My Original Approach to Romans Cont. - Christianity and Queer Communities
Part 6
What Does Paul Mean by “Natural”?
In our last post, we sat with a heavy and often confusing text: Romans 1.
We looked at how Paul’s words don’t really map neatly onto our modern understanding and experiences of human sexuality, but rather seem to echo ancient hierarchies and the terrifying concept of societal collapse.
But there is a lingering word in that text we still need to talk about.
It is the word “natural.”
It sounds like Paul clearly considers heterosexuality to be “natural” and homosexuality (among men, at least) to be “unnatural.” For Paul, the men he is describing in Romans 1 are heterosexuals who have been turned homosexual because God allowed their desires to shift as a punishment for unrighteousness.
But we know that simply isn’t how things work.
We know Jesus-following Christians who have experienced same-sex attraction as an innate part of their orientation for their entire, righteous lives.
Where do they fit in Paul’s formula? Why does Paul give no space for those who never felt heterosexual desires to begin with? What happens when our lived reality collides with our reading of an ancient text?
We have to remember how the Bible speaks.
The Bible speaks within the knowledge and culture of the days in which it was composed. It speaks of the pillars of the earth, the floodgates of heaven, and a literal underworld. It shouldn’t surprise us that Paul speaks in the parlance of his day about what his culture considered “natural.”
So, how does this involve Romans 1?
Let’s look closer at Paul’s use of this idea of “natural.” Is he referring to a universal moral absolute? Or is he simply referring to what is expected within a specific culture or setting?
For Paul, "nature" wasn't a cosmic moral law; it was a sort of catch-all concept for how his world functioned—agriculturally, spiritually, scientifically, and socially.
The Olive Tree (Agricultural/Spiritual Expectations)
If we keep reading the book of Romans, Paul actually speaks of God acting contrary to nature.
He shockingly describes God as messing with nature by removing natural branches from His spiritual olive tree and grafting in Gentile branches (Romans 11:24). Think about that for a moment. God—the very basis of all things moral—can act against nature. Relocating the Gentiles is not unnatural because it is a sin, but because it goes against the expected agricultural characteristics of a tree. In the spiritual realm, God disrupts the “natural” way a tree works to do something beautifully inclusive.
Hair Length (Ancient Medical Science)
More light is shed on this when Paul speaks in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15 about the “natural” length of men’s and women’s hair:
“And does not nature itself teach you that a man, if he wears long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But a woman, if she wears long hair, it is her glory…”
Does nature actually teach us that?
Paul speaks of the mandatory length of men’s hair as if this is a “natural” fact, but we find nowhere in biology or universal moral law where there is an “obvious” dishonor for a man with long hair.
Today, we look at biology and find absolutely no universal, moral law that says a man with long hair is doing something physically or spiritually dishonorable.
When Paul says “nature itself” teaches this, he is appealing to the leading medical science of the first century. He is citing ancient biology, not universal morality.
Note: As shocking as this may sound to our modern ears, in Paul’s context, the medical understanding of the day held hair to be a sexual organ. Particularly, it was believed that hair created a vacuum effect on sperm. Men were told to have short hair to reduce the retention of sperm and allow it to leave their bodies. Women were told to have long hair to increase that vacuum effect. However, that long hair was seen as a sex organ, like a man’s testicles, so Paul says that it is to be covered up. It’s a wild historical fact, but it explains so much about the intense concern in Paul’s day with hair length and head coverings! Watch next Monday or Tuesday for a full post on this with historical support.
The "Natural" Established Order (Cultural Expectations)
Think about how we use the word “natural” to describe the established order of our own lives.
Many families have “natural” expectations related to what is seen as a family career. Some families pride themselves on generations of military enlistment. If a child decides not to join the military, it isn’t immoral. But it goes against what is perceived as a “natural” family characteristic. Other families expect their children to become doctors or lawyers, and experience profound shock if their offspring choose other paths than what is naturally expected.
It’s not a moral failure. It’s a violated expectation or norm.
As we have covered, in Paul’s patriarchal Roman world, the “natural” hierarchal order meant men were dominant and active, while women were subordinate and passive. For a man to take a passive sexual role wasn’t just seen as different; it was viewed as a profound degradation of his “natural” social status.
Paul’s writing of heterosexuality as natural can no more be understood as an absolute moral law against homosexuality than men necessarily having short hair, or the spiritual olive tree not including Gentiles. We simply cannot take Paul’s use of the term “natural” as a universal moral law when he makes it explicitly clear elsewhere that he uses it to describe the established order of his era.
Where Does This Leave Us?
Let’s stack the pieces together.
We have seen that Paul uses the concepts of “natural” and “unnatural” to describe the established expectations of his day—agriculturally, spiritually, medically, and socially—rather than declaring timeless moral absolutes.
We have also seen that this text completely fails to address righteous people who experience innate same-sex attraction. And, just like in Leviticus, we are left with the glaring absence of lesbianism, leaving open the strong possibility that Paul’s examples actually echo the Old Testament prohibitions of bestiality.
When we put all of this together, I lean heavily toward a contextual reading of this passage.
Our scientific and social understandings have changed, which affects how Paul’s specific examples may apply to us. But it does not affect his greater lesson: when we abandon right living, the guardrails come off, and our lives can be turned over to chaos.
Because of these deep contextual and historical layers, I simply cannot confidently use Romans 1 as a definitive statement against modern, consensual same-sex relationships.
We are now halfway through the relevant scriptures. And we are finding that a clear, universal text addressing this topic is much harder to find than we were taught.
Take a breath. Let that sink in.
It may feel as unexpected for you as it did for me.
In next Thursday’s post in this series, I will offer a short consideration of my updated, enriched reading of Romans 1.