Romans 1, those lusty gays, and hippies

This isn’t a formal essay, but I included footnotes and a brief list of sources because I like being neat.

In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul describes male-male sexual activity as “para phusis” and “atimia” (Romans 1:26-27). The former is often translated as “against nature” and the latter as “vile” or “shameful” or “disgraceful”.

There’s debate about whether Paul was including female-female sexual activity, or female-male activity that was “likewise” para phusis [1]. Moreover, there’s debate about whether Paul was linking the sexual activity of verses 26-27 to the preceding verses on idolatry, in which case he may have been describing certain cults that used male-male sexual activity to worship their god/goddess [2]. But for now, let’s leave those questions aside. I’ll come back to the idolatry issue later on. Instead, I want to focus on something else.

Long Hair on Men

St. Paul uses the same terminology to describe men with long hair in his letter to the Corinthian church (11:14). He asks his readers,

Does not even phusis itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is atimia to him?

Here the two key words used in Romans 1:26 (“phusis” and “atimia”) are used against men with long hair. This confirms my suspicion that hippies are evil people.

Seriously though, if Paul’s language in Romans 1 implies universal moral condemnation then why shouldn’t we interpret Corinthians 11:14 the same way? If we say that Paul’s condemnation of long hair is culturally-limited, then why can’t we say his condemnation of same-sex intercourse in Romans is also culturally-limited?

It’s also not clear what Paul meant by “phusis”. There are several possible interpretations.

If he really meant “nature” then Paul was badly mistaken. Biologists have shown that same-sex sexual activity is common in at least 450 animal species in otherwise non-pathological populations and some of those animals even form lifelong same-sex pairs [3]. And if anything, it’s against nature for men to cut their hair. (Interestingly, Leviticus 19:27 forbids men from cutting hair on the sides of their heads) But maybe Paul was offering his own opinion and was indeed mistaken.

Maybe the description was culturally-specific. Perhaps “para phusis” meant “unexpected”, or “beyond current cultural customs”, etc. Paul’s additional description of male-male sex as “aschemosyne” supports the idea that the description culturally-specific. This same word is in only one other NT text: Revelation 16:15, which uses the word to describe naked people. But surely there is nothing inherently wrong with being naked. In ancient Israel, Jewish culture forbade people from approaching God’s altar by walking up stairs for fear that the person’s genitalia would be exposed. The Septuagint translation of Exodus 20:26 refers to this custom using the word “aschemosyne” [4]. This would make sense of Paul’s description of long hair on men, unless we say that long hair on men is inherently immoral (or at least accuse Paul of saying that). In my experience, most Christians do not have a problem with men having long hair.

Maybe Paul meant “against individual inclinations” and was describing heterosexual men. This would make sense of his claim that the men “abandoned” women for each other. In general, gay men do not “give up” on women; they’re attracted to other men from an early age and usually don’t experience any attraction to women. Why heterosexual men would do that is another discussion. Perhaps they were only engaging in homoeroticism as a way of worshipping their god(dess), which I’ll elaborate on shortly.

Some may cite other texts that condemn same-sex eroticism, but for now let’s stick with the relevance of Romans 1. The specific words of “phusis” and “atimia” are not applied to same-sex eroticism in any other Biblical text. I’m suggesting that those specific words in Romans 1 do not imply a universal moral condemnation. If Paul were really making a universal moral condemnation with the words “phusis” and “atimia”, then perhaps it was just his own opinion, otherwise it would be sinful for men to have long hair.

Some may wish to bring up God’s design and say that same-sex eroticism is against God’s plan for mankind. Maybe SSE is against nature in that sense. But again, if we condemn SSE by citing Paul’s language in Romans 1, then why shouldn’t we condemn long hair on men by citing Corinthians 11:14?

Idolatry

In a conversation on another blog, I suggested that Paul was making a direct connection between the sex acts of v. 26-27 and the idolatry of v. 23-25. A fellow blogger expressed his doubts:

I will concede that it is possible that he [Paul] is listing various religious practices in chapter 1 of Romans, but I don't feel it is definitely so. The reason being, Paul is not that kind of writer. His letters often have convoluted clauses and subclauses, even subtopics in the middle of sentences, making it nearly impossible to discern whether two consecutive statements are directly related, or if they will both be tied in 4 paragraphs in the future.

