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.
