There are sporadic references in the Bible that are interpreted as referring to homosexuality, these passages have been a focus of Biblical scholarship for groups both championing and condemning equality and homosexuality. In particular these passages are currently under scrutiny by queer theologians who argue that there could be a more queer friendly way of understanding them. One such re-evaluation has been undertaken by Jeramy Townsley with regards to the section Romans 1:26-27;

26 Because of this did God give them up to dishonourable affections, for even their females did change the natural use into that against nature;

27 and in like manner also the males having left the natural use of the female, did burn in their longing toward one another; males with males working shame, and the recompense of their error that was fit, in themselves receiving.

Romans 1:26–27 (Young’s Literal Translation)

Townsley aims to argue that this passage was interpreted by early Christians to be a reference to the pagan goddess cults and their sexual practices and was therefore an attack on polytheism, not homosexuality.  Townsley does not deny the issues of interpreting passages which refer to sexuality in the Bible and he explains them twofold; firstly, our limited knowledge of sexual categories used in Mediterranean antiquity. For example, Romans 26 appears to be a reference to lesbianism, however there is no evidence that lesbianism as a construct existed in the time period in which the passage was written and first interpreted (Townsley: 2013: P. 57). Secondly, it is difficult for modern audiences to understand the connections between sexuality, and sexual acts, and religion as sex does not often play a part in modern, western ritualised religion (Townsley: 2013: P. 57). Recognising these challenges is important to Townsley’s argument as they give potential reasons as to why the passages have been previously interpreted as homophobic. For example, if the modern scholar does not respect the modernity of sexual categorisation into hetero/homosexual then it is highly plausible for the acts described in Romans 26-27 to be seen as homosexual, whereas Townsley argues that they may have referred to sexual perversions of a different nature, namely prostitution and self-castration. Similarly, if the modern scholar does not recognise the link between ancient sexuality and religion then it is understandable that they would have understood Romans 26-27 as an attack against the sexual acts themselves and not as an attack on the religious cults that the sexual acts are an expression of.

Townsley argues that there are several early Christian writers who link Romans 26-27 with goddess cults, for example, Athanasius, in Contra Gentes (335–337 CE). Athanasius’ link between Romans 26-27 and the goddess cults explicitly mentions the acts of prostitution and self-castration which were associated with the goddess cults (Townsley: 2013: P. 59). Athanasius using the Romans 26-27 passage to support his condemnation of the goddess cults and their ritualised sexual acts is one of the many pieces of evidence from the early Christian writers that Townsley uses to support his theory that Romans 26-27 was, firstly, not referencing homosexuality but prostitution and self-castration. Secondly, that the passage was condemning the goddess cults which vindicated the sexual acts it does refer to, not the acts themselves (Townsley: 2013: P. 58).

Thus, through engaging with the context in which the Bible was written and examining other ancient sources that were penned in parallel or shortly after, a passage which has been used for centuries to justify a Christian homophobic position has been re-evaluated and argued to be not condemning homosexuality, or to even be referring to it. This in itself may only pose a small impact on Biblical interpretation as a whole. However, the implications of such an argument could cause a ripple effect into the wider field of Biblical interpretation and further, into the church’s relationship with homosexuality and the LGBT+ community. The effects on the wider field of Biblical interpretation will be discussed further on in the essay, the relationship between the church and the LGBT+ community will be addressed presently. Many groups within the church who hold a strongly anti-gay position use specific Biblical passages as the foundation for their discrimination (Armour: 2011: P. 1). To use an extreme example, the Westboro Baptist Church often quote Leviticus 20:13- 23 amongst others to justify their arguments (http://www.godhatesfags.com/bible/God-hates.html). Until the emergence of queer theology and investigations into Biblical interpretation made by those such as Townsley there had arguably been no fruitful way to debate with these groups as they had the Bible ‘on their side’. However, if all of the supposedly anti-gay passages used by these groups are reinterpreted in the way that Townsley has done with Romans 26-27, by revisiting the passages in their original context, then they may be realised to be not against homosexuality and arguably a real debate can begin as to whether the Bible supports homophobia or equality..