This is the first article in a new series I’m starting called The Abuse Verses. In it, I will take verses that are commonly used to spiritually abuse people (sometimes known as “clobber verses”) and re-examine them, showing how they should not be used in the way that they are. The first is one of the most prevalent today- Romans 1:18-32. It’s used most frequently to condemn homosexuality in all forms. However, when the entirety of the passage is taken into view, it should never be used in such a way (even if one believes homosexuality is wrong.)
Table of Contents
Intro
This is simply an introduction to the passage.
On God’s Wrath
This section sets up the reason for God’s wrath upon humanity, to be finished within the next section.
On Idolatry
In order to set up the discussions later on, we must examine what idolatry is to Paul and how it plays out in the lives of those who practice it.
On Female Homosexuality
If you think vs. 26 is portraying female homosexuality, I recommend you read this section. There is no proper indication that this is the truth.
On Homosexuality
If you believe homosexuality is not wrong or have not decided, I recommend you read this section for some insights into the matter. If you believe it is wrong, you should read this section for further discussion.
Conclusion
Everyone should read this section as it discusses why Romans 1 should not be used as an argument against homosexuality.Whether or not you believe homosexuality is a sin, this passage should not be used to condemn the practice.
Intro
Before anything else, we must address who Paul’s audience is. This letter is written to the church in Rome, who were mostly Jewish-Christians. Paul’s condemnation in this passage most likely falls upon gentiles (non-Jews).[note]Douglas J. Moo. The Epistle to the Romans. (Grand Rapids, W.B. Eerdmans Pub. 1996). 97; Arland J. Hultgren. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. (Grand Rapids, W.B. Eerdmans Pub. 2011). 104; Ernst Kasemann. Commentary on Romans. (Grand Rapids, W.B. Eerdmans Pub, 1994). 52.[/note] The thrust of Paul’s rhetoric is to show the condemnation of the Gentiles that was common amongst Jews and then set them up for their own indictment in the beginning of ch. 2.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 97.[/note]
There are a few key characteristics that I would like to take a moment to highlight before we move on to the discussions themselves. First, this is the only place in the Bible where an origin for homosexuality is given.[note]Vincent Pizzuto. “God has Made it Plain to Them: An Indictment of Rome’s Hermeneutic Homophobia.” from Biblical Theology Bulletin Vol. 38 No 4. (November, 2008). 164.[/note] There are causes given in famous literature from the time, but no others are recorded within Scripture. For this reason (and because it is the longest mention of the topic within scripture[note]Sodom and Gomorrah is not about homosexuality.)[/note] it is used as one of the definitive Biblical positions on homosexuality.[note]Jeremy Punt. “Romans 1:18-32 amidst the gay-debate: interpretive options.” from HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies. Vol. 63 No.4. (2007) 965.[/note] Lastly, it should be noted that the terms used and the entire scope of the passage are unusually harsh, dark, and broad.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 97,617.[/note] It must be noted that this is descriptive of all whom God’s wrath befalls, and not singled out onto homosexuals.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 98.[/note]
On God’s Wrath
Speaking of God’s wrath, it seems fitting to now discuss this part of the passage. Paul asserts that everyone “sees” God but choose to repress him.[note]Kasemann, Commentary, 39.[/note] This “see” could also be described as a knowledge of Him, which we can glimpse through what he has made.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 105; Hultgren, Paul’s, 92.[/note] Allusions to the old testament (Ps. 81) seem to indicate that the repression of God is universal and that all mankind not only does this but is affected by it.[note]Tom Holland, Romans: The Divine Marriage: A Biblical Theological Commentary. (Eugene, Pickwick Publications, 2011.) 41, 50; Timothy J. Keller, Romans 1-7 For You. (Purcellville, Good Book, 2014.) 27; N. T. Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans: Part One. (London, SPCK, 2004.) 17; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, (Grand Rapids, Baker, 1998) 81; Moo, The Epistle, 107,98; Kasemann, Commentary,46;[/note] This is important to remember.
