christian Columnists
- Health Fitness and Religion Columnists
- Hindu Columnists
- History and Religion Columnists
- Home and Religion Columnists
- Jewish Columnists
- More Voices Columnists
- Latter Day Columnists
- Muslim Columnists
- New Visions Columnists
- Nonreligious Columnists
- Pagan Columnists
- Politics and Religion Columnists
- Progressive Columnists
- Recreation Outdoors and Religion Columnists
- Relationships and Religion Columnists
- Religion News Columnists
- Religious Art Columnists
- Religious Events Columnists
- Religious Music and Entertainment Columnists
- Sports and Religion Columnists
- Style and Religion Columnists
- Technology and Religion Columnists
- Travel and Religion Columnists
- Women in Religion Columnists
Resource Library
- 2026 Calendar
- Library of World Religions
- The 100 Most Holy Places on Earth
- Patheos Answers
- Podcasts
- Videos
- Faith Leaders Database
- Anglican Episcopalian
- Bahai
- Baptist
- Buddhism
- Christianity
- Confucianism
- Eastern Orthodoxy
- Hinduism
- Holiness and Pentecostal
- ISKCON
- Islam
- Judaism
- Lutheran
- Methodist
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- New Age
- Paganism
- Presbytarian and Reformed
- Protestantism
- Religion Behind the Scenes
- Roman Catholic
- Scientology
- Shia Islam
- Sikhism
- Sufism
- Sunni Islam
- Taoism
- Zen
- See all religions
Research Tools
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
- Trending:
- Forgiveness
- |
- Marriage
- |
- Consciousness
- |
- Death Penalty
- |
- Election
- |
- Halloween
Robert Hunt: Interfaith Encounters
- Home
- Progressive Christian
- Romans 1 and Same-Sex Relations
Romans 1 and Same-Sex Relations
Last updated on: August 5, 2017 at 9:29 am by Robert Hunt
Romans 1 and Same-Sex Relations 2017-08-05T09:29:18-06:00 Robert Hunt
Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.
The key to understanding any passage in the Bible is surely grasping the author’s intent. And that is why we need to look closely at Romans 1 if we’re going to grasp what the Bible says about same-sex marriage and homosexuality more generally. Because nowhere in the New Testament is there stronger or more direct language related to homosexuality and same-sex sexual relations.
Romans 1:26,27: For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.
Now there are nuanced and strongly contested arguments that Paul isn’t talking about the kinds of same-sex relationships we find in the contemporary church. But a reader of almost any translation will conclude that for Paul both homosexuality and same-sex sexual relations belonged with a long list of reprehensible practices that he makes in verses 28 to 32. And I would say that this is hardly surprising given his cultural upbringing.
Yet to understand Paul’s intention in these verses we can’t simply read verses 26 to 32 as a laundry list of unrighteousness. The first words in the NRSV translation of verse 26 make that clear. “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions.”
Pauls description of unrighteous attitudes and behaviors in versus 26-32 is a description of what happens when God “gives up” people to their own devices. They are what happens when God, keeping God’s covenant with Israel, walks out on those who have rejected him. It is what happens when we demand autonomy and freedom and God gives it to us.
But God doesn’t just do this. God does it “for this reason.” And to find what the reason is we must go back to verse 18, but in particular verse 21-23: “for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.” and verse 25: “because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.”
In other words Paul’s intention is not to delineate types of sin, but to remind the Romans of what happens when humans ignore God and instead worship idols. Idolatry is the root problem here. A failure to worship the one true God inevitably results in a “debased mind.” And that, Paul will conclude in Romans 2, is the inescapable inheritance of all who are not (he will point out in chapter 12) transformed by the renewing of their minds. It is only such a renewal then allows us to discern what is the will of God, “what is good and acceptable and perfect.”
And here we have the quandary when it comes to same-sex relations and the church. Those who are seeking the legitimization in church law of same sex relationships are not, first of all, ignorant idol worshippers. Paul’s direct line from worshipping creatures to a debased mind isn’t evident in their lives and acting as if it is simply insults the intelligence. The most one can say is that they share just those limitations shared by their fellow Christians.
