Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: steveb@u.washington.edu (Steve Born) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Homosexuality Message-ID: Date: 2 Jul 90 04:42:48 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 96 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In a recent article, Michael I. Bushnell suggested 1. The Roman church once reqularly performed homosexual marriages. 2. The Reformers went back to these ceremonies to get a more acceptable substitute for the Roman ceremony of their day, as far as the wording of the rite was concerned. Michael then offered to supply the reference for these statements if anyone so desired. I would like to ask him to publicly post them, for two reasons: first of all, I doubt if the documentation for such claims can stand serious scrutiny; and secondly, I would like to open discussion on what I believe to be one of the most serious problems in the church today, the growing acceptance of homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. No matter what the practice of the early Roman Catholic church may have been, there can be no doubt about the scriptural position in regard to homosexuality. When Paul wrote to the earliest Christian church in Corinth, he included this passage in his letter: "Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, noradulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals ... shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you, but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." The Greek language (in which Paul was writing) is a very precise and descrip- tive language -- perhaps moreso than any other language past or present. In theabove passage there can be no doubt about what the word here translated "homo- sexual" means. The word is _arsenokoites_. It is from the two words _arsen_ (a man) and _koite_ (a bed). The word means "to lie with a man in a bed". The word translated "effeminate" is _malakoi_. Dr. Vincent defines it as meaning "luxurious and dainty"; he comments, "The word was used in a darker and more horrible sense, to which there may be an allusion here." There is a passage in the book of Job which says, "Take heed, regard not iniquity: for this have you chosen rather than affliction." Brothers, let us be careful. Apparently homosexuality is a compulsion with roots deep within a person, but the spirit of God is telling us we can be washed even from a sin such as this. Don't choose the iniquity of homosexuality (either by living in it or by urging its acceptance as an acceptable lifestyle) over the affliction of working to be free of this tragic condition. It is no doubt difficult to work oneself free from homosexuality, but the same is true of alcoholism, cocaine addiction, and abusive behavior; but God can make us free of such things, if if we humbly accept his help and don't give up. We should nopt We should not let people think homosexuality is merely a "sexual orientation";it is a condition which is making millions of people miserable in self-hatred, lonliness, jealously, and disease. In compassion and love we need to show people there is a way out of it. With gentleness we need to restore them. The scriptures were I Corinthians 6:9-11 (NASV) and Job 36:21 (KJV). The quotation from Dr. Vincent was from his _Word Studies in the New Testament_, vol. III, p. 215. Steve Born [Michael has gotten a number of requests for these references. He tells me he'll be writing something up. He's been delayed by other business. I'm going to ask people to avoid commenting on his evidence until they've seen it, though of course that doesn't prevent other discussion of the subject. Those of you who have been with this group for a few years may well share my lack of enthusiasm for yet another goaround. However it's been long enough that I'm going to allow it. After having read all these arguments a zillion times, my conclusions are (1) that a number of passages quoted as against homosexuality are not. The best example is the destruction of Sodom. It is not due to homosexuality, but to attacking visitors. Even if the attack had been heterosexual rape it would have been just as unacceptable. Also, a number of the words in Paul's lists of sins are rather ambiguous. With all due respect to the supposed clarify of the Greek language, there have been arguments of varying degrees of persuasiveness made against a number of the terms sometimes thought to refer to homosexuality. The problem is that word roots are not always a completely reliable basis for judging meaning, particularly in this area, where slang tends to abound. (2) but even after incorrect and questionable references are omitted, there is no serious question that both the OT and Paul are opposed to homosexuality. In fact most scholars do agree with you that I Cor 6:9 refers to homosexual activity. NRSV translates "sodomites". TEV translates "homosexual perverts". I think the clearest is Rom 1:26ff., since there's no serious question about what it means. (3) The only argument for accepting homosexual activity that has much hope seems to me to hang on the concept that (a) the OT laws involved are not binding on Christians, and (b) Paul's comments are based on a specific social context, in which homosexuality typically included abuse of minors and slaves, as well as cultic prostitution. I am not entirely persuaded by these arguments, but they seem more promising than the endless discussions on the meaning of arsenokoitai. (4) The Bible alone does not seem sufficient to explain the degree of horror people feel for homosexuality. Adultery is clearly far more serious, in both OT and NT, but does not create nearly the same reaction as homosexuality. I doubt that most of our readers will be persuaded that homosexuality was instituted by God in the same way as heterosexual marriage, but I would ask people to think carefully about their attitudes to fellow Christians who find that they are homosexuals. I'm making these comments to try to provide some context for the detailed discussions. I'd prefer it if you didn't respond to the points until someone who believes them makes them in a more detailed way. --clh]