For the past couple of lessons, we've talked a lot about the sovereignty of God and man's "free will".  As we continue our study of the "unrighteousness of man" as described by Paul, the position we take on that subject will largely determine our answer to this question:

Does God call certain people to play negative roles in the demonstration or does He make the choice available to them?

I think most Christians have the idea that God gives man the choice, but let’s consider an interesting example of God's dealing with Pharaoh, the Ruler of Egypt:

The Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exodus 4:21 NASB95)

I thought God wanted to deliver His people from the slavery of Egypt, so

"But I will harden Pharaoh’s heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt." (Exodus 7:3 NASB95)

Later in Romans, we’ll see how Paul understood God’s relationship with Pharaoh. Here’s a little preview:

Throughout the Old Testament, it seems clear that God gave Israel a choice: obey and prosper or disobey and suffer ruin and death.  The record indicates that Israel never made the right choice, at least not without backsliding into idolatry each and every time.  That fact raises another question:

Let's read verses 18-32 to refresh our minds with the context and Paul's description of the unrighteousness of man: 

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:18-32 NASB95)

We'll begin our discussion today with verse 24.

The phrase God gave them over is used three times in verses 24, 26, and 28.

The use of this phrase three times is somber and sobering in its effect. In verses 23, 25, and 26, the word "exchanged" is used and underscores humankind’s responsibility for the state of affairs they find themselves in; man’s own choice to be free of God is at the root of all evil. So the thrice repeated "God handed them over" underscores the point that in striking free of God’s immediate control, man has not escaped God’s overall ordering of his creation. He has certainly not escaped into Godlike independence as Satan promised in the Garden.

The simple fact is that man cannot escape his own nature and the nature of the world as God made it. It is God who has handed man over to his desires and the endless pursuit of their satisfaction; man’s freedom to go his own way still leaves him within the limits set by God. The believer then should not be depressed at the disorder of society and the evidence of man’s degradation; it actually constitutes evidence of God’s overall control. Man is still the creature whom God made, and even when he refuses to recognize God, his essentially creaturely instincts and their outworking nevertheless bear witness to the Creator his conscious mind denies. 

It would be easy, and many Christians have done it, to think that because Paul begins his description of man's unrighteousness with homosexuality and spends two verses on that one sin, that it is of greater significance than all the others that follow.

The answer depends on who you're asking!  From a human perspective, murder is much worse than gossip; rape is much worse than slander; stealing is much worse than coveting.  But from God's perspective, as revealed in the Scriptures, any deviation from His perfect standard is sin and He will not tolerate any sin once the demonstration is complete.

In the past it has not always been so, but contemporary scholars are virtually unanimous in recognizing the relational values of sexuality. Nevertheless, they take their places on a broad spectrum of theological opinion and their conclusions about sexual behavior often differ sharply. On the one hand, conservative writers strongly affirm the relational aspect of sex in marriage while maintaining, equally firmly, the biblical veto on all extra-marital intercourse. Situationists, on the other hand, see no need to be tied to biblical or traditional hitching-posts. In their view, the demands of "love-in-relationship" must always override rules and regulations, whether those are enshrined in ‘a Bible or a confessor’s manual’.

Such divergent conclusions are clearly discernible in modern debates about issues related to sexuality. For example, on divorce and remarriage the main (though not the only) division is between those who assert—on the basis of Scripture or tradition—that marriage is indissoluble, and those who believe that divorce ‘is what Christ would recommend’ when a marriage relationship is irretrievably broken. From my personal experience, it seems that in most Christian fellowships, divorce is not a real problem unless it happens in the fellowship! If your divorce takes place inside the fellowship, there will be issues, but if it took place in another fellowship or before you became a Christian, the significance drops dramatically!

Discussions about homosexuality illustrate the same polarization. Here, the voices of Scripture and tradition merge in a consistent condemnation of all homosexual acts (cf. Lv. 18:22; 20:13; Rom. 1:24–27; 1 Cor. 6:9–10; 1 Tim. 1:9–10). But some modern writers defend stable, affectionate homosexual relationships on the ground that the only valid criterion by which to judge any sexual behavior is love.

