A new article on a liberal Adventist website has tried again to de-sharpen the clarity of a key Bible passage relative to LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Transgender, and Bisexual) relationships [1].
This article offers yet another case of abandoning the Bible’s own self-explanatory approach to understanding its teachings, and likewise underscores the decisive role played by higher criticism and personal experience in the filtering and processing of Scripture by those uncomfortable with the message there contained.
Summary of Key Points
The article in question rejects a plain reading of Romans 1:26-27 for the following reasons, among others:
1. The passage supposedly doesn’t describe same-gender sexual intimacy in the way we have come to understand it today.
2. Christians are revising their understanding of this passage because their experience with gay family members and loved ones has thus constrained them.
3. The straightforward reading of the passage in question is compared by the article to past Christian, purportedly Bible-based apologies for slavery and the subjugation by the white race of persons of African descent.
4. The passage in question was allegedly borrowed, at least in part, from the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon, which the article seems to suggest—though not saying so explicitly—as justification for perhaps not taking these verses as authoritatively as one otherwise might.
5. The larger context of this passage rebukes its Jewish readers for condemning the Gentiles for their depravity (Rom. 1:29-2:3), a fact which should supposedly discourage the condemnation of LGBT intimacy by heterosexual Christians today.
Initial Missteps
The article begins with two problematic assertions whose capacity to mislead is most dangerous. The first is articulated in the following paragraph:
Before delving into Romans, it might be helpful to address the church’s current understanding of the issue. Although the traditional teaching that all same-sex sexual behavior is a sin remains largely affirmed in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, it has become somewhat more nuanced, and in the wider Christian church even larger changes have occurred. Since life scientists, sociologists, and psychologists have concluded that same-sex attraction is unchangeable, and is to a large degree inborn, the SDA church has shifted from a blanket condemnation of being gay as sinful to a focus on behavior. The North American Division has officially stated that although being gay is the result of sin, being gay itself is not a sin; engaging in same-sex sexual behavior, however, is a sin [2].
We can’t deny, of course, that many in conservative Christian circles—including some Adventists—have mistakenly confused feelings with choices on the part of LGBT persons. Much of this problem has likely arisen from the visceral repugnance with which many straight people, Christians and otherwise, have often regarded those wrestling with inner desires for same-gender sexual intimacy. But any unique revilement reserved for same-sex desires can claim no support in the inspired writings, and Bible-believing church members should repudiate such notions once and for all. (Jesus, after all, said it would be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for the city of Capernaum, whose principle sin was self-righteousness (Matt. 11:23-24).)
However, despite the popularity in certain Adventist circles of the doctrine of original sin—the theory that sinful urges are synonymous with sin itself—this teaching has never represented the official stance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Regardless of what the sinful urge is, the Bible is clear that yielding to the urge—not the mere presence thereof—is what constitutes sin. The apostle James writes that “every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then lust, when it hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin” (James 1:14-15). Ellen White agrees:
There are thoughts and feelings suggested and aroused by Satan that annoy even the best of men; but if they are not cherished, if they are repulsed as hateful, the soul is not contaminated with guilt and no other is defiled by their influence [3].
Some years ago an article by an Adventist college chaplain in Ministry magazine, addressing the homosexual issue, drew attention to the Biblical teaching that a mere inclination to sin is not sin itself:
The apostle James recognizes a distinction between orientation and behavior. Every person “is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death” (James 1:14,15, NIV). For all who possess human nature and wrestle with a host of temptations, this should come as welcome news. Only, in the area of moral choices and behavioral responses to one’s inclinations is sin or the resistance of it possible by God’s grace. Inclination alone does not constitute sin [4].
So irrespective of the wide acceptance in certain circles of the theory that inborn sinful desire is identical with sin itself, when the article in question speaks of “the church’s current understanding” of homosexual sin [5], when it claims that “the SDA church has shifted from a blanket condemnation of being gay as sinful to a focus on behavior” [6], the author isn’t at all clear as to who or what he means when he speaks of “the church.” Only one body is authorized to spell out the official beliefs of the worldwide Adventist body, and that’s the General Conference in global session. And at no time has the General Conference ever stated through its official voice that same-gender sexual feelings—or any sinful feelings, for that matter—are condemned by God as sin itself. Anyone who has taught or applied such beliefs in the context of denominational life has done so without the endorsement of the official Seventh-day Adventist Church.
