Who would Jesus refuse to serve?

I'm listening to NaturalReader's British virtual voice named "Audrey" read the New Mexico Supreme Court's recent decision in Elane Photography v. Willock, applying the state's Human Rights Act against a wedding photography business that refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.  Until this morning, I had been somewhat conflicted in my response to this case.  I am sympathetic to Elane Photography's arguments that applying the anti-discrimination law to require a photographer to create a positive portrayal of an event she does not view positively violates the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment.  I also believe that the offended woman that originally filed a complaint under the law was acting like a two year old whose mother refused to buy candy at the supermarket.  Why would you want to pay someone who didn't approve of your wedding to take photographs, when there are plenty of people who would provide the service willingly?

I am also supportive of generally applicable anti-discrimination laws, and believe that granting religious exemptions to generally applicable laws often threatens to nullify those laws.  The current gaggle of lawsuits against the minimum coverage requirements of the Affordable Care Act proves that point:  if anyone can feel free to ignore any law you don't agree with, the purpose of the law is frustrated.  Drawing the line with respect to religious exemptions is a difficult task for courts, but the line must be drawn somewhere between "no exceptions under any circumstances" and "if you don't agree, fine - never mind."  I'm looking forward to the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the conflicting cases on the ACA's contracteptive coverage mandate, because how the Supreme Court draws that line will resolve many of these issues for the generation to come.

Even though I'm sympathetic to both the photographer's right to control the creative process and the State's desire to prohibit discrimination in public accommodations, I've finally arrived at the conclusion that the Gospel compels me to take a side.  Taking into consideration the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, I find there is no such thing as a Christian option to discriminate in public accommodations.   Rather, following Jesus requires us to submit to compelled service without complaint, and to voluntarily exceed what is required of us.

Reconsidered in light of the Sermon on the Mount, I see the photographer's refusal to serve Willock as comparable to the Pharisee's prayer thanking God that he wasn't like that tax collector over there.  It's not standing on faith - it's standing on selfishness in the name of faith.  So the State of New Mexico has a law that compels businesses offering goods and services to the public (public accommodations) to refrain from discrimination on any number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation.  Good for New Mexico.  What would Jesus say to a wedding photographer who was forced by the law to take pictures at a same-sex commitment ceremony?

"Did somebody appoint you judge when I wasn't looking?  Pull up your big girl pants and get to work!  They're paying you - not compelling you to serve them for free.  Go make some money...and be sure to give them more than they expect.  Love your enemies...do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who despitefully use you.  You prayed for me to prosper your business - don't turn up your nose at my answer.  You want to complain about it?  Where were you when I made the world?"

Lost in the Translation (The Dangerous Modern Evangelical Reaction to the Culture Wars)

I was raised by people who would consider themselves conservative Evangelical Christians.  In truth, much of my upbringing was strongly flavored by fundamentalist influences.  While other translations of the bible weren't forbidden, the King James Version was strongly preferred, and all the others were suspected to some degree or another of being influenced by "liberal" theologians in the apostate mainline denominations.  By the mid-1980s, after 12 years of private Christian schools, followed by four years at a Southern Baptist college,  I was as thoroughly indoctrinated into conservative Evangelical theology as one can get, but my education and experience with the broad range of Evangelical doctrine and practice had taught me to separate that which is cultural from that which is scriptural.  Conservative Evangelicals in my childhood looked askance at men with hair below their ears, or any facial hair.  However, I quickly figured out that the dress and grooming codes these quasi-fundamentalist institutions  forced upon me were more influenced by a desire to be distinct from certain elements in the prevailing culture than to be faithful to the scriptures.  Jesus had a beard and wore sandals everywhere!

During my college years, I was surrounded by musicians and other performing arts types, with all their libertine ways, as well as budding pastors and theologians, who were more than willing to engage their future organists and choir directors in debate about the great cultural issue on the horizon:  what does the Bible really say about homosexuality?  I learned that there were sincere believers who weren't even remotely fundamentalist in their view of scripture, and that there were Christians with a "high" view of scripture (i.e., it really is inspired) that believed the traditional teaching of the Church regarding the subject was more culturally than divinely inspired - meaning that the scriptures allegedly dealing with that topic were open to other interpretations, and it would be more Christ-like and charitable to interpret scripture in a way that includes rather than excludes people from the Kingdom of God.  In the view that was emerging at the time, the six scriptures that negatively referenced homosexual behavior had nothing to do with consensual sex between consenting adults in committed relationships - they were about rape, idolatrous orgies, and prostitution.  There was simply no way to extrapolate from what the scriptures actually said, in context, to the modern phenomenon they were being used to condemn.