In our day speaking negatively of homosexuality is often declared to be evil. Several factors have led to this. First, postmodern society believes that all personal options are equally good. Thus one should take pride in one’s ethnic background or religion or sexual preference. None is better than another and no one should judge another. This postmodern view may express a truth about our relative human judgments, but does it give God’s view? What if God really does exist and has a view by which he will judge the world in the end? Furthermore, there are limits to our tolerance of cultural diversity, for we are not very accepting of Nazi culture, for example.

Second, genital sexual expression is viewed as a right and even as a necessity for emotional health. This is a new view, which ignores the fact that many who cannot function sexually (such as impotent males) can and do live full and meaningful lives. Unlike food and water and shelter, sexual expression is not a necessity. Nor is it a right. Many people, whatever their sexual inclination, are deprived of opportunities for full sexual expression (think of those heterosexuals who want to be married but cannot find an appropriate spouse) and, while it may not be a desirable situation for them, it is not that they are being wronged.

Third, homosexuality has found increasing acceptance in our society. However, acceptance does not make something right. Nor does the evidence that homosexuality may be inborn make it right. Most types of personality are apparently inborn, and we think of these varieties as equally good, but alcoholism, schizophrenia and a tendency to violence may also be linked to genes, and we look at these as genetic defects. We view them as bad and try to control their expression.

Fourth, there have been attempts to label any rejection of homosexuality as "homophobic" and thus make a rejection of this lifestyle appear wrong. Such labeling begs the question. Is one "kleptophobic" if he or she calls theft wrong? It is not always an issue of fear (phobia) at all, but one of sober judgment about what is right and wrong based on a given standard. For Christians the standard has been the Bible, so that is why looking at this passage is so critical.

Probably the most accepted pro-gay explanation of homosexuality in Romans 1 comes from John Boswell (Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Chicago: University Press, l980) who states that Paul is not condemning homosexuality but homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons. He explains away "against nature" or "unnatural" (para (par·ah) phusis (foo·sis), v. 26) as not referring to natural law as God’s original purpose for mankind, but as the natural character of the heterosexual pagan. Boswell argues for the existence of inverts (those who are by nature homosexuals) and perverts (heterosexuals who commit homosexual acts). Hence, he concludes that para does not mean "against," but rather "more than," or "in excess of." Thus "beyond nature" does not mean "immoral." This leads him to redefine the explicit terms where "indecent acts" must have very broad interpretations, where "error" is a mistake and never moral turpitude (depravity), and where "not proper" is merely not making a good appearance.

So, with all this conflicting information, where does this leave us on the subject of homosexuality?

The debate on this subject has been raging since quite soon after the fall of man and we're probably not going to resolve it in this discussion, but I want to outline my convictions as they stand today:

Because I believe the Bible is authoritative, I personally have no choice but to accept what I consider its clear and contextual teaching: homosexuality is sin because it deviates from God's natural order for the demonstration where a male and female produce offspring. Take offspring out of the equation and we have a very different situation, everything changes. I make this statement with all due respect to others who also believe the Bible is authoritative, but disagree with my position.

Having said that, I don't believe homosexuality is any "more sin" than any other deviation from God's order and the Christian community should relate to individuals with that sin in their lives the same way they should relate to all other individuals who don't have that particular sin in their lives by allowing Jesus to show His love, compassion, acceptance and forgiveness through them. I don't think we should require homosexuals to "forsake" their sin anymore than we require heterosexuals to "forsake" their sin in order to fellowship. It is un-Christian to insist that homosexuals deal with their sin differently that other Christians deal with their sin.

The power of sin, any sin, can only be broken when we confess (homologeo (hom·ol·og·eh·o)). That means to say the same thing about it that God says. And God says two things about all sin: 1) It’s sin…it harms and destroys, and 2) It’s been forgiven and cannot be held against us! Most of us have understood the first part, but not the last and only when we affirm, often repeatedly, the second part, do we escape the power of sin to control and imprison.

Now if that's not controversial enough...I believe that God has called some individuals to demonstrate the scenario of homosexuality in the same way He has called others to demonstrate all the other scenarios that end in ruin and death.

No, there won't be any homosexuals in heaven, but there won't be any heterosexuals there either.  Sexuality, as we know it, is only for the demonstration, not for eternity. When asked about a women, who had been married to seven brothers, which one would be her husband in heaven, Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; for they cannot even die anymore, because they are like angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36 NASB95)