There is no shortage of books on the topic of homosexuality and the Church, and many of them are written with an eloquence that far exceeds my own. So then, why did I feel it was necessary to add another hundred-odd pages to such a saturated field?

Primarily because, although I have learned greatly from the contributions of prior writers, I have so far failed to find another work which presents a convincing and consistent explanation of Paul’s writings on homosexuality. That is to say, I know of no other work which both 1) credibly explains why Paul was against homosexuality, and 2) credibly explains why we should or should not be against homosexuality today.

The most common argument made by affirming theologians hinges around Paul’s use of the Greek word arsenokoitai to refer to homosexuality in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians. It is quite likely that Paul invented the word, because no earlier usage of the word has been found in Greek texts. Many affirming theologians either argue that we can’t know what Paul meant by this word because there are no prior usages, or that Paul was probably referring to a specific practice in Greek culture called pederasty, in which men had sex with young boys, and not homosexuality writ large.

The problem with these arguments is that neither of them is particularly convincing unless you really want them to be. Arsenokoitai is a compound word composed of the Greek words for “man” (arsen) and “bed” (koitai), and it is most likely that Paul derived the word from the Greek translation of Leviticus 20:13 (the Mosaic law against homosexuality), where the words arsenos and koiten appear right next to each other. That verse is very clearly outlawing homosexuality writ large, and it’s hard to argue that we don’t know what Paul meant when he invented a word based specifically on that verse. Similarly, Paul makes no indication that he is restricting his condemnation to the practice of men having sex with boys. If he wanted to do so, he could have just used the common Greek word for that practice – paiderasste. Instead, he chose to invent a word that would very clearly express his intention to condemn what was referred to in Leviticus 20:13 – “a man [lying] with a male as with a woman.”

But even if we do find these arguments convincing, they’re still mostly inconsequential. Ultimately, it doesn’t really matter what Paul was referring to in 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, because Paul’s most important condemnation of homosexuality is in Romans 1:26-27, and from that passage, it is abundantly clear that Paul believed that all same-sex relationships were unnatural and shameful.

I know of no affirming argument that satisfactorily addresses this passage. Many affirming theologians I have read attempt to brush over Paul’s claims in this passage by simplistically labeling Paul’s culture sexist, homophobic, or out-of-touch. While I don’t necessarily disagree with this assessment, it does nothing to address Paul’s understanding that homosexuality was unnatural. If homosexuality is truly against our nature, then the differences between Paul’s culture and ours are irrelevant. The appeal to nature is a universal claim – our nature doesn’t change simply because our culture has gotten more progressive.

The lack of a strong affirming argument on this point is extremely significant. As the affirming theologian Matthew Vines writes in God and the Gay Christian, “For many non-affirming Christians, Paul’s use of [the word “nature”] in Romans 1 is the reason they remain opposed to same-sex relationships.”¹ In other words, unless one can make a clear and convincing argument explaining why Paul’s appeal to nature no longer applies today, then many non-affirming Christians will remain convinced that same-sex relationships are wrong. So far, I know of no affirming theologian who has made such an argument.

Vines, to his credit, comes very close. Crucially, he spends a few pages investigating the history of the word “nature.” But unfortunately, he misunderstands that history, ultimately deciding that “nature” must mean something similar to “custom.” He comes to this determination after examining the writings of many ancient Greek philosophers and noticing that the things they call “natural” align well with their cultural customs. He also uses the head covering passage in 1 Corinthians as proof of this point, arguing that, in that passage, “Paul himself used the word ‘nature’ to refer to what we understand as ‘custom.’”²

Unfortunately, this conflation of nature and custom is just not tenable. While it is true that there is significant overlap between a culture’s customs and what that culture believes is natural, nature and custom have always been meaningfully distinct concepts. As we explored in Chapter 4, customs are fundamentally contextual, changing across cultures and time, while nature is about the created order of things, which cannot change. Customs and appeals to nature are often very closely linked, not because they’re the same thing, but because appeals to nature are often devised in order to justify existing cultural practices.

Ultimately, Vines’ argument doesn’t work for many people because it’s simply clear to them that when Paul says that homosexuality is “contrary to nature,” he is making a claim that is much more universal and absolute than if he had said that homosexuality is “against our customs.” By failing to reckon with this, Vines fails to adequately address what he acknowledges as the most important argument against homosexuality in the Bible – that it is unnatural.

I am not singling Vines out here out of any sort of animosity. To the contrary, I am writing specifically about Vines because, of all the affirming authors I’ve read, I believe he comes closest to providing a convincing understanding of Paul’s views on homosexuality. In fact, if it were not for his foundational work, I don’t think I would have been able to put all of the pieces together to write this book. If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

On the other side of the theological spectrum, there have been thousands of authors, speakers, and thinkers over the last two millennia who have advanced a traditional understanding of Paul’s writings – that’s why it’s called the traditional view. I won’t spend time dealing with those arguments here, because that’s what the rest of this book is all about. What I will say is that, for the reasons presented in this book, I find it incredibly difficult to explain why a condemnation of homosexuality aligns with Christian principles today, and I have found no author who has done so without leaning on the flawed legalism, symbolism, or natural philosophy arguments that I address in this book.

That’s why I wrote this book. I’ve looked desperately to both sides for an answer that I could support without in some way compromising reason, and I have consistently come up empty-handed. But I also owe a great debt to all of these authors – without the contributions of many brilliant authors and thinkers, I would never have been able to develop the argument presented in this book. I hope you find it as convincing as I do.

But if you’ve finished my book and you don’t find it convincing, I’d love to hear from you. I know enough to know that I’m far from perfect and so is my theology. So please write in your thoughts, arguments, and questions on the Letters page of this website, and I’ll periodically respond on my blog. I look forward to walking on this journey with you.

¹ Vines, M. (2015). God and the Gay Christian: the Biblical Case in Support of Same-sex Relationships. Convergent Books. p. 107.

² ibid. p. 112.