Bible on Homosexuality 6: Romans 1:18-32 - II

Nature and Homosexuality
In Romans 1 we find a remarkable outlook on the meaning of nature in the ancient world. Not only is God the maker of nature; nature is the very norm of social organisation. That is why Paul basically argues ‘look at nature, and you know God is there’. What a striking contrast to today’s world, where more people would say ‘look at nature, and you know God is NOT there.’ What does Paul actually mean by nature? We know that in Paul’s Jewish tradition the distinction between the natural and the supernatural was not as clearly defined and kept as in our modern world. This might explain the remarkable account of Paul’s visit to his congregation after he miraculously escaped from jail. The congregated people were surprised to find Paul knocking on the door, instead they thought he was really an angel (Acts 12:12-17). Imagine, the gathered people thought it more likely for angels to knock on doors than a human person! Another example of the blurring of the concept of nature we find elsewhere in the new testament, when Paul appeals to the “conventional wisdom” that it is ‘unnatural’ for a man to have long hair (1 Cor. 11: 14-15)! Clearly, the ancient meaning of ‘the natural’ is substantially different from today’s views.
But how does the ancient concept of nature affect our reading of the passage on homosexuality in Romans 1?

Paul’s case on homosexuality seems to rest on two arguments: homosexuality is unnatural, and, homosexual is unconventional (not the norm).

Homosexuality unnatural?
Although no homo-gene has been found, there are clear biological foundations for sexual orientations. For instance, the chances that a boy is homosexual are higher when he has more older brothers. women's bodies react to male fetuses' proteins as foreign, making antibodies to fight them. Over time, when the mother carries more baby boys, the stronger the antibody response will be. This affects the baby’s brain to develop homosexuality. (Technically, this is not a case of brain damage - I was told - since it is in fact the higher testosterone shots that ‘damage’ the brains!). Of course, this medical knowledge was not available in the ancient world, moreover this scientific knowledge cannot be bluntly applied as a rule (the youngest brother is not always a homosexual!). In contrast to Paul’s exposé on nature, he contrasts (some forms of) homosexuality as a choice. The modern Church has picked up on this argument and redefined homosexuality as a choice, in spite of the available biological knowledge today. Paul writes about ‘exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural’. But ask a homosexual today exactly at which time he or she exchanged his/her ‘natural’ heterosexuality, and you will probably get no answer. I would argue that very few gay people would choose to be gay and face the ridicule and the enormous struggle for acceptance in contemporary society.
With this in mind, Paul’s letter read still different: does Paul really talk about homosexuals, gays and lesbians? Or, is Paul talking about heterosexuals exchanging intercourse with the opposite sex for homogenital activity? Given the infamous decadence in the imperial capital, the latter interpretation is very likely; Paul was not exercising a verbal execution of homosexuality - as is also clear from his references to other ‘sins’ - he was critically to the decadent life of Rome. This reading bring us to an interesting - if heavily contested - reading of Romans 1: not homosexuality is a sin, but the promiscuous exchanging of inborn (natural) individual sexual orientations of other orientations.
This interpretation has profound consequences for the Church and Christianity and individual Christian life; it would, for instance, disqualify those programmes that churches organise to ‘heal’ homosexuals, because - in effect - that amounts to the exchanging of one’s natural sexual orientation for an unnatural one. One could even say that it is ‘sinful’ to promote such changeover programmes. This sounds harsh, however, the real world’s records would show that these programmes often do more harm than good: they instil a perpetual feeling of guilt over one’s sexual identity, they encourage homosexuals to get married to the opposite sex resulting in repression of feelings and - often - the eventual break-up of families. These are not random examples of ‘what could happen’, rather they are real observations I had in talking with many Christian homosexuals.

Homosexuality unconventional?
It is a fact that heterosexuality is more the norm than homosexuality is, this is not a moral premise, but the sheer demographic dominance of heterosexual people. However, the Church sometimes makes it appear that heterosexuality is - morally - better than homosexuality, even when there’s enough circumstantial and empirical evidence that most heterosexual relations are (also) quite troubled.
In political science and in institutional literature there has been a lot of work in explain how things become the norm or convention, taking the form of traditions but also formal regulation. A trait of conventions is that they are slow to change, however they do change.
In our Western societies, long hair was considered to be manly before the sixties, and people would feel that long hair with men was ‘unnatural’. The reader that regular reads the Bible will - not accidentally - think of an instance in the New Testament when the dressing of long hair was considered ‘unnatural’. But I hope and think that most Christians would agree that this is not a question of nature, but culture. The meaning of ‘long hair’(1 Cor. 11: 14-15) is for instance no longer the denial of a man’s sexuality, as it might have denoted at certain times and places.
In the same way, when homosexual activity is referred to as ‘unnatural’, one has to consider whether this means homosexuality is not part of the biological constitution of life or whether this means homosexuality is not customary.

The Bible sometimes only mildly criticises wrong practices. For instance, the Bible tells slave owners to be good for slaves (Eph. 6:9), however, it does not fundamentally criticise the very institution of slavery. Yet, some principle assumptions in the Bible would speak against slavery if consequently applied, for instance ‘God does not favour one person over another’(Acts 10:34-5). Yet slavery, in Paul’s time had become custom. (A political scientist would perhaps say that slavery had become the hegemonic idea of organising society.) Although there was criticism against the system, most criticism remained in a narrow bandwidth of an assumed slavery based economy.
In the same way, I argue that the discrimination and exclusion of homosexuals in Church, Christian politics and daily life is plainly wrong. Although, the Bible does not promote homosexuality, it does promote loving relations and personal happiness (‘it is not good for a man to be alone’ - Gen 2:18). However, in a fallen world, the majority (in this case the heterosexual majority) have legitimised the discrimination against homosexuals by establishing cultural and societal hegemony of the heterosexual order. This hegemonic order is especially a shame to the Church if one considers Jesus’ personal efforts to emancipate the poor, the women, the foreigners, the sick and the outcasts. The Church should not be working to protect the current cultural hegemonic order that discriminates homosexuals, rather it should work towards the loving acceptance of people notwithstanding their sexual orientation.
Bible,homosexuality,gay,Romans,Christianity