Romans 1:26-27 and homosexuality

Lex semper accusat (the law is always accusing)--but whom is it accusing, and about what?

Although I do not know who the other authors in this tribute to Robert Smith are, I am sure that none of them has so many and such "ancient" points of intersection with the honoree as I have. While some of the contributors have surely shared with Robert an M.Div. from Concordia Seminary in St. Louis and positions on the faculty there and at Christ Seminary-Seminex, and others have shared with him teaching at Pacific Lutheran Theological Seminary in Berkeley or the Graduate Theological Union, none has all of Robert's and my early connections. Both of us were from the East, were students and teachers at Concordia Collegiate Institute in Bronxville, New York, and pastors in the Atlantic District of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. Most unlikely to be matched: each of served as waterfront director at Camp Chickagami in the Poconos.

But it is in the years in which we have taught together in St. Louis and Berkeley that I have come to see Robert's outstanding gifts as a teacher beloved by students, as a colleague, an author, and a lecturer. He is always offering insights and perspectives that are solidly grounded in careful research and, at the same time, always presenting them with imagination and wit.

An example of that wit: many who, with Bob, question the continuing relevance of passages in the holiness code (Leviticus 17-26) that are used to denigrate homosexuals (Ley 18:22, for instance--"You shall not lie with a male as with a women; it is an abomination") point to other statements in the holiness code that are now disregarded by almost all, such as "nor shall you put on a garment made of two different materials" (Lev 19:19). But who but Robert would note that that verse "seems to show God's clear preference for pure polyester"?

I have known few others who pursued so many diverse interests with such energy and discipline. Actually, the phrase under Robert's graduation picture at Concordia, Bronxville, sums it up quite well: "intelligent industry." Now that he is over 70 and has laid down the task of editing Preaching Helps in this journal, such intelligent industry has not skipped--and when he finally retires will not skip--a beat.

But back to "pure polyester." As a tribute to Robert I offer an item that I have talked about in my Paul and Romans courses at PLTS. It is offered as what it is, a transfer to paper and an elaboration, with a minimum of footnotes, of oral classroom presentations about Rom 1:18-32 (including references to Rom 1:26-27, the central biblical passage in the current discussion of homosexuality). These modest thoughts, inviting reflection and response, are my attempts to discuss the reason Paul wrote the words in 1:26-27. It is my assumption that that has potential relevance for the use of these words today.

Although I have often thought about and mentioned in class the issue this article talks about, the article was written after a trip to Philadelphia to participate in the National Approval Committee of the Extraordinary Candidacy Project. The Project was begun to work with Lutheran sexual minority candidates for the pastoral ministry and other rostered ministries who, although otherwise qualified, would not be approved in the ELCA candidacy process because the ELCA included in Vision and Expectations, a document to which the candidates are expected to conform their lives, a statement designed to exclude them: "Ordained ministers who are homosexual in their self-understanding are expected to abstain from homosexual sexual relationships."

As just about everyone knows, Paul's words in Rom 1:26-27, "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another," play a large role in discussions in the church today about the morality of sexual relations among gays and lesbians. (Unless otherwise noted, biblical quotations in this article are from the NRSV; gender-specific language for God has been modified.) Those who reject same-sex sexual relations as "unnatural" are convinced that Paul's words are clear and as relevant today as they were then (Paul/God said it; I believe it, that settles it). Others, of course, see the issue differently.

So how are Paul's words understood by those who approve of same-sex relationships today while also wanting to treat Paul's words with complete seriousness? Some interpreters begin by trying to determine with specificity what it was these verses were condemning, given the context of the first-century Mediterranean world. Others point out that a modern understanding of human sexuality, which can speak of a person's "sexual orientation," puts the issue in a whole new context and makes it impossible simply to quote Paul and close the discussion. Would Paul understand the words "homosexual in their self-understanding"? And how might that phrase reframe the issue of what is "natural" and "unnatural" intercourse?