Conservatives were losing the Biblical argument, so they adjusted their methods and fixed the problem.  Within a single generation, "dynamic equivalence" displaced the traditional word-for-word methodology of Biblical translation (known as "formal equivalence"), and suddenly the scriptures clearly stated what the conservatives had maintained they meant all along.

Comparing Modern Translations

King James Version (1611)

For centuries, English-speaking Protestants considered the Authorized Version, commissioned by King James I on England (James VI of Scotland) for use in the national churches of the United Kingdom and first published in 1611 (more commonly known as the King James Version after the monarch that commissioned it and authorized its use), to be the gold standard in scriptural translations.  The translators attempted to maintain fidelity to the original meaning of the text by translating word for word, and were careful to indicate by the use of italics whenever they inserted words to make the text intelligible.  When reading the KJV, English-speaking Protestants were confident that every non-italicized word in the text was the English word that best expressed the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew word that appeared in that position in the ancient manuscripts that served as the basis for the translation.  The KJV renders 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 as follows:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,  nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

American Standard Version (1901)

The American Standard Version was published in 1901, and was widely used in seminaries in the United States.  It became the basis for later revised versions.  The same text in the ASV appears as follows:

9 Or know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

As you can see, the only difference in the text between the two versions separated by nearly three centuries is that the ASV replaced "mankind" with "men". 

Revised Standard Version (1952)

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) was released in 1952 (the New Testament was published in 1946), and is a revision of the King James, Revised Version of 1881-85, and American Standard Version.  Its goal was to present a literally accurate translation of the Bible in modern English.  RSV presents the subject verses as follows:

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

In the RSV, "covetous" is replaced with "greedy", and "extortioners" is changed to "robbers", and the two Greek words translated by the earlier versions as "effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind/men" are replaced by the more amorphous "sexual perverts".  Obviously there is a difference between "word for word" and "literally accurate", but replacing two distinct terms with one more amorphous phrase is neither literal, nor accurate - it is rhetorically dishonest as well.  The RSV is not in general use today.

New American Standard Bible (1971)

The New American Standard Bible (NASB), published in 1971, is considered one of the most literally translated in the 20th Century.  The translators' goal, according to the preface, was to remain faithful to the original language, be grammatically correct, and be understandable.  Where literal word-for-word renderings of the original text were deemed unacceptable for modern readers, the phrase was rendered in a more modern idiom, but the literal translation was included in a footnote.  The subject text in NASB:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God ? Do not be deceived ; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

As the reader will no doubt observe, NASB is more accurate than RSV in the sense that it maintains a word for word correspondence with the original text.  It replaces "extortioners" with "swindlers", which seems to be a better fit than "robbers".  It restores "effeminate", and turns "abusers of themselves with men" into "homosexuals".  The word "homosexuals" has a much broader meaning than the prior translations, relates to more than one gender, and refers more to issues of personal identity rather than behavior.  When compared to other modern translations, NASBs use of the word is not supportable.

New International Version (1973)

The New International Version (NIV) was first published in 1973, was produced by a team of over 100 scholars using the best available manuscripts, and uses a combination of word-for-word and thought-for-thought methodologies.  The subject text from NIV reads:

9 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God

Note that "effeminate" becomes "male prostitutes", and "abusers of themselves with men" becomes "homosexual offenders".  This translation is superior to the NASB by virtue of the fact that "homosexuals" has a much broader meaning than the original text.  The meaning of "homosexual offenders" is as open to interpretation as the original Greek and the older English translations, but it obviously referring to behavior rather than identity. 

Good News Translation (1976)

The Good News Translation (GNT) first appeared as Good News for Modern Man, a New Testament edition published by the American Bible Society in 1966.  It was the first popular translation to use the dynamic (thought-for-thought) method, and the language was worded for simplicity and clarity, to be free of jargon, and easily understood by children and those who were not native speakers of English.
 

9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts 10 or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves - none of these will possess God's Kingdom.

In this simplified reading, Paul's two specific references are combined under the broad label of "homosexual perverts".  The translation is over-inclusive as compared to the original.

New King James Version (1982)

The New King James Version (NKJV) was begun in 1975 by a team of 130 scholars, and is an update of the 1611 Authorized Version using the same translation philosophy:  word for word fidelity to the original text.  NKJV changes outdated word usage and syntax to modern English, while maintaining the poetry and rhythm of the familiar KJV as much as possible.

9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

The use of "homosexuals" in place of the original "effeminate" is unfortunate, in that it is over-inclusive.  The term "sodomites" is an idiomatic expression that does not promote clarity, but so is Paul's original Greek terminology.

