A Note of Caution on the Use of Romans 1

There probably isn’t a more controversial passage in the New Testament than Romans 1. Pro-gay advocates refer to this passage, and five other passages in the Bible, as “Clobber Passages.” Those who advocate for gay marriage in the Church explain away Paul’s argument condemning homosexual behavior, while traditionalists lean in on it with a glaring spotlight.

But I would argue that both sides are not seeing clearly here.

I want to sound a note of caution about how we use Romans 1.  Romans 1, particularly verses 26 and 27, is rightly recognized as an important text in the church’s discussion of homosexuality. So what’s the problem?

It’s this: it is dangerously easy for the effect toward which orthodox or traditionalists use this passage to be the opposite of what God intends. Even we can use the passage wrongly.

When we read Romans, we hear it in solidarity with the original audience. It is a letter to Christians about the gospel.  After his greetings and other introductory matters, the Apostle Paul sets the trajectory and agenda for the remainder of the letter in verses 16 and 17—the apparently foolish gospel which is the power of God to salvation, salvation offered to both the Jews and the Greeks the same way: by faith. This is ultimately what he is arguing in the whole letter. It forms the broadest context.

To begin his argument, Paul broadens his view. He starts in verse 18 by talking about “all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.” He’s talking about the world here. Paul’s scope here is much wider than the church—wide enough to include Fox News, CNN, Ellen, Jimmy Fallon, China, the E.U., North Korea, New York, Venezuela, Planet Fitness, Lady Gaga, Snapchat, Walmart, and on and on. This is our culture, the world’s culture, the diverse mass of humanity descended from Adam.

That’s the point—fallen views make sense in a world with no divine reference.

What does Paul have to say about this broadest category of people and culture? He says that the judgment of God upon them is visible; he uses the word “revealed” (1:18).  In other words, it’s on display. How so? In three ways.

First, God’s existence and humanity’s accountability to him is obvious to everyone who can perceive anything (1:19-20).  Second, everyone—the great mass of humanity and culture—has decided to deny God’s existence and make created things ultimate (1:21-23). Third, God lets fallen humanity develop and live out the worldview that flows logically and inevitably from that fundamentally flawed starting point—(1:24ff).

This is where Paul brings in homosexuality. Why? The reason is in the answer to this question, “What sort of conclusions flow logically and inevitably from a worldview in which all of nature is disassociated from God?” The answer: ironically, all sorts of “unnatural” conclusions.

Ironically, but inevitably, when humans make nature merely “Mother Nature” and not any kind of creation, they redefine and manipulate “nature” according to their desires, resulting in conclusions that are patently un-natural. Remember, Paul is speaking about, but not to, the broader world here. He is not speaking to that broader world where these unnatural conclusions are held forth as truth; of course, they would not agree that their views are patently unnatural.

That’s the point—fallen views make sense in a world with no divine reference. But to those who have been called out of atheistic or agnostic darkness into light the unnaturalness is clear. And to those to whom it is clear, Paul’s point is this: isn’t all this exactly what one would expect in a world opposed to God? God lets denial of his existence play out to its obvious consequences. Of course! No wonder Paul shines a spotlight on the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality. (Cue the traditionalists at this point saying “Amen!”)

Oh, but wait.

Paul continues his list of the consequences of a God-less worldview. As his list continues, we begin to hear some things that are a little less obviously “unnatural.”  We still hear “Amens” now and then, but they are more subdued, less confident. We still see some easy consequences to condemn: “evil,” “murder,” “haters of God,” “heartless,” “ruthless.” But mixed in are, “covetousness,” “strife,” “deceit,” “gossips,” “boasters,” “disobedient to parents.”

Yikes! The thought that ought to be whispering in the minds of Paul’s Christian audience—in our minds—is, “Uh… if these are the outworkings of a God-denying worldview, and their existence is a sign of God’s judgment, then how do I account for these things in my life in spite of my claim to know God?”

That is exactly what Paul intends you to think.  It should be troubling. It should be jarring.

If we, as Christians, are smug as we approach the end of Romans 1, we are missing the point.  And if we are really committed to missing the point, we stop at the end of chapter 1.

But Paul didn’t put any chapter break here.  In fact, the first word in what we call “chapter 2” is, “Therefore….”  Here is the conclusion of his argument: “…you, oh man, have no excuse.”

If we, as Christians, are smug as we approach the end of Romans 1, we are missing the point. 

No excuse. Bam! We are brought full circle back to verse 20 of chapter 1, where it was said of the God-denying world, “they are without excuse.” At least when they do these things it is a logical consequence of their worldview. But if we do them—and we do—it proves something that should stop us in our tracks and terrify us. It proves that what is wrong with us is so bad that we too continue to rebel against God while claiming to acknowledge him.

What, we should ask ourselves, is worse—to live in godless ways consistent with an atheistic worldview, or to live in godless ways in betrayal of a professed acknowledgement of God?

What is the application here?  How should this affect us?  It should bring a deep humility that precludes judgmentalism.

I am not saying that Romans 1:26-27 means anything different than we’ve always thought. My caution is this: if reading Romans 1 leaves you feeling anything but uncomfortable, humbled, and convicted—in short, in desperate need of mercy—you are not reading it correctly.

And if all of us do not hear Paul’s message correctly, we are ill-prepared to understand the gospel and to help others do so as well.

Jim Weidenaar
About The Author
Jim Weidenaar joined the Harvest USA staff in June of 2012 as Director for the Greater Pittsburgh Region (GPR). He has a burden to help those struggling with sexual sin, that they will come to understand and experience progress in gospel repentance. Jim has a Masters Degree in Theological Studies (MTS) from Calvin Theological Seminary, Grand Rapids, MI, and a Doctorate in Historical and Theological Studies (Phd) from Westminster Theological Seminary, Glenside, PA. He resides in the South Hills area of Pittsburgh with his wife and daughter.

Stay up to date

Copyright 2017, All Rights Reserved. Developed for HarvestUSA by Polymath Innovations.