I apologize for the delay in this series. I will be posting on Tuesday or Wednesday of every week from now on. This will be the last in the series although the Journey continues.
As I was trying to explain my take
on Romans 1, I decided that this excerpt said it as well as I could.
This book also has a treasure of information about this subject. It aims to
heal the church, as stated in its title.
Bring people together instead of tear them apart. That is my aim as well.
Excerpt taken from “Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality”
(explode the myth, heal the church) by
Jack Rogers
"The theme of male
gender dominance appears again and again in the texts that may claim deal with
homosexuality, including Romans 1. Both
the Hebrew and the Greek cultures were patriarchal. Men where, and intended to remain dominant
over women. Paul assumes the conventions
of these cultures that he is addressing.
He uses terms familiar in the Greek-speaking synagogues such as impurity
(1:24) and shameless (1:27), which are part of the Jewish language of
purity. And he was equally familiar with
terms that are rooted in Greek Stoic Philosophy, such as “lusts” (1:24) and
“Passions” (1:26), which denote erotic passion and uncontrolled desire.
In Romans 1:26, Paul
writes: “Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural.” As Nissinen notes, the phrase “their women”
is a clear indication of gender role structure.
But, he contends
“Paul’s understanding of the naturalness of men’s and women’s gender roles is not a matter of genital formation and their functional purpose, which today is considered by many the main criterion for the natural and unnatural. Rather, in the culture Paul is addressing, a man and a women each had a designated place and role in society, which could not be exchanged, For example, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3-6 outlines a strict hierarchical ladder of God-Christ-man-woman. Strict gender role differences are set out, manifested by different hairstyles. Paul asks, Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 cor. 11:14). In that culture, to violate these roles would be a matter of shame before God.
“Paul’s understanding of the naturalness of men’s and women’s gender roles is not a matter of genital formation and their functional purpose, which today is considered by many the main criterion for the natural and unnatural. Rather, in the culture Paul is addressing, a man and a women each had a designated place and role in society, which could not be exchanged, For example, Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:3-6 outlines a strict hierarchical ladder of God-Christ-man-woman. Strict gender role differences are set out, manifested by different hairstyles. Paul asks, Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair, it is degrading to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory?” (1 cor. 11:14). In that culture, to violate these roles would be a matter of shame before God.
For Paul,
transgressions of gender role boundaries cause “impurity,” a violation of the
Jewish purity code (Romans 1:24)
Nissinen explains that it is the woman taking the man’s active role in
sex that was seen as “unnatural.” The
text does not say that women had sex with other women. They could have been condemned for taking the
dominant position in the heterosexual intercourse, or for engaging in non-procreative
sexual acts with male partners. The
issue is gender dominance, and in that culture women were to be passive and not
active in sexual matters.”
As I have studied and searched for the truth I have found
extremists on both sides of this issue. I have also found some middle grounders
with very valid points on both sides of the issue. I aspire to be a middle grounder.
I choose to believe, have faith if you will, that God is not condemning me for loving someone of the same sex, that he
has assured me I am his child. It
is almost as if sin is in the eye of the beholder. Sin is not at all inclusive list. Romans 14 NIV explains it very well.
Until next time
