I strongly encourage the reading of these eight paragraphs on the church’s relation to the subject of homosexuality from David A. deSilva, Trustees’ Professor of New Testament and Greek at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ohio, which are taken from his An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation, published by IVP Acadmic. The Church of Christ Jesus has overreacted to the subject of homosexuality on the one hand, as well as condoned the practice thereof on the other. I agree with every single statement he makes, including the footnoted sections. deSilva strikes a balance that is a breath of fresh air on an otherwise odious topic.
__________
It would be disingenuous to avoid inviting the reader to consider homosexuality in the context of Paul’s thought. It presents one of the more visible and probing challenges facing the church at the outset of the third millennium, and Romans 1:18-32 is often in the forefront of the debate. As I understand it, this is the principal question: Is homosexual practice compatible with the Christian life?
At the outset we must observe that Romans 1:18-32 is not primarily or exclusively about homosexual practice, as if this were the sin par excellence. Homosexual acts are but one among many manifestations of the “dishonorable passions” to which humanity finds itself a constant prey, alongside “covetousness, malice, envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness” as well as gossip, slander, haughtiness and a host of other symptoms (Rom 1:28-32). The climax is the loss of all sense of a moral compass. It is worth remembering this larger grouping since, in many ways, it is the particular targeting and shaming of persons of homosexual orientation — and the concurrent winking at the sins of greed, heterosexual promiscuity, marital infidelity, unethical business practices and the like — that has robbed the church of its competence to speak about issues of discernment and discipline.
We should also observe that shallow applications of Romans 1 to homosexual activity, such as suggesting that AIDS is the “due penalty for their error” (Rom 1:27 NRSV), increases the likelihood that an authentic hearing of the scriptural witness — let alone a consensus about how the church should address this issue — will remain unattainable. A careful reading of the passage shows that being subject to the rule of the passions of the flesh is itself the penalty for the root problem, namely, not honoring God as Creator. Failing to fall in line with the created order, the order of human nature itself was overturned: just as human beings were not subject to God, so the human being’s passions would not be subject to reason.
Those cautions noted, how does Paul’s description of the plight of the Gentile sinner begin to connect with the question facing the church?1 First, he might remind us, as we contemplate the significance of “genetic predisposition,” that our natural inclinations are not a reflection of God’s purposes for us but rather a reflection of our need for redemption. When Paul speaks of God’s giving the idolaters over to the “debased mind” and “degrading passions,” he speaks of the consequences of humanity (as a whole) refusing to take their proper place in the cosmic order, centered on and honoring the one God in their lives. Human nature, indeed all of creation (Rom 8:20-21), became defaced and corrupt. Rather than understand a natural predisposition to represent God’s will for an individual or take natural inclinations as moral guideposts, Paul points us to the battle against these drives of the flesh that the Spirit wages and seeks to win in us if we walk by the Spirit and not in the flesh (Rom 8:7-8, 12-14).
At this point, Paul would challenge us, especially those disciples who live in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and other such countries. He would ask whether or not we have imbibed too deeply and uncritically of our culture’s gratification of all desires, whether of the mind (greed and ambition), the eyes (desiring to possess this or that luxury, this or that commodity), the belly (gluttony and gourmandizing while many live at subsistence level or die of starvation), or the groin.
Western culture has redefined what it means to be a “whole person” or to have a fulfilling life in terms frequently antithetical to the teaching of the New Testament and the church. How deeply has our internalization of these values affected our contest with sin in our own lives? How have these values entered into the specific debate concerning the right of Christians of homosexual orientation to the expression and gratification of their sexuality? Paul would challenge disciples to seek rather the freedom from domination by the passions that is the promise of the gift of the Spirit, urging us to keep “putting to death whatever in us is earthly” (Col 3:5) or “crucifying the flesh with its passions and desires” (Gal 5:24). The Pauline ethic could not be more at odds with modern Western culture on this point.
An important impetus behind much of the debate is to establish a “welcome” for people actively engaged in the homosexual lifestyle (and not merely for persons of homosexual orientation, which is in itself not a morally culpable matter2 but rather a symptom of the sinful bent that inclines each one of us, in one way or another, from fulfilling God’s vision for humanity). How would Paul counsel churches on this subject?
This is more difficult to answer since Paul might begin by addressing other egregious violations of the bond of love and unity in the church, or take us to task for the relaxed, even brazen, attitude we have about so many other sins and vices. Wouldn’t the critical attention of the apostle, who was eager to remember the poor in the church, more quickly focus on our short-sightedness when it comes to relieving our sisters and brothers in need across the globe? When he was ready to answer our question, however, he would probably exclaim yes — all who seek redemption in Jesus are welcome, and it is the task of the community of faith to support one another, sinners all, on the path to recovery. Paul would include homosexual acts among the sins from which the sister or brother would need to be “restored in a spirit of gentleness” (Gal 6:1). But he would also remind us of the spectrum of sins that show the flesh rather than the Spirit to be at work, calling us to humility before all else since we all stand by God’s kindness and mercy alone.3
__________
1 The attempt to write off Paul’s words in Romans 1:18-32 as a mere replication of Hellenistic Jewish polemics against the Gentiles such as found in Wisdom of Solomon appears to me to be quite perverse, as if the fact that the same sentiments appear in a Jewish source makes Paul’s witness less significant or enduring (all the more as this particular Jewish source is regarded as authoritative by the majority of the world’s Christians). It is as absurd as saying that Jesus’ teaching that we must forgive one another if we hope for God’s forgiveness is not to be taken seriously, since he is merely repeating traditional Jewish wisdom (Sir 28:2-4). David A. deSilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2004), 632-33.
2 It is important, I believe, to make this distinction. Scripture does not condemn us for our sinful inclinations but for yielding to them — whether in thought, word or deed. Persons of homosexual orientation should not be made to feel unholy or unclean on account of the orientation, or hate themselves for their inclinations and inability to change them (where God does not change them). Rather, these disciples are called to resist the passions of the flesh, just as each one of us must daily resist the lure of other sinful inclinations (whether implanted by a nature that has been subjected to futility, or inculcated behaviorally by a worldly minded society) by the empowering of the Holy Spirit that has sanctified us. (633)
3 Ibid., 632-34.
Filed under: HOMOSEXUALITY Tagged: DAVID A. DESILVA, HOMOSEXUALITY, ROMANS 1:18-32 
© 2011, Matt. All rights reserved.
