Of Hair and Homosexuality

Few people are aware of Paul’s interest in hair styles. That’s because most haven’t read 1 Cor 11:14: “Does not nature itself teach you that, if a man wears long hair, it is dishonoring to him?”

Jesus, apparently, didn’t get the memo.

Few people also know of the connection the New Testament draws between hair and homosexuality:

Their females exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the males, giving up natural intercourse with females, were consumed with their passionate desires for one another. Males committed shameless acts with males….

Romans 1:26-27 NRSV

What hairstyle and sexuality have in common is that both should be governed by nature. Nature, according to Paul, teaches us about hairstyles appropriate to men and women, and it is nature that determines which sexual acts are morally right and which are morally wrong.

Here is a clunkier, more literal translation of Romans 1:26-27:

Their females exchanged the natural use for use contrary to nature, likewise the males, leaving the natural use of the female were consumed by their desire for one another. Males did what is shameful with males….

(My translation)

Previous posts in this series on the use of the Bible in discourse about LGBTQIA+ issues have dealt with the Old Testament. It is, however, time to consider the New Testament, whose most important text for LGBTQIA+ issues is Romans 1:26-27.

You would think that 2 verses would require little commentary, but in fact these verses are anything but simple. For that reason and in view of the importance of this passage, I’m going to stretch my discussion of Romans 1:26-27 over several posts.

Why would 2 verses need so much discussion? Here are a few reasons:

• “Their females exchanged the natural use for use contrary to nature.” What is Paul referring to? It’s common to say that he’s talking about sexual activity between women, but what does “use” mean? What is being used and misused? Specific body parts? Or human sexuality in general? Or is it a function, such as conceiving and childbearing?
• “Likewise.” Does this mean “in the same way” or “in a similar way”? Is Paul saying that the females took up the “use against nature” in exactly the way that males did? If so, what is he referring to? Verse 27 talks about same-sex desire, but “use” sounds more like a behavior than a desire. If it’s a reference to a behavior, what is the behavior that both females and males exhibited? Or maybe “likewise” just means “also”: females abandoned the natural use appropriate to females and males (in a way similar to but not identical to the behavior of the females) also abandoned the natural use appropriate to males (with no implication that it’s the same natural use for both sexes).
• Why is certain behavior (“use”) contrary to nature and other behavior natural? Paul does not explain and seems to assume that the reader will know the reason.
• What do “natural” and “nature” mean for Paul?
• What kind of argument is Paul constructing? It is notable that these verses make no reference to scripture. In fact, the entire section 1:19-32 is grounded, not in scripture (at least not directly), but in God’s power and divinity seen and understood from the created world. This passage, in other words, seems to invoke the concept of natural law.

In this post, I would like to focus on the last bullet point. Readers may not be acquainted with the concept of natural law, so here’s a quick introduction:

• The idea of natural law is that moral principles are inscribed in nature.
• Nature includes both the cosmos as a whole and also human nature.
• So, studying the universe and especially human nature reveals moral principles.
• Because morality is inscribed in nature, it is deeper than the laws of cities and nations.
  • Many national and civic laws (e.g., the speed limit on freeways is 65 mph or tax codes) are simply matters of agreement–there is no logical reason why the speed limit couldn’t be 60 or 63 or 67, but we’ve developed the custom of having speed limits ending in 0 or 5.
  • Sometimes human laws reflect the norms of a particular culture (e.g., Germany’s Beer Purity Law).
  • Natural law, however, is different: being inscribed in nature, it is universal, independent of culture, and unchanging.
• Humans are aware of natural law without need of written law. This seems to be what Paul is saying in Romans 2:14-15: “When gentiles, who do not possess the law, by nature do what the law requires, these, though not having the law [i.e., the Old Testament’s law of Moses], are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, as their own conscience also bears witness.”

Question: When Paul says, in 1:26-27, that men and women abandoned the natural use and adopted a use contrary to nature, is he offering a natural law argument in verses 26-27? I’m not really sure–it could be that he equates natural law with the Old Testament’s law. In this case, to say that such-and-such behavior is contrary to nature is just to say that it contradicts the Old Testament.

But let’s suppose that Paul is offering a natural law argument (many commentators make this assumption). In that case, Paul has opened the door to considerations that will make some Christians quite anxious.

Here’s what I mean: Arguments based on scripture employ insights from historians, linguists, and archaeologists. Conservative biblical scholars today are generally comfortable with using the contributions of these disciplines. Arguments based on natural law, however, invite the participation of scientists. Why? Because scientists claim, with impressive justification, to know something about nature. If someone claims that homosexual acts are contrary to nature, then any discipline that studies nature will want to have a say in the discussion.

Some Christians will have no problem with a dialogue that includes the sciences, but others will be distinctly uncomfortable. For many Christians, admitting science to the discussion means allowing science to determine, or help determine, the Bible’s meaning. Some Christians are unhappy about modern geology contradicting traditional beliefs about the age of the earth and about the flood (Genesis 6-8). Many Christians despise biology for rejecting Genesis 2 as a scientific account of human origins. Is there any reason to expect they would give a warm reception to what psychologists or neuroscientists have to say about human nature?

We can put the matter thus: Does Christian theology have an insight into nature and the natural law that is both true and independent of scientific views of nature? Or, alternatively, does Christian theology need the sciences in order to arrive at an understanding of nature? Is Christian theology in a position to determine the truth of science’s conclusions on the basis of God’s revelation? Or is it science, and not theology, that is charged with understanding nature?

With respect to LGBTQIA+ issues, these questions are urgent because recent scientific research has not supported traditional views about homosexuality. It’s been a long time since mainstream psychologists regarded homosexuality as a pathology. More recently, biologists and neuroscientists have weighed in with research that challenges the belief that homosexuality is contrary to nature.

So, should Christians accept scientific views of human nature and sexuality and adjust their theological beliefs accordingly? Or should we stick with the traditional view of human nature and sexuality regardless of what scientists come up with?

My next posts will delve into the historical background of Romans 1:26-27–ancient conceptions of the natural law and ancient views of homosexuality.

As usual, I welcome comments, questions, and critique.

Image citation: Jesus Christ by Makarios icon painter – 1789 – Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Art Studies, Europe – CC BY-ND.