New Revised Standard Version (1989)

The New Revised Standard Version is a revision of the RSV, which is itself a revision of the KJV.  Its main goals were to reflect advances in scholarship after discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, eliminate archaic language, and deliberately introduce gender-inclusive language where possible without changing passages that reflect the historical realities of ancient patriarchal culture.

9 Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

Note the use of "male prostitutes" and "sodomites".  "Male prostitutes" is a faithful translation of the original language.  "Sodomites" is just as vague and unclear as the original. 

God's Word Translation (1995)

This modern translation was completed by the God's Word to the Nations Bible Society, an organization whose Board contains many individuals affiliated with the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod.  A team of five scholars and a supporting staff used a "closest natural equivalence" model - to express the original meaning in a way that an English speaker would naturally read or write.  The version has been criticized as including elements of interpretation and commentary rather than simply translating the original text into modern English.

9 Don't you know that wicked people won't inherit the kingdom of God? Stop deceiving yourselves! People who continue to commit sexual sins, who worship false gods, those who commit adultery, homosexuals, 10 or thieves, those who are greedy or drunk, who use abusive language, or who rob people will not inherit the 
kingdom of God.

The reader can easily see the differences between the word-for-word translation methodologies used in most prior versions and this dynamic "thought for thought" reading, and the translators' cultural biases are visible as well.  "Fornicators" become "people who continue to commit sexual sins", while conversely "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" (remember that the men of Sodom were rapists) become "homosexuals".  With their own past sins eliminated from consideration, they were perfectly comfortable including both men and women with a same-sex orientation, regardless of whether or not they were guilty of (or even could possibly commit) the specific behaviors indicated in the original language.

New Living Translation (1996)

The New Living Translation (NLT) was completed in 1996, based on a desire to have a translation of the scriptures in modern English where the meaning is clear to the reader.  The marketing tag line for the NLT is "The Truth made Clear."  The translators updated references to money, weights and measures, and time into modern expressions, with footnotes giving literal translations.  Idiomatic phrases are translated into modern English "equivalents", with the literal readings again in the footnotes.  Gender inclusive language is used where deemed appropriate by the editors.  The translators and editors use modern English phrases where they thought they would more clearly express the meaning behind the original text.  However, the dynamic equivalence translation method has been the subject of much scholarly criticism, and the NLT is not recommended for serious students of the scriptures because there are times when clarity has been introduced into the translation that was not present in the original language.  The subject passage is one glaring example among many.

9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, abusers, and swindlers -- none of these will have a share in the Kingdom of God.

You can see the changes in meaning from the first phrase.  The original "unrighteous" or more modern "wicked" has been changed to "those who do wrong" - overly inclusive.  Likewise, "homosexuals" is an over-inclusive term when compared to the original Greek.

English Standard Version (2001)

The English Standard Version (ESV) was intended to be an "essentially literal" translation updating the RSV.  Its translators included several prominent Evangelical theologians.  The translators aimed to update grammar, syntax, and idiomatic expressions to modern usage.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Note that "essentially literal" apparently means the translators felt free to combine two separate Greek terms into one English phrase that they felt corresponded to Paul's intended meaning when he originally wrote the letter.  There is a vast difference, however, between "male prostitutes" and "sodomites" and the much broader "men who practice homosexuality".  ESV is less over-inclusive than others, but the reading covers conduct that does not correspond to the original language.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (2003)

The Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) is published by LifeWay, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.  It was begun as an independent project by the general editor of the NKJV.  Completed by a team of 100 scholars and editors committed to the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, the translation strives for a balance between formal equivalence (word-for-word) and dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) that the editors call "optimal equivalence" - to convey the sense of the original with as much clarity as possible. 

9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit God's kingdom? Do not be deceived: no sexually immoral people, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals, 10 thieves, greedy people, drunkards, revilers, or swindlers will inherit God's kingdom.

On the whole, the translation appears (from this passage) better than NLT.  "The unjust" is more precise than "those who do wrong".  However, "homosexuals" is vastly more inclusive than "sodomites" or "abusers of themselves with men". 

Lexham English Bible (2010)

The Lexham English Bible (LEB) was published by Logos Bible Software Company in 2010 (NT), with the Old Testament released in 2011.  Its stated goal is "unparalleled transparency" with the original language text.   It was derived from an interlinear translation of the original Greek text.  It marks English idioms with corner brackets, and italicizes words inserted for clarity with no direct equivalent present in the original text.  It is worth noting that the general editor of LEB is on the faculty of Dallas Theological Seminary, which is a conservative non-denominational Evangelical institution known for the promulgation of the theological system known as Dispensationalism.  LEB renders Paul's passage as follows:

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, not drunkards, not abusive persons, not swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

The "unparalleled literalism" claim is a bald-faced lie, at least as applied to this passage.  How do you get from prostitutes and rapists to "passive and dominant homosexual partners"?  And what about versatile homosexuals, or those who aren't in a relationship at the moment?  It cannot be seriously argued that Paul was referring to homosexual partners in this passage.  To make this leap in logic (or ill-logic), you need to have taken a position in the culture war, and must be willing to sacrifice rhetorical, sociological, and historical accuracy for doctrinal clarity in order to support that position. 