This wrath comes from misplacing the prominence of God in one’s life.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 89.[/note] Paul tells us that trying to put things before God seems wise but is ultimately foolish.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 108.[/note] For this reason, man became stupid in their refusal to acknowledge God.[note]Keller, Romans, 28.[/note] There are some who try to state that the rejection of God was something that happened in the past (and therefore so was the wrath), but most scholars agree that this is not the case. In contrast, they see Paul’s wording to indicate that the wrath of God is present, past, and future.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 123,103; Keller, Romans, 25; Hultgren, Paul’s, 84.[/note]
It’s interesting to notice that Paul’s wording indicates that God’s wrath is to give us what we desire.[note]Keller, Romans, 29.[/note] Verse 24 reads, “So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired.”[note]All scriptural quotations, uses, and references from the NLT unless otherwise noted.[/note] This is basic cause and effect in the universe; God gives us freedom to choose, and when we choose to replace Him, He then gives us over to our desires.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 99; Wright, Paul, 23.[/note] The wishes we have literally become our fate.[note]Kasemann, Commentary, 44.[/note] This means that, contrary to popular belief, immorality is not the cause of God’s wrath, it is the effect of it.[note]Pizzuto, “God”, 164.[/note] Does that then mean that just God gave up? “So,” combined with, “gave them over” (NIV) indicates God did the action of giving them to the desires they wanted. He did not give them those desires, he simply pulled back and gave them up to those desires.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 94; Moo, The Epistle, 110,111.[/note] This means that the wrath comes from God.[note]Kasemann, Commentary, 37.[/note]
What, then, did God give them up to? He gave them up to deteriorating thinking, but they thought they were wise.[note]Wright, Paul, 25, 18.[/note] The wiser they thought they were, the less God saw of them.[note]Ian Christopher Levy, The Letter to Romans. 81.[/note] Due to them desiring things over God, God gave them a life devoid of His divine presence.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 90.[/note] This lack of respect for God was not just ignorance, as it’s shown that they know of Him, but an outright rebellion against Him.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 90; Pizzuto, “God”, 168.[/note]
On Idolatry
We would be foolish to not recognize the rebellion for what it is- Idolatry. Humans were created to know and worship God with humility, but choose instead to worship other things.[note]Wright, Paul, 16.[/note] This idolatry is a switching of the natural for the unnatural[note]Moo, The Epistle, 114.[/note] (Sound familiar? more on this later). Everyone worships something, it’s the nature of being created.[note]Keller, Romans, 27; Kasemann, Commentary, 43.[/note] In trying to escape this, we assault God’s omnipotence and turn from Him to idols.[note]Kasemann, Commentary, 43; Moo, The Epistle, 112.[/note] Verse 23 seems to single out Egyptian idolatry, but it was common for all gentiles to be seen as idolaters by Jews.[note]Kasemann, Commentary, 45; Hultgren, Paul’s, 88.[/note] Some scholars see v. 23 as alluding to Israel’s idolatry, but it’s most likely that all overt idolatry was directed at gentiles.[note]Schreiner, Romans, 81.[/note] It was common for gentile religions (rooted in idolatry) to engage in various forms of sexual perversion.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 96.[/note] Seeing this connection, some scholars go so far as to say that rejection of God is the same as rejection of sexual purity.[note]Holland, Romans, 50.[/note]
It must quickly be noted that the repetition of God handing them over does not indicate that it happened three times, nor is it indicative of a spiraling into worse and worse conditions. It is, rather, repeated simply for emphasis.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 90.[/note] To show that the reason they are now engaging in destructive behavior is because they worshiped idols.[note]bid, 93.[/note] The result is the punishment itself.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 116.[/note]
On Female Homosexuality
We’ve reached everyone’s favorite part of the passage- the discussion on homosexuality. Before we begin in full, we need to take a moment to clear up a common misconception. It is natural to assume that both vv. 26 and 27 are addressing homosexuality. The first being female homosexuality in v. 26, then male in v. 27.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 99; Moo, The Epistle, 115,116[/note] When proper cultural understanding and common writing practices of the day are taken into account, that view is very unlikely.
