This is my paraphrase of the beginning of an argument actually presented by Lutheran New Testament scholar David E. Fredrickson in “Natural and Unnatural Use in Romans 1:24-27: Paul and the Philosophic Critique of Eros” Homosexuality, Science and the “Plain Sense” of Scripture edited by David L. Balch, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 2000.

This is what I feel like writing every time I read things like the above! So, watch out! This threatened study of arsenokoites could yet appear! (And, it’ll be really long too.) But, of course, Robert Gagnon’s book & numerous articles proceed along these lines, also.

Y’know, it always seems like just when Chrisitanity Today has once again confidently proclaimed the "new emerging consensus" on the relevant Bible passages some new Boswell, Scroggs, Countryman, Fredrickson, etc. rises up with some new "radical" thesis — only to be hammered down once again by the various conservatives.

So, one naturally fears asking "What the Bible says." It may be the last question one ever raises! Countryman's book weighed in at 267 pages. Gagnon's book weighed in at 493 pages. Now we need one that’s 800 pages! New books and articles keep appearing. One can't keep up with it all.

O'Donovan says:

“It is a principle in the hermeneutics of Biblical texts, that scriptural precepts bear upon us as they are mediated through evangelical doctrine.”

He feels the biblical references to same-gender sex are too incidental to be able to situate them doctrinally. The exception would be Romans 1 where he thinks same gender sex is related to idolatry. He concludes:

“We need, however, a broader doctrinal base than those texts on their own afford, yet not forgetting that they, too, demand an account.”

I think us Side B types tend to see the biblical prohibitions as being "situated doctrinally" by reference to themes like being "created in the image of God, male and female" and by reference to the marriage definition of Genesis 2:24 — which both in Matthew’s Gospel and in the book of Ephesians is seen as the defining standard for marriage. Thus, the long-standing Christian tradition of upholding monogamous, heterosexual marriage.

O'Donovan neither affirms nor refutes any such claim. He simply side-steps this understanding by suggesting that the Biblical prohibitions are not "situated doctrinally."

Also, I would not personally say that the negative judgment on same-gender sex in Romans 1 is related only to idolatry. It is related to the doctrine of God's Creation of the world. Notice the following direct references to the concept of Creation or the "created order" in Romans:

"For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse; for though they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their senseless minds were darkened." (Romans 1:19-21, NRSV).

"Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen." (Romans 1:24,25, NRSV).

Proof that I'm not the only person who has noticed the prominence of this theme:

“For the apostle, history is governed by the primal sin of rebellion against the Creator, which finds repeated and universal expression. It is thus governed by the wrath of God, which throws the creature back on itself, corresponding to its own will, and abandons it to the world. — Ernst Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley) Eerdmans, Grand Rapids 1980. p. 47. (Commenting on Romans 1:18-32.)

“It is clear for Paul that we creatures have a responsibility to use creation properly, both in the way we live our life as individuals and as we live it in relation to others. God is the one who ordered the created world, any abuse of that created order is an insult to the one who ordered it.” — Paul J. Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation) John Knox Press, Atlanta 1985. pp. 40,41. (He is commenting on Romans 1:24-32.)

It seems to me that this "primal sin of rebellion against the Creator" is Paul's primary concern here. Other sin is seen as stemming from this. So, stating that the condemnation of same-gender sex is solely related to the theme of idolatry in Romans 1 is (in my humble opinion) a huge mistake. It makes it seem as if Paul was primarily concerned about ritual practices among idolatrous Gentiles — rather than the larger issues of their moral choices and character. He is concerned about the moral effects of seeing God's Creation merely as "nature." He also lists "evil, greed, depravity, envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, gossiping, slander," etc. And, he's also going to say in Romans 2 that Jews do the same things, even though they know better — and thus, have no business condemning others. In no way can these concerns be reduced simply to idolatry.

So, conservatives should note that O'Donovan is side-stepping not only the usual Bible texts, but also the usual rationale that is given for them. Thus, they will feel that something important — in fact, absolutely crucial — is missing from the theological discussion that follows.

On the other hand, you can't really blame the guy for trying to move in a new direction — and avoiding the well-trodden path. We could easily be stuck there forever! Furthermore, it may well be that other Biblical themes (neglected in the current controversy) can also be brought to bear on this issue.

Would it be possible to by-pass the areas of contention in order to build a degree of consensus on some other agreed-upon common ground? What might that be?

Next Installment: The Question of Identity.

This post is part of an ongoing series of conversations with an older essay by Anglican theologian Oliver O’Donovan entitled "Homosexuality in the Church: Can there be a Fruitful Theological Debate?" The series begins here. Previous posts are also listed among the links on the Sexuality page. Oliver O’Donovan has done much thinking and writing on this subject since this essay was written, and interested people might like to look at this: Church in Crisis: The Gay Controversy and the Anglican Communion (2008).