Common English Bible (2011)

The Common English Bible (CEB) was published by a consortium that includes the denominational publishing arms of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A., the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, and the United Methodist Church.  Its goal is to bridge the gap between accuracy and accessibility, at a 7th grade reading level. 

9 Don't you know that people who are unjust won't inherit God's kingdom? Don't be deceived. Those who are sexually immoral, those who worship false gods, adulterers, both participants in same-sex intercourse, 10 thieves, the greedy, drunks, abusive people, and swindlers won't inherit God's kingdom.

Again the "dynamic equivalence" trap of combining terms and becoming over-inclusive as a result.  The original text cannot be legitimately interpreted as including women, for one thing. 

What did Paul Really Say?

I've spent a few pages going over the various English translations of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, and making some "editorial comments" on the quality of the translations.  I've made clear that I think the best translations of the two words in question are "male prostitutes" and "sodomites", although I'm not satisfied with "sodomites".  At this point, we need to look at the Greek words and what scholars have determined they mean.

Malakos

The word translated "effeminate" by word-for-word translations prior to 1973 is malakos (transliterated from Greek to English alphabet).  It is used three times in the Bible:  this passage, and parallel passages in Matthew and Luke where Jesus is talking about John the Baptist.  In the Gospels, it is clear from the context that Jesus is using malakos in its literal, primary sense:  soft (to the touch), so it is translated as "soft".  It is clear from the context in this passage that Paul is not using the term in the literal sense, so the translators look to idiomatic or metaphorical usage outside the scriptures to determine the meaning.  Classical Greek usage of malakos outside the New Testament supports the KJV's translation as "effeminate".  However, malakos was not used in Classical Greek with a sexual connotation.  The Greeks used kinaidos, also translated "effeminate", to refer to a man who was effeminate in the sense that he loved being penetrated by another man.  Malakos referred more often to moral softness - licentiousness, lack of discipline, or cowardice.  There is scholarly support for a prostitution context, as well, which would make "call-boy" a valid modern translation, but the most common usage of the term outside the literal meaning of "soft" is "effeminate" in the sense of lacking the manly virtues rather than any sexual connotation.

The KJV translates arsenokoites as "abusers of themselves with mankind".  The term appears exactly twice in the New Testament, with the second time being in a similar list of vices found in 1 Timothy.  Paul's use of the word is often claimed to be the first recorded usage, and some scholars believe that Paul coined the term himself by combining two words used in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (particularly Leviticus 18:22), and thereby referring to "men who have sex with men".  The account of the etymology if arsenokoites is compelling, but the interpretation of the meaning of Leviticus 18:22 is off base.  A brief digression from Greek to Hebrew is in order.

Shakab

The Hebrew verb shakab (to lay, lie with) is used 212 times in the Old Testament, and translated "lie" in exactly half of those instances by the King James Version.  Unfortunately, the inclusion of the preposition "with" in the translation of the verb to make it understandable gives the mistaken impression of mutual action, thus justifying the dynamic translators' use of "have sex with" as a supposedly equivalent expression.  From the usage of the shakab in the Hebrew scriptures, however, it is clear that neither mutuality nor consent is relevant, and shakab is an active verb, requiring a direct object in the form of a woman, man, or farm animal.  Women can't shakab.  They can convince a man (or a suitable animal) to shakab them (see Lev. 18:23). 

I'm not saying that mutuality and consent are explicitly excluded from shakab.  I'm saying they are not implicitly included, whereas "having sex with" does include mutuality, if not consent.  While the mechanics of the act described may be identical (both translations adequately describe inserting tab "A" into slot "B"), there is a vast difference in the psychological, social and moral dynamics between "A verbed B" and "A was verbing with B".  In the first case, A acts with B as the object, and in the second, A and B are acting mutually, with the object unspecified.