While the verse does not specify the partner of the women’s exchanged unnatural relations, most Christians use v. 27 to interpret 26, making the meaning female homosexuality.[note]James E. Miller. “The Practices of Romans 1:26- Homosexual or Heterosexual.” in Novum Nestamentum Vol. 37, No. 1. (Jan 1995). 2;Schreiner. Romans. 84.[/note] Without this assumption, is there a valid reason to interpret it as such? Male homosexuality was discussed a lot in classical literature, however, like in the Bible, rarely was female homosexuality discussed.[note]Miller. “Practices.” 4.[/note] When female homosexuality was discussed, it was always preceded by male homosexuality, which was typically preceded by a discussion on unnatural heterosexual behavior.[note]Miller, “Practices” 4; Pseudo-Phocylides 190-92.[/note] Why then would Paul break tradition and introduce female homosexuality before any form of male sexuality in Romans?
In the discussion on homosexuality in antiquity, little male-female counterpart was made, like we have today.[note]Miller. “Practices” 5.[/note] Female homosexuality was discussed on its own, as was male homosexuality. While today they are combined under the term “homosexuality”, they were not so in the time of Paul, making his inclusion, and the assumption that v. 27 is the same meaning as v. 26 even more peculiar. Josephus never mentions female homosexuality, even though he adamantly opposes male homosexuality; likewise, the mosaic law never mentions it either.[note]Josephus. Against Apion. Book II. 25; Miller. “Practices” 7.[/note]
The question then becomes, what is the basis for interpreting v. 26 as female homosexuality? A topic similar to that of Romans 1:18-26 can be found in the Testament of Naphtali. Chapter 3 vv. 4-5 discuss not becoming like Sodom, describing sexual perversion in the city of Sodom as both male on male, as well as unnatural sexual relations with women.[note]Most likely referencing the act of the Watchers having sex with the human females. However, is still unnatural for the women.[/note] While Paul could have gotten his inspiration for writing v. 26 from this story, it is also worth noting his word choice in this and the following verse. Chrēsis (use) is used in both verses and compared with the word homoiōs (likewise).[note]Miller “Practices” 3.; Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance: King James Version. Blue Letter Bible, 1996-2013. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3668&t=KJV &http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5540&t=KJV accessed February 14, 2013)[/note] Because the chrēsis is shared between the verses, it is necessary to question whether or not the chrēsis is the activity itself, or simply the category of the activity.[note]Miller “Practices” 10,3.[/note]
Before we do so, let’s see whether or not v.27 is even able to shed light onto v.26. In order to do this, the connection between the antecedent and the homoiōs clause must be examined.[note]Jamie A. Bunister “Homoiōs and the use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26-27.” in Journal of Biblical Literature Vol. 38, No. 3.( Sep. 1, 2009.) 570.[/note] Antecedent and homoiōs clauses are used frequently both in society today, as well as antiquity. Traditionally, when one looks at vv. 26 and 27, they use the homoiōs clause to bring meaning to the antecedent. The question, therefore, is: is that the way the writer intended it, or is that a presupposition imposed on the text? To address this, common uses of homoiōs in antiquity must be addressed and discussed. In Philo’s writings, 71% of the uses of homoiōs, and 62% of the uses in Josephus’ writings, are not helpful to interpret the antecedent.[note]Ibid. 587.[/note] This means that the majority of the time these writers used our word “likewise”, the statement to follow did not help understand the meaning of the previous statement.
