ROMANS RE-EXAMINED

What is Paul really talking about in the first chapter of Romans?

 The recent shooting in Orlando has re-opened lines of dialog on social media concerning Islam, gun violence, and homosexuality, especially from Christians in my online circles.

Because of this, I wanted to focus primarily on what Paul seems to say about homosexuality in Romans and hopefully point out a few things that I think many seem to miss when they read these passages.

I’ve already written quite a bit about this topic, but with recent events being what they are, I thought it might be helpful to revisit some of this again.

Let’s start with Romans 1:18 to try to understand what Paul is really talking about here. I think it helps to actually start “from the top”, as it were.

In verse 18, Paul starts to talk about a group of people and this is how he identifies them:

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness.."

Who is he talking about here? He’s talking about “godless” and “wicked” people, in general.

In v. 21 he says those same people's thinking, "became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened".

Then he says in v. 22 that those same people "claimed to be wise but became fools".

And in v. 23 he says that they: "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles."

That is idol worship. In summary, these wicked and godless people denied the knowledge of God and began to worship idols.

Because of this:

"Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another." [v.24]

So, because they denied God and worshipped idols God's response was to give them over to "shameful desires of their hearts...for the degrading of their bodies with one another."

Please Note: Sexual intercourse in pagan temples was quite common in the worship of idols. This is what Paul is referring to here, and he continues to describe this in verse 25:

"They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised."

This is all about idol worship and it involved sexual intercourse. What Paul is condemning here is the use of sexual intercourse as part of the worship of created things, or idols.

Lust is lust. Ritual pagan sex qualifies as "degrading their bodies with one another" whether gay or straight.

Now, Paul continues his progressive thought by saying, in verse 26:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts."

Ok, wait...because of what? Because these people, who were engaged in worshipping idols, started degrading their bodies with one another in ritual sexual intercourse: "God gave them over to shameful lusts."

So far, this would be bad no matter if the sex were gay or straight.

There’s a lot more to point out, but let me pause here a just a moment to say this:

I don’t know anyone who is gay due to the effects of worshipping idols through sexual intercourse.

Do you?

Maybe those people exist, but I would venture to say that the majority of people who identify as being gay today did not end up that way because they used to engage in pagan sexual practices in the temples of Zeus or Artemis.

I don’t even know any gay people who feel attracted to people of the same sex due to denying that God exists. In fact, just the opposite, I know many people who identify as gay who profess saving faith in Christ and who even demonstrate the heart and character of Christ. They do not engage in "shameful desires of their hearts" any more than my straight Christian friends do. They also do not “worship and serve created things rather than the Creator”.

Having said that, let’s go back to Paul and continue the study.

After this Paul says,

"Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Please try to follow the flow of Paul’s statements here:

There were people who denied God. They started to worship idols. That worship involved sexual intercourse. That intercourse aroused unnatural lusts. The end result was a judgment within their bodies for denying God and engaging in pagan ritual sex rites.

Keep in mind: anyone who is "inflamed with lust" is in sin - whether gay or straight. But Paul's entire flow of thought begins with a discussion about those who deny God, worship created things rather than the creator, engage in ritual sexual intercourse as part of that worship, and then...BECAUSE OF THESE THINGS, God has judged them and given them over to their lusts.

Let me ask you: What if Paul’s descriptions here went like this:

*People denied God

*Those people worshipped idols

*They worshipped idols by engaging in male/female sex acts

Would you conclude that God hated male/female intercourse?

Why not? Isn’t that what people do when he goes on to describe their acts of homosexual intercourse?

If we don’t read Romans 1 as a de facto condemnation of straight sex [and the majority of the chapter is about straight sex], then why do we read it as a condemnation of gay sex acts?

Could it be because we have a bias against gay sex that we don’t have against straight sex?

If we lay aside our inherent bias against gay sex, we can see that Paul's entire point is that the denial of God and the worship of idols through sexual intercourse [gay or straight] is what is "shameful" and not the type of sexual intercourse itself.

Sexual intercourse in the worship of idols is evil. This is Paul’s entire point.

Straight sex is not evil. What matters is the context. Is it between two people who love one another and who also love and trust in God? Then it isn’t what Paul is speaking of here in Romans 1.

My point is simply this: Romans 1 doesn’t try to provide any commentary on whether or not gay sexual intercourse is “good” or “evil”.

Paul's purpose in Romans 1 isn't to explain why homo/hetero sex itself is wrong/right. His point would be exactly the same if he were describing straight sexual intercourse used in pagan ritual worship.

Does that make sense?

That same judgment they received would come equally to those who engaged in gay or straight sexual intercourse if it was for the purpose of pagan idol worship.

Believe it or not, there really are Christians who ARE gay, and they DO worship God and they DO love Jesus and they do NOT engage in fornication and they are NOT consumed by their lusts.

So, this passage does not apply to them.

