Theology for the Masses

Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural (παρα φύσιν), and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:26-27

Perhaps no two verses have played a larger role in modern Christian discourse over sex and (homo)sexuality than Romans 1:26-27. Certainly, with the recent events in California, many are certainly turning to these verses for support of their angered positions…while others read them with disdain. I come to them now asking what role these verses really should play in our modern Christian constructions of what constitutes “proper” sex and sexuality (according to nature?). To begin, I’ll take a peak into the world of Paul…to see what (homo)sex(uality) meant for his contemporaries…to see how Paul’s words would work within antiquity’s discourse over such things. As it turns out, sex(uality) in antiquity was a performance that reflected and reinforced social hierarchy, which has startling (potential) ramifications for our reading of Romans 1:26-27.

To begin, many studies have shown that Greco-Roman conceptions of sex(uality) are quite different from our own. As Stephen Moore states, “the ‘logics of sexuality’ that underpin Romans 1.26-27, on the one hand, and the modern logics or sexuality, on the other, are so drastically different as to preclude any paraphrase of this passage that would attempt to assimilate it to the modern concept of homosexuality.” [1]

Greco-Roman notions of sex(uality) did not run strictly along the male/female dichotomy as many see it today.** While such a divide was strong, when it came to sex(uality), that line was quite permeable. Much more defined is the division between “active” and “passive,” between “hard” and “soft,” between “penetrator” and “penetrated,” and most importantly: between “superior” and “inferior.” While men were always the proper actors of the former categories…not all men could perform those roles. Those of the former categories are “honored,” while those of the latter categories are “shamed.” Here is where “sex” and “gender” become very different things in antiquity, and here is where we see their stark difference from modern times.

In antiquity, not all males were men: youths, slaves, eunuchs, and “sexually passive” males were something else. The highest status one could have was that of a free adult male (esp. rulers, magistrates, heads of elite households, patrons, etc.), everything/one else was considered “unmen” or at least “not fully men,” something less (women, youths, slaves, ‘effeminate’ males, eunuchs, ‘barbarians,’ etc.).

These lines of demarcation brought forth notions of “proper” behavior…behavior that was “according to nature.” While ancient writers often made appeals to “nature” for proper sexual behavior…they were really appealing to the reinforcement of their society’s hierarchical structures. Case in Point: Dio Chrysostom (2^nd c. CE) castigates “the man who is never satiated,” who through repeated sexual indulgences ultimately seduces young men of good families who are destined to hold public office. Dio deems this most offensive deed as “against nature” (Greek: παρα φύσιν) (Oration 7.151). For Dio, this crime “against nature,” is actually the treating of the city’s future leaders as if they were common slaves. It is a crime against class, against social hierarchy, for the young man is dishonored. He is dishonored not because he is damaged goods for his future marriage, but for his future standing in society. The crime here is treating upcoming “men” as “unmen,” making those who should be “active” actors into “passive” actors. Such deeds damage the integrity of the Greco-Roman social hierarchy, and are thus deemed “unnatural.”

Furthering these notions is the Oneirokritika of Artemidoros of Daldis (2^nd c. CE), an itinerant dream analyst who interacted with much more “common” people. It reflects relatively general understandings accepted by the public (free males that is) at large, and is called by some “a kind of ancient Kinsey report.”

The Oneirokritika separates sexual acts into different categories, most important of which are those that are “according to nature” (κατα φύσιν) and those “against nature” (παρα φύσιν). Intercourse “according to nature” is sex with a social inferior, which includes women, prostitutes, and slaves. The prostitutes and slaves can be male so long as they are the passive partner, for “to be penetrated by one’s house slave is not good” (1.78). This is not because of the sexual act itself, or even because of the slave’s maleness…the problem is that a social inferior is represented as a sexual superior.

Intercourse “against nature” in the Oneirokritika encompasses many activities, including (but not limited to) the penetration of a woman by another woman, bestiality, and necrophilia. Since sodomy of prostitutes/slaves/boys was ok, the dividing line of “according to/against nature” certainly is not reproductive potential. Rather, unnatural acts either do not reproduce social hierarchy or run counter to it. Bestiality and necrophilia are not “perversions” in the modern sense, but rather are outside conventional fields of social signification. If a man gains advantage over a sheep or a dead body…so what? Perhaps most telling is the prohibition of women “penetrating” other women. This is not simply “lesbian sex” in the modern notion, but rather a woman (a social inferior) performing the work of a man (a social superior). “Let not women imitate the sexual role of men” warns the Hellenistic Jewish author known as Pseudo-Phocylides (192).

Sex “according to nature” thus becomes a game of active/passive, penetrator/penetrated, and most importantly: social superior/social inferior. The act of penetration “reproduced” the societal notions of honor and shame, of status and class. To be the penetrator was to be the social/sexual superior (adult free males in all cases), and to be penetrated was to be the social/sexual inferior (women, prostitutes, boys, slaves, etc.). Any sexual activity that violated this social hierarchy could thus be categorized as “against nature.