Whoever Paul is thinking of in this passage it isn’t those men and women even now attending seminary, or quietly pastoring churches, or in many cases serving as active and engaged lay leaders. Indeed, they and their allies claim that they possess precisely the renewed mind that is a gift of the Holy Spirit, and can in fact discern what is good, acceptable, and perfect. To cast them as characters from Romans 1:26-27 inevitably appears like cruelty that strains credulity.
Unless, of course, you believe that however winsome their lives their disobedience to God’s order clearly indicates a fundamental unwillingness to listen to “God’s decree.”
And this disconnect gets us to the deeper problem of using this passage to discuss same-sex relations in the church.
Paul is offering a natural theology rational for rejecting homosexuality and same-sex relations: they are an unnatural distortion of God’s natural order for humanity flowing from the willful rejection of the creator and thus a debased mind incapable of understanding God’s order and conforming to it.
But contemporary proponents of same sex marriage argue that science teaches us that homosexuality and same-sex relations are in fact part of the natural order God created. Accepting them is in fact to be more rational than accepting Paul’s rejection of them.. His theological explanation of and rejection of this wholly natural phenomena is simply a relic of his pre-modern worldview, not unlike his understanding of the subordination of women in marriage.
So once again we find the complex problem of how to deal with those places in scripture where statements about the natural order (that are theoretically testable by common reason) are embedded in special revelation whose truth can be grasped only with the aid of the Holy Spirit.
Until we have some consensus concerning the criteria for teasing out these distinctions, and thus differentiating between those assertions in scripture that can be legitimately questioned by science and those that must be accepted by faith, we will have no possibility of engaging in a meaningful dialogue about sexuality and same-sex marriage.
But as I’ve noted in other blogs, this has nothing to do with whether scripture has authority, or even how that authority is exercised in the church. It arises because we have yet to reach a consensus on the appropriate hermeneutic for and authority of statements about the natural order embedded in special revelation.
Previous Post

August 1, 2017
Marriage Isn't a Matter of Doctrine
Next Post

August 10, 2017 Fire and Fury, Will Korean Christians Survive?
Browse Our Archives
Select a Category Christian Identity Christian Muslim Relations Home Page Inter-Religious Dialogue Uncategorized
Select a Month September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 July 2010 May 2010
TAKE THE
Religious Wisdom Quiz
How many days did the Israelites march around Jericho before the walls fell?
Select your answer to see how you score.
40 days 12 days 7 days 3 days
Related posts from Robert Hunt: Interfaith Encounters
Atheism as Religion, not its Antithesis
Robert Hunt: Interfaith Encounters
Atheism and the New Conditions of Disbelief
Robert Hunt: Interfaith Encounters
Robert Hunt: Interfaith Encounters
Robert Hunt: Interfaith Encounters
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
Did Prayer Cure His Cancer? Or Was It...
At 4 AM one morning, Joshua W. Brown’s wife awoke to a...
8 Ways a Near-Death Experience Rewires the Soul
Does Consciousness Survive Physical Death? After 50 Years of Research, Dr. Raymond...
Holy Longing: What Our Restlessness Is Telling Us
“One can find so many pains when the rain is falling.” -John...
What this is NOT about. This blog is definitely not about...
Who said the Israelites were God’s chosen? That’s right, they did. Who...
The Spirit World Is the Real World: God...
A Monk’s Wisdom on Body and Spirit I sit with Brother Martin...
view all Progressive Christian blogs
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support
- About Us
- 2026 Calendar
- Videos
- Podcasts
- Library of World Religions
- Faith In Media Tracker
- Advertise With Us
- Write for Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms of Service
- Do Not Sell My Data
- Contact Us
- Radiant Digital
- Manage Newsletter Subscriptions
- Unsubscribe From Notifications
- Sitemap
Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.
Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In