In ancient Hebrew culture, women were treated as a special class of property, with limited rights.  Marriage was a commercial transaction between families, with neither romantic nor religious involvement necessary.  It was like a contemporary real estate transaction, with a contract followed by an extended escrow period (betrothal) and, when all terms and conditions were satisfied (dowry, etc.), the closing (wedding and consummation) was witnessed by the family, and the daughter became a wife, subject to of her husband instead of her father.  A woman whose husband died became her eldest son's ward, or if she had no son, the wife of her husband's brother.  Unmarried female slaves were subject to the sexual demands of their masters, although if their masters chose to take advantage of (shakab) them, they were no longer subject to resale.  If a man were to shakab an unmarried woman, the consequences depended on the woman's status and her level of consent.  If she was free, and consented, the penalty was decided by her father - death for dishonor to her father, or marriage.  If she was free, and successfully claimed non-consent (if she was in town and nobody heard her scream, she consented), it was treated as a rape, and the death penalty was imposed on the offender.  If she was a slave, regardless of consent, the crime was treated as a civil offense against her master - she was not deemed competent to withhold consent.  If the object of the man's shakab session was a married woman, the crime was adultery, and the penalty was death.  If the shakab was mutual (with consent), so was the penalty.

Like a female slave, a married woman denied consent to her husband to her peril, since divorce was solely the husband's choice, and no court action was required.  Polygamy was not only not expressly prohibited, it was required in certain circumstances.  A man (Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon) could have as many wives (and concubines) as he could afford.  Even less wealthy Israelites had two wives, as in the case of Samuel's father, Elkanah.

Prostitution was not prohibited, even though it was morally disapproved.  Men had the right to engage the services of prostitutes without fear of punishment, and the law exempted prostitutes from the obligation to tithe for the financial support of the poor and the priesthood (I'll admit that exemption was expressed as a prohibition, again showing moral disapproval without punishment).

Given the pattern of usage for shakab and the historical context, it is unfair to read into Leviticus 18:22 a universal prohibition on consensual sexual relations between males.  Given the patriarchal culture of the time, a more fair reading would be "you must not treat a man as you treat a woman, taking advantage of your superior position in order to have your pleasure, regardless of consent."  Seriously - don't go boinking your manservant - you've got maidservants for that sort of thing.

Arsenokoites

If Paul indeed combined the Septuagint's words from Leviticus to form arsenokoites, then the proper English translation would be man-boinker (or some less polite variation).  It's not clear that Paul is the originator of the word, but arsenokoites is obviously a combination of words referring to the male gender and the act of sexual intercourse.  It is used outside the New Testament in similar lists of vices, and the grouping of the vices indicate that arsenokoites was considered a sin of economic injustice or exploitation rather than a sexual sin.  In the extra-Biblical vice lists that include arsenokoites, it is generally listed in a different group from adultery and fornication, and grouped with extortion, fraud, and theft.  It occasionally is used between the economic sins and the violent sins.  In one source that is not a list of vices but a Gnostic retelling of the story of the Garden of Eden, the Serpent commits adultery with Eve and "takes Adam like one would possess a slave" - and that is how adultery and arsenokoites are said to have entered the world. 

From the evidence available, it is fair to conclude that aresenokoites refers to sexual exploitation of a man. 

With this understanding, the translation as "sodomites" is thoroughly appropriate, because what the men of Sodom intended to do to the angelic visitors was nothing other than sexual exploitation.  I think it is entirely appropriate to apply it to Roman Catholic clergymen who use their positions of authority to take advantage of children and adolescents.   In fact, I can think of no more appropriate application of the word in the modern context.

Why the Translations have Changed

Before the 1970s, word for word translations of the New Testament translated malakos as "effeminate", and arsenokoites as "abusers of themselves with men".  The majority of Christian churches used this passage in 1 Corinthians in support of the view that the prohibition of sexual relations between men from Leviticus survived the end of the Old Covenant.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s, when the gay rights movement was just getting off the ground, theologians and pastors with a sincere desire to follow Jesus and a personal motivation to question the traditional interpretation of this and similar passages advanced the argument that the text supported other interpretations than the traditional view, and the traditional view was reading meaning into the text that wasn't what Paul really meant or said.  Because the KJV was still dominant among Protestants, and everyone knew the English language had changed considerably since 1611, even people who didn't have the resources available to investigate the meaning of the text in the original language could be persuaded that "effeminate" didn't necessarily mean "homosexual".  Because the Bible didn't clearly prohibit same-sex relationships in the New Testament, many thought the Church's traditional teaching in this area was on shaky ground, and were unwilling to condemn their gay brothers and sisters, even if they suspected their lifestyles weren't in line with God's perfect will.