Paul uses homoiōs in three occasions outside of Romans (1 Cor 7:3,4,22). In none of these occasions it the homoiōs clause able to help interpret the antecedent.[note]Ibid. 573-579.[/note] To the contrary, it is interpreted by the antecedent. Of the many other Greek New Testament writers, many use homoiōs. In their writings, 93% feature the homoiōs as similar to the antecedent. Of that 93%, 61% are dependent on the homoiōs for their meaning, and 89% are impossible to understand the antecedent through the homoiōs.[note]Ibid. 580.[/note] What does this mean for the case of Romans 1:26-27? While it is not impossible for the second verse to give meaning and understanding to the first, it is very unlikely (based on the use of such word combinations in other Pauline, Apostolic, and classical texts). The proper understanding of v. 26, then, would not be homosexuality, as no partner is specified in this verse, and that interpretation is dependent on v. 27 for it’s meaning.[note]Shreiner. Romans. 94.[/note]
What are the “unnatural relations” posited in v. 26 then? Unnatural sex, in antiquity, was often anything that would be considered non-coital.[note]Roy Bowen Ward. “Why Unnatural? The Tradition Behind Romans 1:26-27”. in Harvard Theological Review. Vol. 90, No. 3 (1997) 278.[/note] This brings us back to the use of chrēsis in both verses. For non-coital sex with women, the same activities as that of homosexual male sex would take place.[note]Miller. “Practices” 10.[/note] If, then, this verse is targeted at non-coital sexual relations, why is it targeted at the women? Perhaps because women often encouraged this form of sexual activity because it prevented unwanted pregnancies.[note]Ibid.[/note] Based on the usage of chrēsis in the two passages, and the historical use of homoiōs, there is little that can lead one to believe these two verses are linked in the way most contemporaries think they are (both speaking of the homosexuality of each sex).[note]Ibid. 2.[/note]
On Homosexuality
We now find ourselves at the heart of the debate. The discussion on Paul’s view of homosexuality. Before we begin, let’s take a moment to review where we’ve been. So far we’ve seen that man was made to recognize and worship God but chose not to. As a result, they began to worship idols. This worship of idols caused God to give them over to their desires, which were ultimately destructive to them. This included unnatural sexual desires amongst women, though they were not homosexual. And we now find ourselves discussing explicit male homosexuality.
It’s important to remember that homosexuality is the punishment for idolatry.[note]Levy, The Letter, 82.[/note] There are many different interpretations on what activities Paul is describing in this one single verse. Most believe that all homosexual activity is condemned.[note]Holland, Romans, 50,51.[/note] Others think it is singling out behaviors that are especially emasculating for men.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 100.[/note] Still, others believe that the only things wrong is that heterosexual men are engaging in homosexual acts, or specific homosexual cultic acts.[note]Punt, “Romans”, 969.[/note]
One thing is for certain, though- homosexuality was a present reality during the time of Paul’s writing, even if there was no direct indication he knew of it specifically.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 101.[/note] There are some who argue that homosexual marriages were unknown during the time, but that’s up for debate.[note]Wright, Paul, 22; Nero was said to have married both men and women.[/note] It is most common, however, to believe that the modern idea of loving, committed homosexual couples is new. Most homosexual activity in antiquity was promiscuous and abusive.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 619,620.[/note] If any Jews were homosexual they kept that part of their life private, unlike their gentile counterparts.[note]Schreiner, Romans, 81.[/note]
While on the topic of homosexual Jews, it must be recognized that Paul’s presentation of homosexuality within this passage is mostly unJewish. His influence was not the Jewish scriptures, and He most certainly did not pull from the Levitical law.[note]Ward, “Why?”, 277.[/note] If he did, references to the punishment would be present, and the same terminology would be used. Paul instead used Hellenistic terminology.[note]Kasemann, Commentary[/note] This is a time period in Greek history spanning from the death of Alexander the Great (who was known to be a homosexual) and the establishment of the Roman empire. Particularly, Paul’s thoughts are very stoic- that one’s misunderstanding of a larger view of life would lead to self-control.[note]Punt, “Romans”, 978.[/note]
Stoicism was a common hellenistic belief that contended that emotions were almost always destructive, and learning to control them was the ideal for every man. Stoicism had a negative view of homosexuality because they held it was created by an “over-desire” for sex.[note]Keller, Romans, 34.[/note] Paul’s use of epithumia, which translates as “inordinate desire,” falls right in line with the Stoic worldview.[note]Ibid, 29.[/note] This leads some scholars to believe that it is only excessive sexual desires that Paul is condemning (either hetero or homo). They back this up by his strong language.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 98.[/note] Admittedly this is a rather weak argument. So let’s take it with a grain of salt and move on.
It’s common for homosexuality to be condemned because it is against nature, which is seen in this passage. There are no texts anywhere that say why homosexuality is against nature, though.[note]Ward, “Why”, 263.[/note] Stoicism holds that what is natural is that which can be seen within nature.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 96.[/note] Which could have been true to them at the time. However, we now see homosexuality common within nature, so is that something that can still be properly understood today? Paul seems to privilege the idea of “nature” in this passage, contrasting the unnatural action of worshipping idols with the unnatural act of certain sexual practices.[note]Punt, “Romans”, 966.[/note] Phusin, nature, is used numerous times by Paul.