So What?
What does this mean for Romans 1:26-27? Well, being that we can never truly lock down “authorial intent,” we can see how one’s language would fit into the discourses of their day. Given the very specific language of Paul, especially in comparison with his near contemporaries (esp. παρα φύσιν)…it seems that Romans 1:26-27 reflects/participates in particular notions of superior vs. inferior, of penetrator vs. penetrated. The “sexual logic” of Romans 1:26-27 thus comes from a societal hierarchy entirely different from our own. With this in mind, Stephen Moore offers an “amplified” version of these verses (based on the RSV with his own notes in parentheses):

Their women exchanged natural relations (of domination versus submission, designed to display social hierarchy, they themselves assuming the inferior position by accepting male penetration) for unnatural relations (in which no display of domination or submission occurred and consequently no social hierarchy was exhibited, because no penile penetration took place), and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women (the male assuming the dominant position, penetrating the woman and thereby exhibiting and reaffirming his social superiority over her) and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men (in which one partner would necessarily end up the loser in the zero-sum game of honor versus shame, passively accepting penetration and thus defeat at the hands of another). [2]

So, what does all of this mean? It means that Paul’s condemnation of these acts comes from a cultural logic that simply does not work for us. Sex and sexuality in Paul’s world was based on a very particular social hierarchy (free adult males “on top” with women, slaves, boys, etc. below). The question becomes, if we have a very different notion of society and what sex(uality) represents…how do we read Paul? Can we simply adopt his prohibitions wholeheartedly, despite the fact that the Greco-Roman societal/sexual logic behind them contradicts and offends our own? Should we, as Christians, uncritically conform ourselves to a 1^st c. CE worldview? What role, if any, should verses such as this play in our own formations of proper sex(uality)?

1. “the notion of homosexuality is plainly inadequate as a means of referring to an experience, forms of valuation, and a system of categorization so different from ours. The Greeks did not see love for one’s own sex and loves for the other sex as opposite, as two exclusive choices, two radically different types of behavior. The dividing lines did not follow that kind of boundary.” – Michel Foucault. The Use of Pleasure. [↩]
2. From Moore’s article “Que(e)rying Paul: Preliminary Questions” in: Auguries: The Sheffield Jubilee Volume. Much of the references and the argumentation here comes from this article (in an admittedly abbreviated form), which is an excellent read and comes highly recommended. Moore gives far more examples and presents them in a much more eloquent way than I ever could. [↩]

It is interesting, and also very frustrating, to read how people justify actions. This seems to be the most posh argument that people use nowadays, “Jesus didn’t talk about it, so it must not be important.” The people who make this argument seem to use it as a magic wand to wave away people calling certain actions sin. This is the one of the most horrible arguments, ever. The people who use this argument the most are the people who say that homosexuality is a perfectly acceptable behavior. However, when this argument is used to justify that behavior, what other behaviors are being justified at the same time? They also manage to create a rift in the Bible between what Jesus says and what everyone else says. Lastly this thinking degrades scripture to only mean what a person wants it to mean and fails to recognize the cohesiveness of all scripture.

People fail to realize the types of things Jesus never talked about. While they know the things he did not talk about that justified their own behavior, or behavior they believe is proper, they fail to see what else Jesus never mentions. As mentioned before, the people who use this argument the most are those who accept homosexuality as an acceptable behavior. They justify this by saying that Jesus never calls it sin and the only other time it is mentioned is in Leviticus, which is not true, in a section called purity laws. Leviticus has been abrogated, therefore homosexuality is OK. What other behavior is justified by the same reasoning? There is an easy answer to this. It is also mentioned in the same chapter of Leviticus, however no one seems to want to justify this behavior. The behavior is incest. Does Jesus ever mention it? No. It is in the same chapters of Leviticus that homosexuality is mentioned that being Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. However it is unlikely you will find incest pride parades on weekends or find churches hiring ministers that are actively involved in a sexual relationship with their sister. Clearly most “higher thinking” Christians would object to incest but accept homosexuality. Usually their reasoning is how Jesus never talked about it.

This thinking also creates a rift in scripture between what Jesus says and what the rest of the Bible says. First what would the Bible say about itself here. 2 Timothy 3:16 says how ALL scripture is inspired by God. So anything in the Bible is the word of God. Many times in the Bible when it reads “scripture says” it is equated with “God says”. So scripture, no matter who it was written by, can be equated with being the word of God. Jesus himself claimed to be God, John 10:30. So, if scripture is the Word of God, everything that is written, and Jesus is God, one could say that when Paul writes in Romans 1 about men and women giving up natural relations it is something that Jesus would have been in full agreement with and would have said himself.

Lastly, people who only want to believe what Jesus said directly in the Gospels fail to realize the importance of all scripture and only wish to believe certain parts of scripture. This part may be the most troubling. This is where people can be misled and completely led away from God. One can make scripture say whatever they want it to say if it is not taken as a whole. While this debate could rage on with possibilities about who is actually being misled and who is doing the misleading, once again the example should be taken from scripture to when scripture can be used to try and lead people astray. In Matthew 4 Jesus is tempted by the Devil himself. First Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread. Jesus answered with scripture saying “Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God,” Deuteronomy 8:3. Next Satan takes Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple and tells Jesus to throw himself off telling him, as Psalm 91:11-12 says, that Angels will protect him. Here Satan is making an argument from scripture. Odd how the Devil is saying, “See what scripture says.” It says this is good. Act in this way. Its OK. God wants you to. Jesus, knowing the totality of scripture, responds with scripture saying “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test,’” Deuteronomy 6:16. Lastly Jesus is tempted to worship Satan and once again Jesus uses scripture and says “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only,’” Deuteronomy 6:13. Once again Jesus fends off temptation with scripture. The most intriguing part of this passage is when Satan uses scripture as a justification for wrong action. However Jesus, knowing all scripture, was able to know how to correctly behave. He knew what every passage meant and knew how it all worked together. So when he was tempted by a bad argument based in the word of God, he was able to do what was right. All of scripture in its totality speaks on how one should act, not just a small portion.

The “Jesus never said it” fallacy is a mere justification for sin. It justifies wrong actions with a thin veil that appears to be from God. It makes most scripture to be nothing more than the words of man. It denies that all scripture is from God. It perverts scripture to be whatever one wants it to be instead of being totally the inspired word of God which is to show everyone who God is and what He requires.