As the culture war heated up over the next 30 years, conservative Evangelical translators used the methodology of dynamic equivalence to "clarify" the meaning of the scriptures in a way that a word-for-word translation simply wouldn't support.  Their cultural biases and traditions allowed them to be convinced they were doing the right thing - that Paul really was referring to homosexual relationships when he used malakos and arsenokoites in his epistles, so their translations were dynamically equivalent in modern English to Paul's original intended meaning.  The translators made their interpretive choices in favor of clearly reinforcing the prohibition on homosexual relationships, even when the original meaning was unclear. 

When the KJV was still dominant, gay Christians could argue that any alleged condemnation in the New Testament was anything but clear.  Under the dynamic equivalence regime, the clear teaching of the scriptures has been brought into line with the teaching of the Church.  Like the motto of the New Living Translation,  the Truth has been made CLEAR.  It's really too bad that they've sacrificed accuracy for clarity, all for the sake of declaring unclean what God has not.  The meaning has been lost in the translation.

Another unfortunate side effect of this campaign to "make the truth clear" has been to polarize the modern Church.  Before the ascendance of dynamic equivalence, educated Christians across the ideological spectrum admitted that the meaning of the two words used in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 was not absolutely clear, and they were making interpretive choices based on the broader theological context as they understood it.  There were differences of opinion on this and other issues among seminary faculties, and they were tolerated because the scriptures weren't exactly clear, and differences of opinion regarding interpretation were to be expected on ancillary matters outside the territory covered by the historic confessions of faith.  Today, in the age of dynamic equivalence, the scriptures clearly take a side on these issues, and leaders are more comfortable excluding those who disagree.  Dissenters find it increasingly impossible to remain in community with those whose main mode of argument is to point at a passage in their favorite translation and say, "You're wrong.  See - it's all here in black and white....." 

Younger Christians who have grown up with gay friends in a culture that increasingly embodies the principle of equality are looking deeper into the issue, peering behind the marketing campaigns, and seeing the conservatives' desperate attempt to maintain their power at the expense of intellectual integrity for what it is.  They are leaving the packaged McChurch for communities that embrace authenticity and tolerate ambiguity - churches that value the unbroken line of tradition that extends from the Apostles through the ancient fathers to the present day, where scripture is engaged with reason and tradition, and the Gospel refers to the story of Jesus, not a systematic theology based on selections from the Pauline epistles.

Church, State, and Marriage

My good friend Tom Weller shared an Eastern Orthodox perspective on gay marriage posted recently on Huffington Post.  The article is half right - correct in its main point, that the State is incapable of sanctifying anything, so asking it to "defend the sanctity of marriage" is pointless.  However, the article is dead wrong on its other point, which is the proper relationship of the Church to the institution of marriage.

Read the article (linked above), then see if you agree with my analysis below the jump.

Thoughts on Faith

Reposted from Christian Heart Ministries Facebook Group

Faith

I'm starting a series of posts about basic Biblical terminology, and how our understanding (or misunderstanding) of the meaning of words leads to all sorts of confusion, including bad theology, and results in mistreating ourselves and others.  I'll start with FAITH, because it's foundational and therefore should be understood before attempting to deal with more advanced concepts.

Most people think FAITH is the equivalent of BELIEF, perhaps with a religious connotation.  Faith, in the biblical sense, goes beyond belief.  People can believe any number of things, and some people have been known to believe many things that contradict other beliefs they hold with equal sincerity.  When people are who hold two contradictory beliefs are confronted with situations that implicate both of them, they experience what psychologists refer to as "cognitive dissonance", which is mental and emotional distress caused the brain attempting to either resolve the contradiction or escape from the situation so it doesn't have to face it at all.  Any sincere Christian who has struggled with issues of sexual orientation, gender identity, or the ridiculous behavioral restrictions common to fundamentalist sects will understand the devastating consequences of cognitive dissonance, and those of us who have experienced such battles will attest to one fact:  faith goes beyond mere belief, and it is often the result of God's intervention at times when our beliefs are tested by life's circumstances.

Belief is a mental state wherein you conditionally accept the truth of a certain proposition, based on whatever standard of proof you find sufficient at the time, and subject to revision based on further evidence.  Faith is an emotional and spiritual state of conviction, beyond a reasonable doubt, based on experience and evidence, that alters the conscience and will not allow for inconsistent or contradictory behavior.  One definition I've heard is that faith is ACTION based on BELIEF and sustained by CONFIDENCE (A.B.C.).  If you can convince yourself to act like something is not true, then you don't have faith in that reality. 

Take gravity, for example.  We're all convinced based on experience in the reality of gravity as a force in the universe.  We don't have to understand it, or be able to articulate it.  But, from the time we learn to walk, we are incapable, in the absence of mental impairment, of acting as though gravity is not a factor.  We live, move, and have our being in a state of total conviction that the law of gravity applies, and cannot bring ourselves to act otherwise.