Still, we are left wondering what makes homosexual activities para phusin (against nature). Could it be that homosexual relations are contrary to the creation of male and female? That being heterosexual shows us what it means to be human?[note]Wright, Paul, 22,24.[/note] This view of gender complementarity says that male and female belong together because they are different.[note]Ibid, 19.[/note] This mode of thinking has created a view of heteronormativity to evolve.[note]Punt, “Romans”, 967.[/note] Unfortunately, though, nowhere in Paul’s writings does he connect phusin with creation in the sense that it dictates what is para phusin; the idea that he does certainly cannot be seen within this text.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 97.[/note] He makes no allusion to creation when discussing that which is para phusin (apart from the word phusin, which does not necessarily mean nature in the created sense).
Let’s take a moment to examine what constituted natural sex in antiquity. For Philo and Plato, sex was intended for procreation and nothing else.[note]Ward, “Why”, 273.[/note] In this view, sex only came after the woman was created, and women are made of cowardly men from another life.[note]Ibid, 266.[/note] (Let’s remember that for later.) Under this view, men who have sex with a knowingly barren woman are having sex that is para phusin because they are not having sex for procreation. It comes down to the idea of bearing unfruitful seed. If the seed the man gave off during sex could not be used to procreate, it was unnatural and therefore condemned. This could be done by men with men or men with women.[note]Ibid, 271.[/note]
Does this give us insight into what Paul considered natural sex? If so, his views were contrary to Scripture where we see barren women having sex with men frequently, and it being blessed by God. If Paul is saying the sexual actions in vv. 26 and 27 are para phusin because they bear unfruitful seed, then he is taking this from sources outside the Bible and should not be seen as authoritative. Is there, though, some theological natural order that the actions in vv. 26 and 27 go against?[note]Punt, “Romans,” 967.[/note] It would seem that there is not. Even if there were, it must also be noted that God acts contrary to nature when He grafts gentiles onto the tree that represents His people (something Paul himself describes later in Romans). Is it wrong for men to act contrary to nature but not for God to do so?[note]Ibid, 974.[/note] Any wise man would argue not.
If Paul is not addressing that which is para phusin because it is against some created or theological natural order, where does he derive phusin from? In most of his writings, Paul uses phusin to describe one’s personality.[note]Pizzuto, “God”, 169.[/note] In other instances, phusin is a sociologically constructed idea (that women should have long hair and men should not, for example).[note]Punt, “Romans”, 970.[/note] In this way, it must be noted that that which is natural changes throughout time as cultures and societies change.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 102.[/note] Earlier when discussing v.26 I stated that it’s natural to interpret it from v.27. You probably didn’t even notice that. When the passage was written, it wouldn’t have been natural to interpret it in that way. What’s nature, and therefore what’s para phusin, in this instance came down to what society has taught us to believe is natural.
How does this apply to the text? In antiquity, women were not viewed as highly as men. This caused them to naturally expect women to be submissive.[note]Punt, “Romans”, 973.[/note] The woman wasn’t as important as the man. They also had the idea that women were made out of cowardly men. Whether or not this was a strong believe it was still present and shows us one thing- there were men of at least two different classes. Perhaps, then, the gender of the sexual partners was not as important as the class.[note]Ibid.[/note]
It seems that the constant theme of sexual morality throughout the Scriptures follows one basic rule- avoid sexual practices in which people are wronged.[note]Ibid, 978.[/note] Sexual practices in which someone is put into a lower class (homosexuality in the time of Paul for instance) was wrong because it put the man submitting into the position of a female. This was something that harmed him. Homosexual practices, especially cultic acts, often relied on young boys to be the submitters. This harmed them. Rape of captives was a commonplace practice amongst armies to show their dominance. This harmed the men. Harming another is against nature.