But perhaps more dangerous than the above misperception is the article’s acknowledgement—irrespective of its linguistic and interpretive gymnastics relative to the passage in question—that the author’s opinion of these verses is not driven by a straightforward reading thereof or any compelling reasons found in the passage’s immediate or cultural context. Rather, it is the driving force of experience in addressing this issue with friends and loved ones that is truly the decisive element in constraining church members to reconsider the meaning of this and similar Bible passages. The article in question states:
Most Christians view their traditional “biblical” stance on same-sex sexuality as sacrosanct and feel little need to reexamine the issue. However, when LGBTQ+ individuals, their families, and friends begin to see the trauma associated with enforcement of these traditional teachings, they become more willing to reconsider how the church should respond. One option is just to ignore the Bible’s teachings on the topic, assuming they are no longer binding, or that surely God’s love simply negates such harsh rules. This approach, however, is unpalatable to those who consider all Scripture authoritative. Consequently, a number of modern theologians have revisited the Bible’s clobber texts to see if under more careful study these texts may have been inappropriately interpreted [7].
Why, in other words, have certain modern theologians revisited the so-called “clobber texts” on this subject? Because they’ve found new evidence in the texts themselves, or their context, to compel such revisiting? No. It is the alleged trauma experienced by those who wrestle with these tendencies, along with their friends and family, that has birthed these new views of the relevant Biblical evidence. This frank admission by the article in question places its entire thesis in doubt, as Scripture gives no license to readers to disregard its commands based on anyone’s negative experience with them. Such experience-driven theology—when biography becomes theology, as some describe it—grants the human reader veto power over the inspired text. Some have rightly called this “experiential exegesis.”
But subjecting God’s Word to the vagaries of personal experience is what got Mother Eve in trouble at the forbidden tree. In Ellen White’s words:
The plainest facts may be presented, the clearest truths, sustained by the word of God, may be brought before the mind, but the ear and heart are closed, and the all-convincing argument is, “my experience.” Some will say, “The Lord has blessed me in believing and doing as I have; therefore I cannot be in error.” “My experience” is clung to, and the most elevating, sanctifying truths of the Bible are rejected for what they are pleased to style experience [8].
Eve was beguiled by the serpent and made to believe that God would not do as He had said. She ate, and, thinking she felt the sensation of a new and more exalted life, she bore the fruit to her husband. The serpent had said that she should not die, and she felt no ill effects from eating the fruit, nothing which could be interpreted to mean death, but, instead, a pleasurable sensation, which she imagined was as the angels felt. Her experience stood arrayed against the positive command of Jehovah, yet Adam permitted himself to be seduced by it [9].
She goes on to say, in the context of the above statement:
In the face of the most positive commands of God, men and women will follow their own inclinations, and then dare to pray over the matter, to prevail upon God to allow them to go contrary to His expressed will. Satan comes to the side of such persons, as he did to Eve in Eden, and impresses them. They have an exercise of mind, and this they relate as a most wonderful experience which the Lord has given them. But true experience will be in harmony with natural and divine law; false experience arrays itself against the laws of nature and the precepts of Jehovah [10].
Make no mistake about it. We can’t belittle or dismiss the pain it must cause a person with exclusively same-gender attractions to deny those attractions and embrace lifelong celibacy. But the Bible is clear that God’s grace is sufficient for the fulfillment of all His commands, that His strength is made perfect in weakness (II Cor. 12:9). The human Christ lived through the prime of youth and young adulthood without any sexual fulfillment. Certainly the difficulty of keeping such a commitment, even through the power of divine grace, cannot be understated. But through the power of God’s grace it can in fact be done. And heaven’s worth it.
The Slavery Analogy
Like others with a similar perspective, the author of the article in question seeks to draw a comparison between the Bible’s condemnation of same-gender sexual intimacy and the Bible’s alleged support for slavery and white supremacy. The article states:
Much traditional biblical scholarship supported the acceptability of American and European chattel slavery, whole books having been written by pro-slavery theologians showing how the Bible supports the concept that the descendants of Ham (assumed to have been the father of the African peoples) were cursed by God to be slaves to Noah’s other descendants. Revisionist theologians concluded that the Bible, although appearing to condone slavery, when probed more deeply is thoroughly opposed to any kind of oppression of one person over another. The oppression of LGBTQ+ individuals which the Bible also seems to condone, when interpreted traditionally, has similarly been found by modern revisionist theologians to have been interpreted incorrectly [11].