This person was suggesting that Paul’s writing style tended to be so all over the place – so random – that we cannot definitively know whether Paul’s reference to same-sex activity was limited to a cultic sex. In contrast, I think that it is obvious that Paul directly linked the same-sex activity to idolatry. I invite people to carefully look at the passage for themselves: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%201:18-32;&version=KJV

In verse 21, Paul says

they knew God, [but] glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened

Paul continues describing the aforementioned “they” in verse 22:

professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.

Wait, who is “they”? The reference to “they” refers the same people spoken of in verse 21. He hasn't changed the subject yet.

Verse 23 continues describing the people in verse 22. Here are verses 22 and 23 next to each other:

[v. 22] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, [v. 23] And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

So verses 22 and 23 are both refer to the same people spoken of in verse 21. Paul hasn’t changed the subject yet.

Now we come to verse 24:

[v 24] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.

Who is the unqualified “them” in verse 24? The word “them” here refers to the very same people in verse 23, who are the same people in verses 21 and 22. Paul hasn't changed the subject yet.

Now we come to verse 25:

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen

What does Paul mean by the word “who” in the beginning of this verse? Paul is continuing his description of the people in verse 24, and verse 24 refers to the same people in verses 21-23.

Some may think that Paul’s use of “amen” implies a change in topic. However, the wording in the very next verse (v 26) shows that he hasn’t changed the subject yet. Here is verse 26:

For THIS CAUSE God gave THEM up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature.

Again, who is “them” that Paul is referring to? It must be the same people spoken of in verses 21-25. That explains why Paul says “for this cause”. What cause? The “cause” he mentions here is the idolatry in verses 23-25.

So Paul does not change the subject between verse 21 and verse 27. He is talking about the same people. The passage describes these particular people as engaging in specific forms of idolatry and engaging in certain sexual activities that were “para phusis” (discussed earlier).

It just so happens that in Paul’s era, there were priests called galli, and these galli had sex with male worshippers in the temples. Also, female galli sometimes used artificial penises to penetrate men. [2] Townsley also argues that the structure of Paul’s letter uses parallelism. Specifically, Townsley argues that verses 26-27 (the sexual verses) were meant to parallel verses 23-25 (the idolatry verses) [2].

Verse 26 is usually thought to condemn female-female eroticism (“lesbian sex”), but it is not explicitly stated. The parallel between verses 26 and 27 is that both sex acts are “para phusis”. Verse 26 refers to some kind of sexual activity that is para phusis, and 27 refers to men who engaged in activity that was “likewise” para phusis by having sex with each other. But this doesn’t mean that verse 26 refers to lesbianism. Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn’t.

Footnotes:

[1] Discussed by Moore (2003), Chapman (2008), and Townsley (2001)

2. See Townsley’s online essay here (or shorter version here)

3. Bagemihl (2000). Also see Own (2004) and Chapman (2008). There is some dispute about whether any animals have a homosexual orientation. However, the existence of lifelong same-sex pairs (with sexual activity) in animals seems to suggest the existence of a “preference” or an innate predisposition.

4. Discussed by Moore (2003) and Chapman (2008)

Sources (alphabetically listed):

Bagemihl, B (2000). Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity, published by Stonewall Inn Editions. Bagemihl is a biologist whose book was described by Nature as one that “should become the standard reference work for research on the topics covered”.

Chapman, P (2008). Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, published by Haiduk Press. Chapman is an anthropologist trained in cultural, forensic, and biological anthropology.

Moore, G (2003). A Question of Truth: Christianity and Homosexuality, published by Continuum. Moore Was a Dominican Priest who gave lectures on theology and philosophy at Oxford. He died shortly before the book was published. Amazon link.

Owen, J (2004) Homosexual Activity Among Animals Stirs Debate, National Geographic News. Available online here. A brief National Geographic video clip can also be found online here. At 1:56 the narrator notes that some male Orangutans invert their penises to create a cavity for other males to penetrate.