Abraham had faith, and God credited it to him as righteousness.  Abraham was ultimately so convinced in the truth of God's promise that he was willing to sacrifice the son of promise, knowing that God had said that he would have a multitude of descendants through Isaac, so God would either prevent his death or raise him from the dead to keep His word.  Peter was so convinced in Jesus' power over the natural world that he walked on water at Jesus' command.  He was so convinced in Jesus' commission to the disciples (see Mark 16:17-18) that he healed the sick, raised the dead, and cast out demons everywhere he went after Pentecost.  Peter was convinced based on his experience with Jesus, and it is OUR experience of Jesus and His word that causes faith to arise within us, developing our belief through trial and testing into that kind of unshakable conviction that will not allow inconsistent action.

As Christians we may believe many things about God, and accept the truth of various doctrines based on scripture and man's reasoning that may or may not be ultimately true.  Our faith, if we are truly His, is only in God Himself as revealed in the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth.  We are not saved by our belief - we are saved by God's grace, operating through the faith that He has provided and developed in us by revealing Himself to us through His word and through His actions in our lives.  We are utterly convinced of His love for us, and that we are His.  Therefore, we do not fear death, and proceed through life trusting that He is at work in all our circumstances.  Because we accept His teachings as ultimate truth, we know that we will be judged by the same standard we apply to those around us, and that if we do not forgive those who do us wrong, we will be held to account for our own misdeeds.  We work for justice and peace, and care for the poor and needy, because He has commanded it and will judge us according to our works.  At least, that would be the case if we truly had FAITH.....

Retro-posting from September, 2009 - Why Episcopalian?

THREE GREAT REASONS TO BE AN EPISCOPALIAN

There's a long story as to why I'm where I am.  I'm not telling it today.  Many of my reasons for joining the Episcopal Church would not apply to anyone else in any meaningful way, but there are three that should have a broad appeal to anyone who has thought or will think seriously about the nature and mission of the Church, its place in the plan of God and one's own place within it.  Discussion is, as always, welcomed. 

1.   THE MISSION OF THE (EPISCOPAL) CHURCH

From the Catechism of the Episcopal Church, found on pages 844 and 845 in the Book of Common Prayer:

The Church

Q. What is the Church?

A. The Church is the community of the New Covenant.

Q. How is the Church described in the Bible?

A. The Church is described as the Body of which Jesus

Christ is the Head and of which all baptized persons are

members. It is called the People of God, the New Israel,

a holy nation, a royal priesthood, and the pillar and

ground of truth.

Q. How is the Church described in the creeds?

A. The Church is described as one, holy, catholic, and

apostolic.

Q. Why is the Church described as one?

A. The Church is one, because it is one Body, under one

Head, our Lord Jesus Christ.

Q. Why is the Church described as holy?

A. The Church is holy, because the Holy Spirit dwells in it,

consecrates its members, and guides them to do God’s

work.

Q. Why is the Church described as catholic?

A. The Church is catholic, because it proclaims the whole

Faith to all people, to the end of time.

Q. Why is the Church described as apostolic?

A. The Church is apostolic, because it continues in the

teaching and fellowship of the apostles and is sent

to carry out Christ’s mission to all people.

Q. What is the mission of the Church?

A. The mission of the Church is to restore all people to

unity with God and each other in Christ.

Q. How does the Church pursue its mission?

A. The Church pursues its mission as it prays and

worships, proclaims the Gospel, and promotes justice,

peace, and love.

Q. Through whom does the Church carry out its mission?

A. The Church carries out its mission through the ministry

of all its members.

Why Episcopalian?  The mission of the church, as the Body of Christ, can be no different than the mission of the Head.  Most Christians will recall Jesus saying that WE were to be the light of the world.  In the 9th chapter of John, Jesus said, "As long as I am in the world, I am the light of the world."  His Body is continuing His mission in His physical absence.  And what was His mission?

"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,

      because he has anointed me

      to preach good news to the poor.

   He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners

      and recovery of sight for the blind,

   to release the oppressed,

      to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

                                                                Luke 4:18-19, NIV

Then Peter began to speak: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right. You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all. You know what has happened throughout Judea, beginning in Galilee after the baptism that John preached— how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him.

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name."                      Acts 10:34-43, NIV

All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God.

                                                                                2 Corinthians 5:18-20, NIV

The mission of the (Episcopal) Church is "to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ."  It pursues this mission through prayer, worship, preaching, and promotion of justice, peace and love (a lot like Jesus did, actually).  As ambassadors for Christ, we are pursuing His mission, the mission of the Kingdom of Heaven, on earth. 

