Romans 1 Is Not About Same-sex Relationships

I didn’t intend to write about Romans 1 today. I intended to approach it at some point in the future with greater depth than I will probably accomplish here. Romans itself is extremely complex and mired in several hundreds of years of specific interpretations that I’m not sure Paul ever intended. Romans 1 is especially problematic because it is frequently used as the main clobber text against our LGBTQ+ loved ones. This blog can in no way cover the enormous amounts of nuance necessary in discussing Romans 1.

But I’m writing about it now because it was suddenly thrust into the news. Landon Schott — a pastor at a multicampus megachurch corporation who has both the vacant expression and dilapidated fashion sense of a thrift store mannequin — tweeted this during the Democratic National Convention this year: YOU ARE NOT A BIBLE BELIEVING, JESUS FOLLOWING CHRISTIAN IF YOU SUPPORT THE GODLESS ROMANS 1 EVIL OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

There is so much I could cover just in this one tweet. The lack of self-confidence betrayed by an ALL-CAPS tweet. The hubris of insisting there is a single biblical interpretation about nearly anything let alone Romans. The impudence of telling anyone what it means to follow Jesus. The recklessness of conflating political ideology with piety. But what I’m going to talk about instead is the first chapter of Romans.

Buckle up my babies.

First, let’s try to ascertain why he would assign a particular flavor of godlessness – Romans 1 evil – to the Democrats. There is a perplexing and dramatic irony to his awkward statement. You see, Paul wrote Romans specifically to tell the story of a family formed by God. Like all families, this one has estranged members and needs to be reconciled. It’s a family with many disagreements, yet God is bringing them together for the sake of loving God together as God intended.

The book of Romans tells of the majestic saga of humanity’s reconciliation with God through family and community. Our togetherness reflects God’s own identity and character. Our shared meals demonstrate what God has promised. What is that promise? That diverse people are united under God’s Kingdom. This is happening right now, not sometime in the future, and it was inaugurated by Jesus.

So how dare Schott use this story of reconciliation to divide God’s people even further?

My biology teacher used to say, “if you’re not sure what the answer is, guess ‘to increase the surface area.’” My wife is a tennis coach who advises players who cannot make up their mind where to aim, “down the middle solves the riddle.” When guessing about the motives of twisted and unchristian statements made by Texas pastors, you should usually guess, “it’s gay stuff, right?” Yep. It’s probably gay stuff.

Romans 1 has been the primary footnote in some of the most damaging anti-LGBTQ+ diatribes in our day, and a big contributor to Christian disunity, especially the verses:

Romans 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. Their females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

That seems straightforward, right? Gay bad? Unless this is your first trip to my blog you know I’m going to strongly disagree for many reasons.

The primary issue is that using this verse to argue against same-sex relationships relies on ignoring the broader context of Romans. You cannot understand Romans 1 without reading into Romans 2. The whole idea Paul is setting up is to list a bunch of behavior Gentiles do that his Jewish readers would disagree with in Romans 1, simply to deliver the rhetorical punch in Romans 2 that the Jewish people are equally sinful, maybe worse.

Romans 2:1

Therefore you are without excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others, for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things.

Did you catch that? Whatever Paul was listing, everyone does it in some fashion. “You, the judge, are doing the very same things.” So, Pastor Schott, I’m guessing your tweet is an admission of guilt?

Paul’s issue in Romans is not about what kinds of sin you commit because we all are sinners. Paul’s issue in Romans is about dealing with the fact that godless Gentiles are more accepting of Jesus than his own Jewish people.

But even if you think the words above are purposeful and clear, is Paul even condemning what our modern culture would consider long-term, monogamous same-sex relationships? There are myriad reasons we must conclude he is not. Paul nor anyone in his day had any concept of what sexual orientation or gender identity was, at least not as we currently understand them. Paul cannot condemn what he doesn’t understand. I mean, Paul cannot be condemning quantum physics, jazz music or Fox News either, because he would have no concept what those things are.

Well then, what did Paul think about when he wrote about passionate desires and shameful acts? Paul’s context would have been pagan sex cults. Paul’s context would have been otherwise heterosexual people engaging in homosexual acts for the sake of their cult rituals. Paul’s context would have included pederasty and rape, and his hearers and readers would’ve have understood those contexts.

Paul is using some shorthand that his community would’ve understood as God-denying idolaters. The same-sex stuff was a coincidental thing they did in these cults that would have identified them for Paul’s audience. Forgive me for this example if you happen to be a Scientologist, but if I was writing an anti-Scientology polemic in the style of Romans 1, I might say, “they abandoned God for L. Ron Hubbard and now look at them holding tin cans up to their head.” There is nothing wrong with actually holding tin cans up to your head, so you are free to play a children’s game of tin can telephone. I’m just using L. Ron Hubbard’s strange ruse as a shorthand for Scientology. It’s something that is unique to their religion that I might feel fine poking fun at. I’m not proud of this, but I’ve made fun of LDS temple garments — Morman underwear — in my callous youth. Unnecessarily rude perhaps, but in any case my intention would certainly not be to ban the use of tin cans or underwear forever and always in all circumstances. Similarly, Paul and his friends had no idea there was such a thing as sexual orientation. Paul wasn’t condemning loving same-sex relationships, he was making a jab at pagan sex cults. Ancient rhetoric, nor humor, nor many other parts of the Bible have aged as well as we’d wish. Maybe in 2,000 years my future family will regret that I made fun of the tin can e-meters. But back then, Paul’s audience would’ve understood the crude point. “Yeah, I don’t relate to the tin cans, stupid pagans.” Paul was only using it to deliver an amazing rhetorical uppercut as he turns around in chapter 2 and says, “gotcha’ because you’re doing the same thing my folx?” What is that same thing? Godless idolatry.

Romans 2:22-24

You that forbid adultery, do you commit adultery? You that abhor idols, do you rob temples? You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

Now I’m going to say something that should be obvious to everyone who isn’t approaching this with a preformed bigotry: LGBTQ+ sisters and brothers who want to worship with us while maintaining their same-sex relationships are not blasphemous idolaters. They are Jesus followers. Whatever Paul said in Romans 1 about pagan cult practices doesn’t apply to the LGBTQ+ people sitting in the next pew.

So, as you read Romans 1 into Romans 2, what do you think makes more sense? What was the sin that Paul said his Jewish audience was also committing? I’m certain his point was not loving LGBTQ+ relationships, it was that we all succumb to godless idolatry in our own ways. If Paul was alive today, he wouldn’t care about gay sex, in fact I’m pretty certain he would’ve been more circumspect in his rhetorical devices. But he would care about:

• Materialism: We place an emphasis on wealth, possession and status above God, nominate billionaires and hero-worship CEOs.
• Consumerism: We all have an unhealthy obsession with acquiring all kinds of things that are pale substitutes for real spiritual and emotional connections.
• Technology: I spend way more time on my technology than in prayer. When you read in Romans that we are godless idolaters just like those pagan Gentiles who Paul says are now in the family, think about your iPhone, would ya?
• Security, esteem and power: Father Keating was wise to point these out as broken happiness programs.
• Political ideology: That one is for you, Pastor Schott. Your ultimate authority is Jesus, not the RNC and not even the Bible. Jesus.

Romans is about bringing us all together, in Christian unity, into one family living in the Kingdom of God. Romans 1 is setting up Romans 2. Basically, “hey if you’re uncomfortable being in a family with people you think are godless idolaters, take a look in the mirror.” This has as little to do with sexual orientation as it does to do with quantum physics because Paul didn’t know about either of those things 2,000 years ago.