But even a cursory comparison of the LGBT and slavery issues as addressed in the Bible causes this analogy to break down quickly. Despite the past use by many conservative Christians of such pseudo-arguments as the “curse of Canaan” (Gen. 9:25-27) as a mandate for the subjugation by white people of persons of African descent, nothing in these verses says anything about white skin, black skin, or people of African heritage. If one takes the Bible simply as it reads, and permits it to explain itself, these verses simply foretell the future conquest of Canaan’s descendants (i.e. the Canaanites) by descendants of Shem (e.g. Israel, Assyria, and Babylon) and Japheth (e.g. the Hittites, Philistines, Persians, Greeks, and Romans). Moreover, any notion that the Bible teaches the superiority of any racial group over another is exploded by a host of passages in both Testaments affirming the equal standing before God of every ethnicity in the human mosaic (e.g. Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; II Chron. 16:9; Psalm 22:27; Isa. 11:10; 45:22; 49:6,12; 56:7; 60:3; 66:19; Amos 9:11-12; Matt. 8:10-11; 28:19-20: Mark 16:15; Rev. 14:6).
By contrast, any straightforward reading of those Bible passages which speak of same-gender sexual intimacy reveals the unqualified condemnation with which both Old and New Testament Scriptures regard such relationships. Not only Romans 1:26-27, but such passages as Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 describe such relationships as an “abomination” and prescribe death as the resultant penalty in the ancient Israelite theocracy (Lev. 20:13). Unlike the racial issue, where numerous verses affirm the imperative of equal rights within the faith community on earth as well as equal chances for salvation in the hereafter (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-34; Deut. 1:16; 10:19; Eze. 22:29; Mal. 3:5; Matt. 25:35,43), no equality of blessing is granted anywhere in the Bible to both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Biblical salvation is promised to all who through divine grace meet its conditions, regardless of ethnicity, social station, or gender (Gal. 3:8,28). But nowhere does the Word of God extend the promise of eternal life to “gay and straight together.” The universal testimony of Holy Scripture relative to same-gender sexual intimacy is negative and condemnatory, without qualification.
Implied Source Criticism
The article in question devotes considerable space to a comparison between the words of Paul in Romans 1:26-27 with similar language from the apocryphal book The Wisdom of Solomon [12]. The author writes that Paul’s use of this language offers “a further clue that the vice list in Romans 1 may have been borrowed and modified from that or a similar source” [13]. Why that matters, the author does not explain. As with the continuing attacks on Ellen White’s authority which often reference the allegation of so-called “plagiarism,” one is led to wonder whether the article in question is simply trying—even if only obliquely—to make Paul’s teachings on this subject appear culturally and environmentally conditioned, and thus presumably less authoritative for the church of today.
But it won’t work. Inspired writings never profess to be original; they only profess to be true. What Paul says in Romans 1 regarding same-gender sex is authoritative for today because Paul, like the other Bible writers, is inspired by God (II Tim. 3:16), and because the Bible assures us that “the counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations” (Psalm 33:11).
Misperceived Judgmentalism
The article in question seeks to portray the apostle’s list of sinful behaviors in Romans 1, not so much as a list of prohibited actions, but as a “clever trap” designed to catch those with a judgmental mindset. In the author’s words:
In Romans 1, Paul sets a clever trap, lulling the reader into a false sense of self-righteous judgment against unbelievers, and then springs the trap in Chapter 2. Paul is hearkening back to Jesus’ teaching of “judge not, lest you be judged” and identifies the act of judging others for their sinful behavior as equally sinful. Therefore, using Romans 1:26-27 as a source of condemnation for those who engage in same-sex sexual behavior is itself suspect, as it runs entirely counter to Paul’s reason for including those verses. By judging and condemning individuals for such behavior, according to Paul, you are equally condemned by God [14].
