One would never learn from Wolterstorff\u2019s reading of Romans 1 that multiple New Testament exegetes have offered cogent responses to Boswell\u2019s interpretation, undermining its credibility even for most \u201cprogressive\u201d\u009d Christians writing in this area today. Specifically, Wolterstorff declines to mention the pitched debate over the import of the multiple allusions Paul makes in Romans 1 to Genesis 1-3, allusions that suggest that \u201cnature,\u201d\u009d as Paul understands it, isn\u2019t simply \u201cwhat is common in Paul\u2019s day\u201d\u009d but rather what is given in God\u2019s creation itself.<\/p>\n
All of Wolterstorff\u2019s engagement with Scripture appears to be shaped by his gambit: If same-sex sexual intimacy isn\u2019t inherently unloving, then opposition to same-sex marriage can only be due to a misbegotten commitment to divine command theory. Once one sees that those supposed divine commands\u201d\u201dfor instance, in Romans 1\u201d\u201daren\u2019t in fact a black-and-white proscription of all gay sex, then the traditionalists\u2019 jig is up. And this is where Wolterstorff ends his lecture: Having neutralized the proof-texts beloved of conservatives, he closes with a positive case for same-sex marriage.<\/p>\n