In conclusion, I wish that I could introduce you to the gay and transgender Christians I know. If I could, you might find that these are not "perverts" or “abominations”. Instead, you might see what I have seen, which is an exceptional grace for people who shun them and marginalize them.

They are quick to even forgive family members who shame them. They are obedient to Jesus to pray for those Christians who slander them and call them names [like "pervert" for example] with tears in their eyes and pain in their heart.

I’ve seen Jesus in the lives of my gay and transgender brothers and sisters over the last few years in deeper and more profound ways than I believe I have ever seen in many of my straight Christian friends.

I hope to learn from them how to love and forgive and walk in grace and mercy towards everyone, even those brothers and sisters who cannot accept them for who they really are.

Peace,

Keith
**
READ MORE?

*THE NEW SAMARITANS
*OUR MISSED OPPORTUNITY
*BLESSED ARE THE EUNUCHS
*A LOVE THAT'S BETTER THAN SEX

A Love That's Better Than Sex

In our previous post, I shared a promise that God makes to those who are non-heterosexual, that they would be given a name and a monument that is better than sons or daughters in His Church.

Jesus and Paul affirm that those who are “eunuchs for  the sake of the Kingdom” are partakers of this promise if they remain celibate and devote themselves to the concerns of Christ.

But where does that leave the lonely disciple who longs for physical love?

Whether gay or straight, those who are single and celibate in the Body of Christ must wrestle with a very real need to love and to be loved by others.

Jesus knows this. He already knows what we need before we ask, and so He has a plan to address this need. What Jesus has in mind involves a complete redefinition of family and friendship.

“Who are my mother and sisters and brothers?”, Jesus asks.

Are they not those who love Him and put His words into practice?

In his ekklesia, everyone finds a safe place to be who they are, without shame. In the Body of Christ, everyone finds a friend who will lay down their life for them. In the Church that Jesus builds, everyone discovers a house full of mothers, brothers, and sisters who all embrace them, welcome them, and love them – not only in words, but in action and in truth.

The community of Christ is designed to provide everyone with a family that won’t forsake them; with brothers and sisters who will bear one another’s burdens; with deep friendships that are stronger than death, and better than a wife or husband, or sons or daughters.

In the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the Father has promised that everyone – especially those who are alone – will be cherished, and valued, and profoundly loved.

Granted, not every church fellowship has fully realized this yet.

But when the church fails to do this, everyone suffers. Not only the single and celibate, but those who are married suffer, too. Because everyone in the Body of Christ is intended to be welcomed, and at home, and embraced, and loved.

In the Jewish culture there is a concept of “Shalom” that extends to include everyone in the community. If there is even one person who does not enjoy “shalom” – which means having the food, clothing, shelter, warmth, and love, that every human being requires – then none of us has “shalom”.

In the Body of Christ, we are meant to ensure that everyone in our community is loved. Jesus commanded us to love one another. Paul told us to bear one another's burdens. John told us to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters.

If one of us in the Church doesn't have love, then none of us really has it.

"If anyone....sees a brother or sister in need but has no pity on them, how can the love of God be in that person? Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth." - 1 John 3:17]

This means loving one another as Christ has loved us. It means opening our homes if need be. It means sacrificing our free time. It means sharing our meals, and our hearts, and our money, and anything else that is necessary to meet the needs of everyone in our Church family.

If we don’t live in His love, and experience His love, and share His love freely among those within His Body, how can we call ourselves the children of a God who is love?

-kg


**

IMAGE CREDIT: Scott Laumann

**
READ MORE?

*NOT A SIN?
*THE NEW SAMARITANS
*OUR MISSED OPPORTUNITY
*BLESSED ARE THE EUNUCHS

UNCONDITIONAL

On Friday, June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States made a landmark decision regarding the definition of marriage for the entire nation.

What should we do about that?

Well, we could start by following Jesus. We could go out into all the world (not just this nation) and start to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom to everyone. We could begin to teach people to obey everything that Jesus commanded. We could participate and collaborate with the Holy Spirit as He transforms people into the image of Christ. That's our job and our mission as Christians – regardless of what our Government does.

How should we treat LGBT individuals?

We should love them.

We should open our hearts, and our homes, and, yes, even our churches, to embrace them and welcome them and love them.

Forget the politics. Let the politicians do what politicians do, but please, let the Body of Christ do what She is called - and commanded - to do.

If we're successful in our endeavor, it won't matter what laws they pass.

Besides, if Christians were as concerned with loving everyone as they are with "being right" the whole world would have known Jesus' love by now.

It’s time to get our eyes on Jesus, and to start doing what he told us to do, and begin loving with the kind of extravagant love he expects us to be known for.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another." - Jesus (John 13:34)

Think about that verse for a moment. "As I have loved you," Jesus says, "so you must love one another." 

How has Jesus loved you? Did He love you because you did something first? Or did Jesus love you as you were - unconditionally?

Unconditional love is what brought us here. Unconditional love is what transforms us. Unconditional love is what Jesus pours out on us, and it's what we are commanded to pour out on everyone else.

