Some thoughts on Romans 1:26-27

The Daily Office Epistle for Tuesday in the Week of 2 Lent: Romans 1:16-25
The Daily Office Epistle for Wednesday in the Week of 2 Lent: Romans 1:28—2:11

Here are the missing verses:

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: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.

I will leave a proper exegesis of this text to my betters, but I wish to observe that it is dangerous to pick and choose which parts of Scripture are to be read by the Church. Much better, I think, to include this and other uncomfortable passages in the Lectionary for reading in worship, at least in the not-very-public venue of a weekday Office.

I also wish to observe that I have not encountered a convincing pro-LGBT exegesis of this passage. Mostly, the arguments I have seen tend to be ad hominem, attacking St. Paul for his supposed anti-gay bias. On the other hand, this is a crucial proof text for those Christians who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Some of them feature these verses prominently in their teaching (e.g., the ministry of Westboro Baptist Church, Topeka, Kansas, and their pastor, the Rev'd Fred Phelps). To say the least, I do not find their use of this text convincing, either.

It may be that the key verse of the larger context (1:18—2:16, or in a larger sense, the entire sweep of chapters one through eight) is this:

Therefore thou are inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things. (2:1)

If homosexuality is wrong, it is not a sin which has the slightest hold over me. Thus it would be very easy for me to condemn it. I believe that this is why anti-gay feelings are so strong, to the point of dividing Christians from one another. We love to condemn others for that which for us holds no temptation. And we overlook the list of sins in the following verses (vv. 29-31), a list which touches closely on us all:

… unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful...

If homosexuality is wrong, it is no more wrong than anything else on the list. Putting it in the context of the Episcopal (and Anglican) Church's arguments over the ordination of openly gay persons, we have lots of priests and bishops who are covetous, malicious, envious, lovers of debate, deceitful... No one seems bothered by that, so why make an issue of sexual orientation?

I should emphasize that I have made the thought experiment of considering homosexuality to be wrong for the sake of this essay, but that is not in fact my position. To give a counter-example to Romans 1:26-27, I submit the account of David and Jonathan, perhaps the most beautiful love story in all of Scripture:

I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women. (II Samuel 1:26).

What does hit close to home for me from these opening chapters of Romans is St. Paul's condemnation of those who judge others (2:1-11). I fall easily into a harsh and judgmental spirit, and must constantly repent of it. Rev'd Phelps is a sad and cautionary example of what happens when one continues in such a spirit.

And, as I suggested above, one must not forget where St. Paul is taking his argument:

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. (8:1-2)