Whatever the reason for homosexuality being para phusin, it’s most likely that Paul’s thoughts on homosexuality are no longer valid.((Pizzuto, 169.)) If homosexuality is para phusin because it is contrary that which was deemed natural by society, that’s changed; we no longer value women differently than men. Being submissive is no longer something that can harm someone. If homosexual activities are para phusin because they are against one’s own nature (read: orientation), then how is it wrong for men to act contrary to their nature but not God to do so? If it’s para phusin for being against the physical, natural order of the world we have found homosexuality to be predictable and consistent throughout not only human societies but the animal world as well.((Ibid, 170.))
Conclusion
Whether or not one believes homosexuality is a sin, everyone should stop using this passage to condemn it. Most who discuss the passage (especially those who use it to condemn homosexual behavior) stop after v. 27. They seem to completely ignore the vice lists that follow. Like the rest of the passage, the lists are a mix of common Jewish and non-Jewish vices.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 104.[/note] Giving up God not only resulted in the sexual practices discussed above but in a list of various other societal ills.[note]Ibid, 103.[/note]
The words Paul uses makes it appear that humans have rotted to the core.[note]Wright, Paul, 16.[/note] The list is addressing society as a whole.[note]Wright, Paul, 22; Holland, Romans, 51-52.[/note] I had one person ask me to discuss how individuals can see these things in the lives of all homosexuals. But it’s important to remember that this description is not exclusively for homosexuals, but for all gentiles.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 102.[/note] There is no doubt that the behaviors listed are decidedly abusive of all kind. Could that shed light onto what Paul meant when he discussed homosexuality above?[note]Ibid.[/note]
That’s something we’ll let you ruminate on. What’s important is that the entire passage shows humanity full of all iniquity.[note]Levy, The Letter, 82.[/note] It should also be noted that Paul lists mostly social ills- things that come between people.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 119.[/note]That’s because having a bad relationship with God causes a bad relationship with man and vice versa.[note]Keller, Romans, 26.[/note] Paul’s description of society is dark. It shows people moving further and further from each other, as they moved further from God.[note]Wright, Paul, 25.[/note]
It seems that idolatry opens the floodgates for practices that destroy society.[note]Kasemann, Commentary, 49.[/note] Exchanging the natural order of worshipping God with the unnatural ideas of worshipping idols is dangerous. It creates unnatural activities in men that ultimately tear society apart. Man’s suppression of God moved them into a mindset and lifestyle that cannot practice Biblical ethics.[note]Moo, The Epistle, 118.[/note] What are these Biblical ethics, though? Everything God does stands for justice, and against anything that harms His beloved.[note]Wright, Paul, 18.[/note] For this reason, everything God does is anti-oppression.[note]Pizzuto, “God”, 176.[/note Unfortunately, though, the use of this passage is typically oppressive and misses the point Paul is trying to make.
Paul is telling His audience that we can either worship God or something else. Everyone will worship something, though.[note]Keller, Romans, 34.[/note] If we choose to worship something other than God, we open our society up to passions that disgrace others, because we put ourselves before God.[note]Hultgren, Paul’s, 95.[/note] When we put God first, we will love like He loves, and put people second (only to Him). Using this passage to do anything else misses the point entirely. Not only that but using the passage to condemn one part of it but ignoring the later half (that could arguably be described as more oppressive and destructive to society) is ignorant.
Nobody can condemn homosexuality with Romans 1 without also condemning boasting, greed, gossiping, slandering, arrogance, etc. The sad reality, though, is that they use Romans 1 to promote those things in many cases. They gossip about so and so and his homosexuality because it’s against Romans 1 and someone needs to know; they feel superior to her because she’s a lesbian and that’s clearly condemned in v.26. The passage ends by saying that those who approve of the vices listed are just as bad as those who do them.[note]Wright, Paul, 24.[/note]
Let’s remember this the next time someone pulls out Romans 1 in their case against homosexuality. The entire passage describes a people who gave up God, and, in doing so, were given over to passions, desires, and practices that tore their society apart. They disgraced each other; harmed one another. Everything listed in vv. 28-32 in some way wrongs another person. That’s not justice, and that’s not what God stands for. Lumping all homosexuals into this category simply because it is mentioned briefly is oppressive to many people, something which an authentic Biblical teaching could never do, and needs to be stopped.
Let’s stop using the word of God to abuse others and use it to build others up.