What does "Unconditional" mean to you?

Love like that and I think we'll not only please our Father in Heaven, but we'll be demonstrating that we love our Lord Jesus. 

"If you love me, you will obey what I command." - Jesus (John 14:15)

"You are my friends if you do what I command"- Jesus (John 15:14)

"Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me." - Jesus (John 14:21)

"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching." - Jesus (John 14:23)

"He who does not love me will not obey my teaching." - Jesus (John 14:24)

"If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love.." - Jesus (John 15:10)

  

BONUS: 

For those of you who are fearful that America is falling away from previously held Biblical values, please remember that our faith was born under cruel, anti-Christian Roman Emperors who tortured and killed the followers of Jesus for sport. If America ever gets that bad (and I doubt that it ever will) we'll still be ok as long as we continue to follow Jesus and obey Him.

Let’s keep our eyes on Jesus and continue to seek first the Kingdom of God. We are not called to become entangled in the affairs of this world. We are called to love people as Jesus loves them and to demonstrate the transformative power of the Gospel of Jesus to the world around us.

And maybe, who knows, maybe in the process we might discover that we are the ones who are just as much in need of His transformative love and grace as anyone else in this world.

Amen?

-kg

Guest Blog: Reflections on Indiana Law by Donna Savage

NOTE; This guest blog article was written by a dear friend of mine, Donna Savage. I worked with her for many years at Vineyard Music Group. She is a follower of Jesus, and a friend, and she is Gay. 

I ask that you, my readers, listen to what she has to share and please, dear ones, temper your comments with much love. I will post a blog here later in the week with my own thoughts and comments about this post.

Thanks,

-kg
**

I find it interesting as I read and listen to the different opinions on the whole Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration" ordeal. The proponents for this law consistently speak of how this law protects people of faith in juxtaposition to the liberal's agenda of tolerance.

Can I just say that there are many, many liberals who are people of faith. I am a person of faith. Yet, because I am also a lesbian, am I automatically considered a liberal... with no faith? I'll be the first to say that many of my viewpoints are liberal. I, however, hold many conservative viewpoints, as well. There is a delicate balancing act I find myself in as I try to live authentically in community with both my liberal and conservative friends.

What I would like you to hear, is that as a liberal, I do not take my relationship with God lightly. If you know me well, you know that my faith in God is not only central in my life, it is based on my understanding and belief of, not only God's love for me, but his love for all of us. When I hear comments about this law that polarize the sides, as people of faith vs. the liberals, I struggle with trying not to be offended. Namely, because as I have said, I am a person of faith, as well as, a lesbian, as well as, a liberal-conservative.

If I lived in Indiana, the religious freedom law would not protect me as a person of faith. Although I have faith, I would still be penalized due to being a lesbian. Not all "people of faith" are being protected by this law. The reality is that doctrinal interpretations have now been attached to our legal system. Today it is legal to not sell to a gay person... tomorrow, will it be legal to kill a gay person for being gay? (There is an initiative being proposed for that very thing here in California! It's not as far fetched as you may think!) This subtle law in Indiana only protects a segment of Americans. It merely protects the faith or beliefs of a certain group of people, who hold a certain doctrine. In my understanding, this is discriminatory.

And this law, in my opinion, is the antithesis of the words written in our constitution, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,..."

If there are laws to keep me out of the public market place due to our differences in doctrine, than that is discrimination and I am not being treated as an equal.

Governor Pence said, "There needs to be tolerance on both sides."

The difference in our tolerance is this: the laws that enable me to marry the person I love does not ask or compel a heterosexual to become a homosexual for my marriage to take place. It merely provides me with the same civil liberties and rights that heterosexuals enjoy. I promise that if I ever get married, I will never require my heterosexual friends to become homosexuals! I not only tolerate your heterosexuality, I think it's great... for you! However, with this law, which protects business owners who hold the doctrine or viewpoint that who I am is sinful and therefore, they are not required to treat me as an equal and sell their goods to me... unless, of course, I stop sinning and become a heterosexual like them, is just... intolerant and quite frankly, ugly.

I think it is safe to say, if I should get married, and I am protected under the law to do so, you as a heterosexual, will not die. However, hypothetically speaking, every store owner in any given city in Indiana could legally hold this religious freedom restoration viewpoint and be protected by the law in doing so. If I, as a liberal lesbian, lived there and could not buy food, I could literally die of starvation. How can that ever be ok? Their faith/doctrine is now protected over and above my right to life? Exaggerated... yes, but now a possibility. In my mind, there is a huge difference between the tolerance we are asking each other to live by.

There is an ugliness that this law shadows. It doesn't protect people's beliefs, it protects their judgments.

As a Christian, as a lesbian, as an American, and as a human being, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is offensive to me. I applaud any person or organization who protests, boycotts, or advocates against this law in Indiana or in any other state in our country. Remember Martin Luther King's words, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." This law is a threat to justice everywhere.

-Donna Savage