The question of whether a rightful comparison can be drawn between Paul’s admonition against judging in this passage (Rom. 2:1) and Jesus’ warning against judging in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 7:1-2) may be arguable, for the simple reason that Jesus goes on to contrast the illegitimacy of judging with the possibility of knowing people by their fruits (verses 16-20). This contrast helps us understand that what Jesus forbade when He spoke against judging (Matt. 7:1) was presuming to know the heart and motives of another, elements the Bible assures us are known only to God (I Kings 8:39). By contrast, fruits—things on the outside—are observable by human beings, and can thus be compared with the divine standard so as to know their origin (Isa. 8:20).
But the judgmentalism Paul condemns in Romans 2:1 is not the act of condemning wrongful deeds, but rather, condemning wrongful deeds while simultaneously engaging in them. The article in question seems to miss this point entirely. While quoting the words of this verse [15], the article appears to completely ignore them:
Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things (Rom. 2:1).
The whole point in Romans 1 and 2 is Paul’s demonstration that the entire world—Jews and Gentiles alike—stand condemned before God and thus in need of the forgiving, transformative righteousness of Christ (Rom. 3:23). The Jews are depicted as just as bad as the Gentiles, because they did the same things they condemned the Gentiles for doing. But Paul is hardly seeking to convey the idea here that sinful behavior shouldn’t be condemned at all. Rather, it is the hypocritical condemnation of sinful behavior—condemning it while simultaneously performing it—that Paul is denouncing.
One doubts that the author of the article in question wishes to take his premise to its logical conclusion, for if he did, he would have to conclude that Christians should not only cease condemning same-gender sexual intimacy (Rom. 1:26-27), but also murder, envy, gossip, malice, hatred of God, pride, and a host of other sins mentioned in this passage (verses 29-30).
“Nature” and “Lust”
Because the article in question refuses to consult the totality of Scripture in its study of the passage in question, it seeks to establish the notion that the word “nature” as used in Romans 1:26-27 does not refer to God’s original created order. The author writes dismissively of how “the argument of many who use Romans 1:26-27 as a clobber text is to claim that same-sex relations are unnatural, contrary to God’s plan for man, making all same-sex sexual relations a sin” [16], insisting elsewhere that when Paul calls same-sex sex acts unnatural he means that they violate “normal societal conventions” [17].
But the reason Romans 1:26-27 does in fact condemn all same-gender sexual intimacy is because such condemnation is the collective, universal witness of the Bible (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10). The Biblical doctrine of human sexuality originates at the creation, in which humanity was designed in God’s own image (Gen. 1:26), when “male and female created He them” (verse 27). This is the natural order to which Paul hearkens back in Romans 1, not humanity’s birth-nature or the man-made conventions of society. When we permit the Bible to explain itself in its totality, without regard to the myriad nuances of scholarly and linguistic speculation indulged by the article in question, this is our inescapable conclusion.
The article in question insists that Paul’s definition of nature must “take on new meaning today, now that we understand that gays are attracted to same-sex individuals ‘by nature’” [18]. Here we see a classic case of permitting uninspired scholarship and the vagaries of culture to impose themselves on God’s Word. The article subverts even more dangerously the authority of Scripture when the author claims that “Paul had no understanding of the underlying biology of same-sex attraction, and thus had no context in which to consider any kind of permissible same-sex sexual behavior” [19].
But it isn’t Paul with whom the author of this article must take issue, but rather, the Holy Spirit who inspired him (II Tim. 3:16; II Peter 1:20-21). I’m reminded of a college professor who was discussing a particular theological issue with a colleague, and who quoted Ellen White’s book Early Writings during the discussion. The colleague objected to the Early Writings reference because Ellen White was supposedly “young and immature” when she wrote that book. My professor responded by asking, “How old was the Holy Spirit?”
Inspired authors don’t give their own opinion when they give instruction to God’s people. The perspective they give is that of the eternal God of heaven Himself. The second of the two above passages makes this plain:
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (II Peter 1:20-21).
Reading the article in question, we are forced to decide whether we will adhere to the plain, collective reading of the sacred text, regardless of the personal or relational pain it might inflict, or whether we will allow the shifting sands of culture, scholarship, and personal experience to define our moral and spiritual lives.
On the issue of lust, the article claims that “same-sex sexual relations to Paul represented a consequence of self-centered, excessive lust—men seeking to have sex with other men, for example, to fulfill their overpowering lustful desires” [20]. It would appear that this author, like other apologists for the LGBT lifestyle in Christian circles [21], is trying to make a distinction between lust and love relative to sexual desire—the former presumably being bad and the latter (as in the context of a loving marriage) presumably being good.