Other churches have their own statements of mission and purpose.  None, in my opinion, are so fully aligned with the Head's mission as ours.  That is one major reason why I'm an Episcopalian.

2.  THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE IN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION

Protestations of rebels and reformers to the contrary aside, there is no other form of leadership authorized in scripture and validated by the practice of the early church than bishops, consecrated by apostolic authority, and overseeing the work of the presbytery.  Nowhere in scripture do I find Jesus, or any of the apostles, calling or ordaining a pastor.  Notwithstanding the Southern Baptist Convention's assertions, there are no scriptural qualifications (gender- or character-based) for the office of pastor, because there is no office of "pastor" in the New Testament.  The three offices described in the New Testament are that of overseer or bishop, elder or presbyter, and deacon.  "Pastor" is mentioned in the context of church ministry only once, in a functional list, without qualification or description.  Though not explicit in the New Testament accounts, it is clear from those accounts and the history of the Church in its first century that Paul consecrated both Timothy and Titus as bishops, and charged them to ordain elders in every town under their respective jurisdictions.  From these two examples and the historical results, it can be clearly shown that the Church has, since the apostles' time, been led by bishops in apostolic succession (consecrated by apostolic authority), overseeing and ordaining presbyters (now legitimately called either elders or priests, two biblically authorized terms) and deacons.  Churches that are not in rebellion against either the scriptures or apostolic tradition are so governed to this day.  There are some bishops, one in particular, who by means of a surplus of temporal authority and a deficit of godly character have grown their offices into something decidedly unscriptural, claiming themselves and their successors to be vicariously exercising the authority of Christ as head of the Church, and feeling free to add to or take away from the teachings and practices of the apostles, particularly with respect to the qualifications and roles of the episcopate and presbytery.  The apostles warned of this in both overt and apocalyptic language, and we would do well to stay away from granting any semblance of legitimacy to said bishop's numerous unscriptural claims and pronouncements.   However, the misbehavior of one notable bishopric over the course of history does not negate the practice of the apostles and their first- and second-century successors as normative to the life of the Church.

3.  COMMON PRAYER AND THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS (ANCIENT AND MODERN WORSHIP)

The liturgical practice of the Episcopal Church (the way we worship) is another element that connects us to the Communion of Saints throughout time and space, at once seated in heavenly places with Christ and standing (or kneeling) in common prayer and common worship throughout the Kingdom's earthly territories.  We sing our hymns of praise, joining our voices with angels and archangels and all the company of heaven.  We hear the Word of God, and sing the Psalms.  We confess our common faith in the ancient creed that at once unites and defines the community of faith.  We pray together, and we confess our sins against God and our neighbor, things we have done or left undone.  We celebrate the memorial of our redemption as Christ himself commanded, recalling his death, resurrection and ascension, and partaking of Christ's body and blood, the bread of heaven and the cup of salvation.  We are sent back into the world to love and serve the Lord.  To the objections of the anti-liturgical crowd, I have only one response.  My Pentecostal brothers and sisters get very emotional when they sing "When We All Get to Heaven".  I choke up every Sunday, when I and hundreds of my brothers and sisters join with millions throughout time and space, and confess our common faith:  "For us and for our salvation, He came down from heaven."  It's not vain repetition if you mean it.

Shameless self-promotion

I've been looking through old documents on my computer, and discovered something about myself.  I'm a pretty darn good writer.  I occasionally have deep thoughts that work their way out in written form, and I would be remiss if I denied the world at large the opportunity to benefit from my ponderings.

I'm not as witty as Dr. Jeannie Killian, or as prolific or published as Tom Weller, but I express myself well, and at times can offer insightful, witty, sarcastic, and slightly deviant commentary on any number of topics, relevant to one degree or another to someone somewhere.  I'm not a preacher like Dr. Phil Nordstrom or The Right Rev'd W. Nicholas Knisely, or a poet like my lovely and talented little sister.  My undergraduate business communication professor said I write like a lawyer.  I tend to use long sentences, with complex structures, conveying detailed information and observations with impeccable grammar, but questionable style.  (The preceding sentence was far too short to be illustrative.)

Nevertheless, some of you may find my ramblings relevant, worthwhile, entertaining, or challenging in one or more important dimensions, so I am launching this blog for those of you that find my writing too dense for Facebook, which will no longer be subjected to the full textual burden of my literary profusion.  If I want a specific friend to read a particular post, I'll tag you when I link to it on Facebook, or email it to you.  All I ask is that none of my readers adopt a 2nd Amendment solution if my 1st Amendment exertions end up exercising your limbic system to an uncomfortable level.

Welcome to my world, friends, neighbors and NSA analysts!