'...there is a relation between idolatry and homosexual practice which is much more clearly at work in this particular argument. The key correspondence lies in the fact that both involve turning away from the "other" to the "same". Although the nature (understood as that which is determined by God) argument is certainly valid, it does not explain as much, perhaps, as the in se model. The greater scope of this latter model is apparent from the fact that Paul uses it in connection with both the meta-sin of idolatry (worshipping "creation, rather than the creator") and in the particular instantation of homosexual practice... In 1.25, creation worships creation, rather than creator, that is to say, it turns away from God, and worships itself. This leads, correspondingly, to a similar structure of sexual relationships: men give up sexual activity with women for passion "for each other" (1.27). To put it another way:
Humanity should be orientated toward God but turns in on itself (Rom. 1.25).
Woman should be oriented toward man, but turns in on itself (Rom. 1.26).
Man should be oriented toward woman, but turns in on itself (Rom. 1.27).
The meta-sin of creation turning in on itself toward self-worship, then, leads to sexual relationships which mirror this same turn in se.'
Simon J Gathercole, 'Sin in God's Economy: Agencies in Romans 1 and 7' in Divine and Human Agency in Paul and his Cultural Environment (Edited by John MG Barclay & Simon J Gathercole), p. 164.