But the fact is that the word “lust” in the New Testament isn’t a bad word at all. The word merely means “desire,” and is only bad when something forbidden by God’s Word is being desired. The same word used to describe lusting after a woman for the purposes of adultery (Matt. 5:28) is used by Jesus when He said to His disciples, “I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer” (Luke 22:15).
In other words, lust (desire) is only evil when something evil is desired, as in the case of an adulterous relationship (Matt. 5:28). For this same reason, the lust described in Romans 1:27 is depicted as evil—because it involves desiring something contrary to the original created order (Gen. 1:26-27) and thus forbidden in the Holy Word of God (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10).
Conclusion
When Romans 1:26-27 is read both in context and in light of the full Biblical message relative to human sexuality, its message becomes neither ambiguous nor complicated. Sex between persons of the same gender, whether male or female, is listed in these verses alongside such sins as envy, murder, malice, gossip, pride, and hatred of God (verses 29-30). If sex between persons of the same gender is to be excused under certain circumstances, similar arguments might be crafted to justify the other sins listed here as well.
The condemnation of same-gender sexual intimacy found in this passage is repeated throughout the Bible, in both Old and New Testaments, without qualification (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; I Cor. 6:9-10; I Tim. 1:10). The attempt by the article in question to draw a contrast between the sexual behavior condemned in Romans 1:26-27 and the same-sex marriage practiced by many LGBT persons today [22] is simply untenable, for the simple reason that no distinction is made in either the Old or New Testaments between loving, committed same-gender sex and promiscuous same-gender sex. None of it is allowed in God’s plan for the human family, as it all stands in violation of the order God designed in the original creation (Gen. 1:26-27).
The use of the phrase “clobber texts” relative to those verses that condemn same-gender sexual intimacy, is no more appropriate that it would be if used by “Christian” racists to marginalize those Bible texts which affirm the equal dignity of all ethnicities both in God’s plan of salvation (e.g. Gen. 12:3; 22:18; 28:14; II Chron. 16:9; Psalm 22:27; Isa. 11:10; 45:22; 49:6,12; 56:7; 60:3; 66:19; Amos 9:11-12; Matt. 8:10-11; 28:19-20: Mark 16:15; Rev. 14:6) and His plan for equitable justice in the human experience here on earth (Ex. 22:21; Lev. 19:33-34; Deut. 1:16; 10:19; Eze. 22:29; Mal. 3:5; Matt. 25:35,43). Those with racial biases might well refer to the above verses as “clobber texts.” But such labeling in no way reduces their authority over the human conscience. Nor does such demeaning language reduce the authority of those Scriptures which condemn same-gender sexual intimacy. The Seventh-day Adventist Christian must affirm the universal authority of all inspired words over the conscience and conduct of those professing to bear God’s final message to humanity. The selective acceptance of Biblical commands will carry no weight in the final judgment of human hearts, in which “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all (James 2:10).
REFERENCES
1. Bryan Ness, “Paul on Same-Sex Sexual Relationships in Romans,” Spectrum, May 4, 2021 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2021/paul-same-sex-sexual-relationships-romans
2. Ibid.
3. Ellen G. White, That I May Know Him, p. 140.
4. John C. Cress, “Compassion—an alternative lifestyle,” Ministry, November 1996, p. 8.
5. Ness, “Paul on Same-Sex Sexual Relationships in Romans,” Spectrum, May 4, 2021 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2021/paul-same-sex-sexual-relationships-romans
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. White, Testimonies, vol. 3, p. 71.
9. ----Counsels on Health, pp. 108-109.
10. Ibid, p. 109.
11. Ness, “Paul on Same-Sex Sexual Relationships in Romans,” Spectrum, May 4, 2021 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2021/paul-same-sex-sexual-relationships-romans
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. See Matthew Vines, God and the Gay Christian (New York: Convergent Books, 2014), p. 99.
22. Ness, “Paul on Same-Sex Sexual Relationships in Romans,” Spectrum, May 4, 2021 https://spectrummagazine.org/views/2021/paul-same-sex-sexual-relationships-romans
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan