Subj: Questions from a lapsed Lutheran
Date: 95-07-21 05:12:34 EDT
From: xxxxxxxxx
To: Axios USA
I was raised Missouri-Synod Lutheran and have always been interested in
Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I no longer consider myself Lutheran or much of
a Protestant. I find a Neoplatonic approach to Christianity more appealing
than Protestantism.
I also found “Neoplatonic Christianity” appealing (or tempting) when coming out back in 1986-1988, especially after reading Plato's Symposium and seeing its acknowledgement of innate sexual orientation in Aristophanes' mythical speech and of course the ethic of Pandemos (Common) and Ouranios (Heavenly) Love, which made a lot more sense than “men with men working shameful deeds…” Of course, Platonism has its own problems; the very dualism expressed by the Pandemos/Ouranios split is itself responsible for much of the homophobia inside and outside of modern Christianity; even in Plato's life one can see the progression of his own ethic from celebrating gay love and desire in the Symposium and the Charmides (though Socrates, of course, did not give in to the physical side, even though he had a long-term gay relationship later on) to the Republic (in a nutshell, gays can kiss and make out, but are prohibited from doing more), and finally the Laws (gay sex is condemned as “para physin”, the very words in Romans chapter 1). Of course, this progression was not very good for heterosexuals either – the Laws, in fact, prohibit ALL sex whether heterosexual or homosexual, with the expedient (for the state) exception that once a year, the state decides how many babies it needs produced to maintain the army and other utilitarian functions, and it brings together a couple thousand or so couples (a la Sun Myung Moon's mass marriages with a twist), selected on a eugenic basis (emphatically NOT for any reasons of love or attachment), directs them to have sex entirely without pleasure but only for procreation, and then the couples are separated for the rest of the year. Babies are weaned from parents early also, to maximize state control and minimize human factors. Now aside from the fact that this is fascism, and that this explains the Nazis having a special bureau to fight homosexuality and abortion (not from moral conviction, but so the state could produce more little Nazis for the army), it is impossible. Whether we are talking about Plato perhaps becoming impotent in his old age and thus deciding (like many a theologian?) that as a result, no one else should be permitted what is denied to him; or about Catholic and fundamentalist Protestant successors to Plato (and let's not forget Augustine's fundamental distortion of the nature of original sin to suit his sexual attitudes!), it remains impossible for even the most devout Catholic believer in “sex for procreation only” to have sex purely for that purpose. Physiologically, if there is no sexual pleasure and excitement, (1) the penis will not undergo either erection or ejaculation; (2) even if (1) were achieved (e.g. via denial or suppression of the pleasure, or via the method employed by many a closeted gay man – fantasizing about a man while ignoring the feminine around him – what Havelock Ellis called “masturbatio per vaginam”), the lack of lubrication in the vagina due to absence of the woman's sexual enjoyment would be excruciatingly painful and could injure the vagina also.
Now, maybe some sick people would say that “this is the cross we must all bear” – but it is obviously another example of changing Christ's gospel of Love into an unreal, unnatural way to control sex and other emotions and feelings which get in the way of “control queens'” desires to keep everything in neat little boxes, all under strict control (and a control queen can be anyone; gay, bi or straight; male or female).
Needless to say, if all Catholics obeyed the Pope in his exhortations to have sex only for procreation (at least before Vatican II), then the birth rate among Catholics would have been zero until then.
Now, the Truth is one; when a doctrine, even one promulgated by a respected figure like the Pope (of course, God is no respecter of persons!) is fundamentally impossible to implement, it must be wrong. The same applies with many teachings on homosexuality, Catholic or not. They are promulgated by individuals who have no idea of what homosexuality really is, and as such lose all credibility. This applies to every speaker who thinks one chooses one's sexual orientation (how many people wake up one morning and say “I think I'll be gay today”, and, ex nihilo, go from a Kinsey 0 (emotionally and behaviorally) to a Kinsey 6??? There is not a single “ex-gay” or anyone else who can claim this! God can do anything, but for some reason, He (in His infinite wisdom) has apparently decided that one's sexual orientation should be innate and immutable, whether gay, bi or straight [the few “conversions” in “ex-gay” ministries are not followed up and are typically filled with “slips” and acknowledgements that the gay feelings are still there and never leave; thus the necessity of ongoing (but futile) 12-step (HA, etc.) meetings; often they come out and perform a same-sex union with another ex-ex-gay! A bisexual could choose to be with the opposite sex only, but that is hardly a change of orientation, and unless he/she is already something like a Kinsey 1 or 2, will probably continue to be attracted to individuals of the same sex also.]
Now, I believe that the Fullness of the Church provides for all of Her children - gay, straight, bi, intersexual, transsexual, and so forth. While modern-day theologians try to portray sexual minorities as enemies of Christ, it is precisely these people and other outcasts which Christ made a point of ministering to. The Theotokos (Orthodox terminology for the Birthgiver of God, the Virgin Mary) was one of these; at the time of her conceiving God Incarnate, she was (1) underage [a modern D.A. would likely try to prosecute Joseph for statutory rape, even though he did not actually “know” her]; (2) not legally married, only engaged. Thus the opponents of Jesus would deride Him as illegitimate, born of “fornication” (Many heresies still preach this, to get around the “inconvenient” [for them] fact of the Incarnation). Many Platonic and Neoplatonic Gentile Greeks could not accept the Incarnation either because of their [Neo]platonism which preached that spirit and flesh could not coexist but that the former was “imprisoned” in the latter. Whereas, Christ was fully God AND fully man, and was biologically complete as well as spiritually complete. Obviously this means He had genitals and erogenous zones, and the nervous-system and emotional connections to these areas were intact. (I can hear how some will hear this and say BLASPHEMY!!! – but the real blasphemy is in denying the full divinity and humanity of Christ. To say that He had sexual organs is not to say that He used them irresponsibly – we do not know how or if He used them, and perhaps that is not really relevant anyway, because we know that all that He did was done properly. An apophatic approach is always necessary in theology to avoid trying to put the Unbounded Lord into a box of our own making. We might speculate that, if he did not have sex or did not masturbate, that he would have wet dreams. I mention this because many “Christians” have attempted to brand wet dreams as sin and/or demonic visitation, even when totally involuntary. This is another evidence of their distorting Christianity because of their own biases).
St. Irenaeus said “Gloria Dei, homo vivens” (“The Glory of God [is] a person fully alive” – or God is glorified by a person fully living up to their God-given potential). There is no place in this for “ex-gay” ways of thinking which require constant suppression of a fundamental part of oneself, and cause significant psychological injury as well. And either one accepts a gay-tolerant or gay-accepting theology, or one accepts the “ex-gay” poison, because if homosexuality is such a heinous, willfully-chosen sin as Fred Phelps thinks it is, then we must “pluck it out”, even if it leaves us maimed, as Christ said.
But Christ never said “Sin no more” to the Ethiopian eunuch (eunuchs were excluded from the Temple, as were any man with injured testicles), and acknowleged that even though one who lusts has already committed the act (one presumes that the man in Christ's example was married, and/or the woman was, because Christ uses the word moicheia (“adultery”) rather than porneia (literally, “prostitution”, as is the Latin “fornicatio” [in English “fornication”]; in practice the meaning is broadened to mean casual sex by unmarried persons, whether or not such usage is justified)), that not all can follow such rules about marriage, since not all are cut out for such marriage – here is where Our Lord mentions the “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven” – some of whom are “that way from birth”. Certainly this gives the lie to the canons of the Catholic Church restricting the lives of intersexual people; it is possible that there is relevance to gays also.
Some other biblical notes:
Ecclesiastes 4
8 There is one [alone], and [there is] not a second; yea, he
hath neither child nor brother: yet [is there] no end of all his
labour; neither is his eye satisfied with riches; neither [saith
he], For whom do I labour, and bereave my soul of good? This [is]
also vanity, yea, it [is] a sore travail.
9 Two [are] better than one; because they have a good reward
for their labour.
10 For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe
to him [that is] alone when he falleth; for [he hath] not another
to help him up.
11 Again, if two lie together, then they have heat: but how can
one be warm [alone]?
12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and
a threefold cord is not quickly broken.
The “Woe to him who is alone” passage was quoted in the life of Saints Zosima and Basilisk, who had a very close relationship that often seems quite romantic, though without the explicit references to physical or erotic love found in the lives of Sergius and Bacchus or Polyeuctos and Nearchos. If you look at the Hebrew, it confirms that Eccl. 4:11 refers to two men; the RSV translation is much better but is currently offline so I made do with the KJV (plus the KJV isn't copyrighted, either).
I rather doubt that a passage like this ever got brought up in Bible studies which seem so dedicated to interpreting the Bible in an antigay fashion. I assume you are familiar with the account of David and Jonathan in I and II Samuel, where they love each other as one soul (indeed, “the two become one” – cf. Genesis and modern arguments based on Genesis to deride homosexuality), form a covenant (the first documented same-sex union in Judeo-Christian history) and strip their clothes off and exchange same as a ceremony. And then of course there is 2 Sa. 1:26: “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women.” Passing the love of women – this is self-explanatory. David, an ancestor of Our Lord in the flesh, was obviously bisexual in practice. Nowhere does God seem to condemn this; indeed the inspired text of Scripture seems to look on it quite favorably.
Also the Song of Solomon gives the lie to a “procreation only; no love or sexual pleasure allowed” view of sexuality.
Moving right along; I posted a full list of every single mention of Sodom in the Bible in the “Scripture vs. Scripture” message board (GLCF Message Boards, either under Spirituality, or Theory and Debate); it is clear that “sodomy” is not homosexual intercourse; while the Sodomites attempted to gang-rape the angels who had the appearance of males, the genders involved are not relevant, as it is clear (See, especially, Ezekiel, and Christ's mentioning Sodom in the N.T.) that Sodom's wickedness was shown by its inhospitality (and a gang rape was the ultimate way of humiliating someone and is about as inhospitable as one can get. In the parallel story in Judges 19, the rapists got their way with a woman and killed her as a result of the abuse. Nobody condemns heterosexuals as a result, though!). It is no more relevant to gay relationships based on love than are the goings-on in jails (where straight men use coercive sex to mantain power over other men, while gays often get blamed for such straight behavior. In the Nazi concentration camps, inmates did the same, but only the pink-triangle prisoners got blamed, because the others “weren't gay” – See R. Plant's The Pink Triangle).
Leviticus: If one interprets it in a fully Falwellian manner, then lesbians are the chosen people, since the passage only appiles to men. Furthermore, it is strange how those who use this as a “clobber passage” ignore the other prohibitions in Leviticus – why are only the same-sex-related passages relevant, and not the passages prohibiting sex with a menstruating woman, as well as the almost universally ignored mitzvot on wearing clothes of mixed fabric and planting mixed crops. That said, let's look at excerpts from the text:
Leviticus 18
22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is]
←-[Leviticus “clobber passage” #1]
abomination.
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself
therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie
down thereto: it [is] confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all
these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity
thereof upon it, and the land itself vomiteth out her
inhabitants.
Leviticus 19
9 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not
←-[Agricultural rules]
wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather
the gleanings of thy harvest.
10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou
gather [every] grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for
the poor and stranger: I [am] the LORD your God.
15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not
respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the
mighty: [but] in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
16 Thou shalt not go up and down [as] a talebearer among thy
people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy
neighbour: I [am] the LORD.
17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt
in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
{and...: or, that thou bear not sin for him}
18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the
←-[Mixed in with true moral teachings]
children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself: I [am] the LORD.
19. Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle
←-[No hybrids, mixed crops, fabrics]
gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with
mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and
woollen come upon thee.
20 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that [is] a
←-[No sex with slaves permitted]
bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor
freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put
to death, because she was not free. {betrothed...: or, abused by
any: Heb. reproached by (or, for) man} {she shall...: or, they,
etc: Heb. there shall be a scourging}
21 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, [even] a ram for
a trespass offering.
27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt
←-[No shaving or haircutting allowed!]
thou mar the corners of thy beard.
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead,
←-[No tatoos, etc.]
nor print any marks upon you: I [am] the LORD.
29 Do not prostitute thy daughter, to cause her to be a whore;
lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of
wickedness. {prostitute: Heb. profane}
30. Ye shall keep my sabbaths, and reverence my sanctuary: I
[am] the LORD.
31 Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek
←-[No psychic 900 lines, etc. (as is proper)]
after wizards, to be defiled by them: I [am] the LORD your God.
32 Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the
face of the old man, and fear thy God: I [am] the LORD.
33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall
←-[Be hospitable to strangers, not like Sodomites]
not vex him. {vex: or, oppress}
34 [But] the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you
as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye
were strangers in the land of Egypt: I [am] the LORD your God.
Leviticus 20
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever
[he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that
sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he
←-[No temple prostitution]
shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone
him with stones.
3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off
from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto
Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.
4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes
from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill
him not:
5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his
family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after
him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.
6 And the soul that turneth after such as have familiar
spirits, and after wizards, to go a whoring after them, I will
even set my face against that soul, and will cut him off from
among his people.
7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I [am] the
LORD your God.
8 And ye shall keep my statutes, and do them: I [am] the LORD
which sanctify you.
9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be
surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his
blood [shall be] upon him.
10. And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's
←-[No adultery]
wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's
wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to
death.
11 And the man that lieth with his father's wife hath uncovered
←-[No incest; even though Lot's daughters did it]
his father's nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to
death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them
shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their
blood [shall be] upon them.
13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman,
←-[Levitical “clobber passage” #2]
both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be
put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.
In this context, one can look at Lev. 20:13 in many ways. For one thing, the immediate context is various types of prohibited sex with women (adultery and incest). The two “clobber passages” state “as with a woman” – this could mean that if it is prohibited with a woman, it is also prohibited if you do the same to a man.
The typical interpretation of this doesn't hold water – that “as with a woman” is irrelevant and that this is a blanket condemnation of all gay male sex. A gay man has sex with a man “as with a man”; if it's as with a woman, then perhaps there is some sort of transgender situation.
The idolatry of the times is also relevant, as it involved involuntary service from men and women as temple prostitutes, and the men were often effeminized, presumably so more then 10% of the population would patronize them (a villager would be forced to go to the temple of the pagan deity and remain there until someone threw a coin into the temple, a signal to have sex. The sex was believed to be a communion with the pagan deity. Once the sex was completed, the villager could leave and resume his ordinary business). This is what the following passage is about:
Deut. 23:17 (KJV) There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. {whore: or, sodomitess}
(“Whore” = qedesha, a female temple prostitute; “sodomite” = “qedesh”, a male temple prostitute. This correction of translation is reflected in the Revised Standard Version. “Sodomite” is a mistranslation which has nothing whatsoever to do with the passage; the alternate KJV reading of “sodomitess” is an even worse interpolation of prejudice and/or misinformation).
The “abominations” in Leviticus and elsewhere are references to idolatry (“abomination” is a translation of “toevah” which is something morally defiled by connection to idolatry). Now in this context, let's look at Paul.
Romans chapter 1: Much emphasis is placed on verses 26-29, ignoring the context which is developed earlier in the chapter. These people knew God but willfully rejected Him (this is the one unforgivable sin!) and though God had granted them knowledge of Him, they basically spit in His face and said “even though we know who the True God is, we will still reject him and worship man-made idols and creatures” which, for one thing, seems incredibly stupid since this is not a question of they being agnostic or unsure about God's true nature. The only reason I can think of why someone would do that is perhaps the most deadly sin – pride (and I mean inflated, arrogant pride, not self-esteem and a true and balanced self-image as in a gay person accepting his nature and thus having “gay pride” (without prejudice towards heterosexuals), or national pride that does not belittle other nationalities.) – which changed Lucifer into Satan. Instead of humbling themselves by worshipping that which is greater than them and acknowledging their debt of gratitude to God who created them, they want to play God by “worshipping” that which they created, which makes them feel superior, since they can delude themselves into thinking that these “gods” are dependent on ME (i.e. them) for their very existence – “oh my, I am SO important, and great, and omnipotent”).
God, in this case, was infinitely more merciful than the typical human would be. A human who was “dissed” like that might well retaliate or certainly hold a grudge; God simply respected their free will (something very UN-Calvinist) and said, basically, “If you choose to reject me, even after all I've shown you, then I will respect that and allow you to choose what you want”. God does not actually punish them, He just lets them work out the consequences of their own actions. They reject God and truth, so they naturally get mired in falsehoods. (They probably bring themselves under demonic influence, in fact). Their spiritual change is reflected in their losing Godly attributes and acquiring “unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; …envy, murder…deceit, malignity, whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, inventors of evil things…without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection…” Now, does any of this sound like a gay person's coming out? Of course not. Indeed, “without natural affection” may well apply to the prostitutes and other worshippers of Baal, et al. who were so caught up in trying to serve these nonexistent (or even demonic) gods in their stylized sexual acts, that they ceased to show natural affection to their partners. Whereas, a gay person obviously shows natural affection towards his or her lover. Another important point is the significant spiritual awakening which many gays experience from coming out, which is the opposite of what Romans describes (St. Irenaeus: “Gloria Dei, homo vivens” – is it surprising that such a fundamental act of _honesty_ like coming out, despite risk of rejection, can spur such spiritual renewal?). Now, look at the so-called anti-gay passage itself: they “exchanged” the natural for the unnatural and did “shameful” things with each other; they thus “received in themselves the recompense of their error which was appropriate”. (1) Gay people never “exchanged” anything; neither did bisexuals who are acting out of their capability to be attracted to both sexes, not exchanging one orientation for another. (2) Gay people can do “shameful” things, so can straights. The fact that these people are doing shameful things with the same sex does not make all same-sex activity immoral. (3) Is this really a sexual issue, or is it like Sodom and Leviticus where the sexual aspect is peripheral and a moral teaching is being promulgated? As before, they are being permitted to err, and undergo the usual results of such error (“If you insist on streaking at the North Pole, then I won't stop you. Perhaps after getting severe frostbite, you'll think twice about what you did [God didn't “smite” this hypothetical streaker with frostbite, nor is He condemning nakedness; he is respecting human free will and freedom, much more than a doting, psyche-stunting, overprotective parent would!]”). What is happening is that having rejected God, they are caught up in a maelstrom of their own making; their own personal hell; they acquire all sorts of evil attributes, and lose touch with reality. Little of what they do in this context can be natural or not shameful. They are obviously heterosexual, since same-sex activity constituted “exchange” – and the idolatrous context makes it likely that one of the ecstatic mystery cults of the time are being discussed, which at times obligated adherents to engage in same-sex sexual activity to appease the god[dess]; whether or not they were actually gay (just like with the qadesh in ancient Israel mentioned above). This is unnatural; and is not different from gay people being forced into heterosexual behavior to appease some twentieth century ecstatic mystery cults – like the “Christian” fundamentalists, including many Pentecostals who get very ecstatic and quite resemble an ancient Bacchanal or Eleusinian mystery in some of their get-togethers. Is this “inspiration” from God, from their own imagination, or from the devil (a pertinent question in all questions of dubious inspiration, and the analysis of occult phenomena)?
___
We see God's infinite mercy and wisdom here, also, since even though they rejected and “dissed” God as they did, He did not let them work out the consequences of their action out of malice (“So, go streaking at the North Pole; see what I care, you bloody idol-worshippers!”) but out of love (Not the “love” that anti-gay fundamentalists claim to have for gays, as they rejoice in deaths from AIDS and so forth – even some “Orthodox” are guilty of this, as is shown in some e-mail I saved from last year's Orthodox List discussion of the Orthodox Rite of Brotherhood and homosexuality in anticipation of the release of the late John Boswell's book) – even though THEY COMMITTED THE ONE UNFORGIVABLE SIN, God apparently forgave them, or at least opened up the possibility of forgiveness, provided that they shed their arrogance:
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgement on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgement do the same things…Or do you show contempt for the riches of His kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance? (Romans 2:1,4).
Continuing after this passage, one sees that God will certainly not reward persistent evil, but he is still extending a hand to help the fallen to return to Him – of course that means that we must extend our hand also; that is part of having freedom and free will; He will not force us back.
It should be obvious that this is talking about evil in general, as exemplified by the effects of cults and their idolatry, and not a condemnation of homosexuals. Those who continue to use Romans chap. 1 and 2 against gays should look at the next relevant passage: 1 Cor. chap. 6. Regardless of how one translates the words in verse 9, “And that is what some of you were” (1 Cor. 6:11), but God forgave and cleansed them of their sin. Now, what sins are these? Much the same as in Romans: idolatry and the associated prostitution are mentioned first (and note that in ancient times, non-temple prostitutes were often recruited from babies abandoned as Oedipus was, “saved” by pimps who make them slaves, both male and female prostitutes – who would not condemn this?). “Porneia” means prostitution; if one wants to extend the meaning to the modern usage of “fornication”, one must be careful not to read too much into it); theft and greed and other sins are also mentioned. But many a financially-corrupt, greedy (and even sexually rather active) televangelist has ignored this and focused on verse 9's “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” – probably to get even more donations of dirty money at the expense of gays. It is informative to look at contemporary documents to see how the Greeks of St. Paul's time actually used these words, not how modern fundies with an ax to grind at gays' expense want to use them.
MALAKOI (KJV: “effeminate”, NIV: “male prostitutes”)
The word “malakoi” simply means “soft” – and continues in modern Greek as such, e.g. for “soft pillow” A variation of the word with the accent moved means “jerk-off” as does the etymologically-derived “vlax” (“vlakas” < “malakas”) which has lost any sense of profanity. John Boswell has said that the Catholic Church has taken “malakoi” to mean “masturbators”, but may be alone in having such an interpretation. St. John the Faster used “malakia” to mean masturbation (as in modern Greek), which only shows that it _could_ be used as such; his theological and sexual attitudes are rather strange, and thus it is risky to draw doctrinal conclusions from his work. But “malakos” (plural, “malakoi”) is the root; when “malakia” later became used to mean masturbation, it was only by analogy [if one does too much malakia, it will become “malakos”??]. Our Lord used the word only to mean soft or regal (as in the soft, luxurious clothes worn by royalty; nothing about “queens” here!). There are some ancient usages of “malakos” to mean “soft” as in “softie” – with an implication of effeminacy or passive gay sexuality (i.e. receptive anal intercourse). But, in these cases, the insertor is not “malakos” and is not condemned – this is a common “double standard” in many ancient and modern societies. The attitude was that the gender of the “receiver” does not matter, but he who receives, loses his manhood if he is past his teenage years (thus, the large amount of pederasty in ancient Greece, and discouragement of same-age gay relationships in this alleged gay utopia). The NIV translators have apparently extended this idea to the notion that the malakoi were not just “getting it”; they were “getting it” for money. Many a fundamentalist, wanting to interpret both this word and the next against gays, has thus taken the totally unjustified stance that a malakos is any effeminate gay, and an arsenokoitis is a masculine gay. (Lesbians, transvestites [most of whom are straight, aroused by the female clothing], and effeminate straights need not worry!).
ARSENOKOITAI (KJV: “abusers of themselves [or, 'those who defile themselves'] with mankind”; NIV: “homosexual offenders”; RSV: “sodomites”; some RSV and NKJV editions merge “malakoi” and “arsenokoitai” into one expedient word: “homosexuals” – clearly honoring their own prejudiced creation above the inspired words of God – cf. above discussion on idolatry).
Arseno- is a prefix meaning “male” – the “male” can be either the subject or object of the action in question (gramatically as well as sexually). “Koitis” is a feminine noun meaning “bed”; in the singular it can be used either as a generic “bed” or figuratively, as in “The marriage bed is undefiled”. In this case, it connotes sexual monogamy among other things. In the plural, however, it is used to mean “bedding around”, e.g. in Romans 13:13, where “beds” is translated as “fornication” or “sexual immorality”. Here is a much more appropriate and unambiguous term for promiscuity; “koitai”; not “porneia” or “fornication” which properly mean prostitution. But what about “arsenokoitai”? One might just combine the terms and say that it means literally, “male fornicator” or really, “promiscuous male”, but that would disqualify too many self-righteous televangelists – but this, though feasible, runs into some difficulties. For one thing, “arsenokoitai” is a feminine plural noun – can this be taken as referring to men at all, or does it refer properly to women “bedding around” with men? In contemporary usage, the word is rare, and first appears in the apocryphal Sibylline Oracles to mean child molesters who will come from the north and steal children to sexually abuse them. (While this will of course appeal to the antigay, it obviously is not related to homosexuality; any more than heterosexual child abuse makes heterosexuality in general morally wrong. In fact, even accounting for the relative numbers of heterosexuals and homosexuals, recent studies have found that the overwhelming number of child molesters, and virtually all rapists, are heterosexual). But even here, “arsenokoitai” is a feminine noun – is this just because of the grammatical gender of “bed” or does it represent the gender of the offending party? Typically, a male suffix would be used if males were meant, which would mean “arsenokoites” (not ”-is”) for the singular, and “arsenokoitoi” for the plural. Once or twice, one sees this form in Patristic literature several centuries later. But in immediately post-Biblical Patristic literature. e.g. the Didache, the term “paidofthoreo” is used to mean “sexual abuse of boys.” In all these situations, regardless of gender and age issues, it is clear that it is RAPE and SEXUAL ABUSE, and not RELATIONSHIPS, gay or straight, which are meant. St. John Chrysostom and other Church Fathers from the 400's on occasionally use “arsenokoitai” in referring to sexual abuse of boys associated with prostitution, but more frequently use other words. St. John the Faster generalizes it into a specific act that “some men even commit with their wives” – this is possibly anal intercourse, but it could be oral intercourse or something else. Some dictionaries translate the term as “sodomite” – here there is a double error.
The safest thing is to maintain a humble and prayerful attitude, not trying to interpret a passage to “clobber” someone or to make onself feel superior while one puts down everyone else (which is much the same thing).
(The exegesis of singular and plural use of “koitis” is based on the work of George Battelle; you can e-mail him at: axiosrep@axios.org if you like)
[begin quote] However, literal interpretation of Scripture is a scary spirit which still plagues me. I have no interest in rejecting Christianity, but at the same time I find it harder to accept things in light of Scripture. All the liberal arguments about Saint Paul being influenced by the culture of his times are wearing thin for me. Is there anything that you can tell me to help me? I was taught to believe that Jesus' sacrifice was for all, but how can that stand against the Calvinist claim that it was only for the elect? I have so many questions.
Philip [end quote]
Everyone claims to literally interpret Scripture; so why are there thousands of different cults and sects all claiming “elect” status and consigning the others to hell? Who was John Calvin anyway? A mere man, whose ideas, I might add, are frequently very much opposed to Christ's teaching. Thus, they must be rejected, because to put anything above God is idolatry (“Such were some of you” – one doesn't need to go to a temple and formally worship the pagan deity to commit idolatry – we all must be careful, and humble, because such things can befall “ordinary” people as much as it can befall those who are frequently labeled as evil [cult leaders, dictators, mass-murderers, etc.: though their actual posthumous status is best left to God – the Church declares who it feels are saints, but never says definitively that such-and-such is going to hell – it suggests it maybe with Judas, but even here leaves it open, reflecting the fact that God is indeed just, but also infinitely merciful]).
By the “liberal arguments” that you mention, I assume you mean the view that St. Paul was ignorant of the existence of innate homosexuals, and that in fact, no one really knew about them until nineteenth-century Europe, when modern gay activism began. Of course this argument is “wearing thin”; it is ridiculous. (As is the notion that no word for “homosexual” existed. True, no exact translation existed, since they did not see such distinctions as important, emphasizing instead such things as status and positions; but the Greeks did have and use words like “paiderastes” (lover of boys, not always underage either), “androfilos” (male who loves males), and “gynekofile” (woman who loves women), not to mention “lesbiazo” (“I am a lesbian”: verb used in Aristophanes) and other Sapphic terminology. They knew we existed; so why do these words NEVER occur in the Bible? Why does “eros” not _ever_ appear in the Bible if it is allegedly such a threat to the spirit? Could it be that if we love God and love neighbor, that we can figure out everything else that we need to?) It is arrogant pride to assume, as many now do, that everyone prior to ourselves was hopelessly ignorant on anything of importance, simply because of the material and technological changes which have occurred. (An inspired ancient writing on papyrus has much more wisdom than a self-important modern who feels that just because he's the first on his block with Windows 95, that people must listen!) I am not sure of St. Paul's personal view on homosexuals; with his Pharisaic background he might well be anti-gay (though in all fairness, it's really not clear, since he almost never mentions it, and when he does it is in very limited and specific contexts – he makes no general statements); but Scriptural interpretation is about getting past the personal quirks of the various writers and into the divinely-inspired text. The Orthodox Church does NOT espouse a “literal” interpretation of Scripture – “for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” – if one obsesses on each word, word-for-word, as being directly from God's mouth, one (1) will encounter typographical errors, which the perfect God does not make; (2) one ignores the way that God tends to inspire people (via the Holy Spirit – Which never stopped inspiring people (as some believe), past, present, and future, et in saecula saeculorum, always, now and forever, amen!. Unlike in cults where the intent is to destroy one's individuality and personality to become, in effect, a mindless automaton in service of the charismatic leader (same as in various dictatorships, as in the Stalinist personality cults, and in Nazi Germany), the actual Christian approach is that God gave us each various gifts; we are to use them to their greatest potential. To throw them away because the Pope of Rome or the Orthodox Patriarch of Romania (a collaborator with Ceausescu, I'm sorry to say) thinks that something is “a fundamental moral disorder” is simply idolatry. Again I will repeat the words of St. Irenaeus: “Gloria Dei, homo vivens”. True Christianity actualizes our potentials; cults destroy them.
Back to Scriptural interpretation – a “literal” approach is not right; but one can't just pick and choose whatever verses make one feel good – that is “planis” or “prelest”, which means “deception” – one can get very puffed up with one's falsehoods, which might (at first) feel _very_ good, but are actually leading one to ruin; whereas latching onto a Divine truth is humbling and creates a lasting peace inside. Scripture is not “literally”, word-for-word, God's Word (God's Word, after all, is Christ Himself; to put the Bible in that place is called “bibliolatry” – i.e. idolatry of the Bible). But it _is_ inspired! How is one inspired? Well, it would appear that one is given words from God, either directly (Moses) or via an intermediary (the angel Gabriel to the Theotokos (Virgin Mary), or inspired people who “pass it on” to others). One then uses one's God-given abilities, in the earthly context which one is in, to record it.
(A caveat is in order. Satan masquerades as an angel of light of course, so we must practice discernment with regard to all revelations and inspirations. Discernment is another gift from God. I think this is why the Judeo-Christian tradition has been so negative on the occult – because contact with spirits without wisdom, humility, and God's help can lead one easily into prelest or deception. (This is acknowledged in occult works such as the Nekronomikon, a paperback sold in large stores like Waldenbooks, whose preface notes the forces which were dealt with by the authors and editors, many of whom went insane and killed themselves. They say that there is a “door” which is normally closed, but by delving into some of the activities mentioned in the book, one opens the door, releasing a Pandora's box of malevolent forces; demons, if you will. The Orthodox say that when God covered Adam and Eve's nakedness, this was not referring to a bodily nakedness or sexual shame [as many would like to believe!] but to the spiritually vulnerable state of Adam and Eve after they sinned. God “covered” them, protecting them from fallen angels and their deceptions (Before sinning, they had full communion with God and the angels; but after sinning, their corrupted nature was vulnerable to deception; actually, the first sin was also due to deception – “God didn't really mean what He said”) – so that normally we are not directly affected by their actions; and we don't see angels and devils or any other spiritual phenomenon unless we “open the door” which God had closed. For some saints who are prepared, God grants the gift, thus we see that St. John Maximovitch of San Francisco and Shanghai (martyred 1962) was clairvoyant, and knew what people were going to tell him before they said anything. But, for an inexperienced person, such information could be used for gossip, character assassination, and the like; I think this is a big problem with various New Age groups who promote instant gratification by means such as astral projection and “a clairvoyant in every garage”. The devil is also clairvoyant (and also is the perfect ascetic, never has had sex, always fasts, and otherwise satisfies various superficial criteria for “righteousness”, as a saint has noted)).
Here, one must be careful to “pray continually, give thanks in all circumstances…Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. [However,] test everything, and hold onto the good. Avoid every kind of evil.” (I Thess. 17-22, NIV)
Getting back to earthly context of inspired writing in the Bible, St. Paul wrote in Koine Greek; but that does not mean that Greeks can boast that they have a divine language (It does seem that the languages that the Bible was originally written in have been “tailored” for that purpose; e.g. nothing matches the simple clarity of the opening of John's Gospel in the original Greek – a Greek that has been pared down from its pomposity during Pericles' time 600 years previous – but that does not give special status to everything written in Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic; certainly not to boast; it only shows that God knows what He's doing). Reading the writings of St. Paul, we see clearly how divine teaching is interspersed with St. Paul's own personality; God does not obliterate our personality; he enhances it and allows it to reach toward its potential – this is “theosis”, or the process of becoming more like God; this is what salvation is about (not a one-time experience, after which one can boast “I'm saved; I can do as I wish!”). At times, St. Paul makes this explicit, saying that a certain teaching “is from the Lord”, while another one is only his personal view. So certainly, the Bible is affected by the personalities of its writers and their culture, but one must retain perspective. To say that everyone before 1869 A.D. was totally ignorant about sexual orientation is very, well, ignorant. Plato and Aristophanes knew about it; Plato at first acknowledged and even celebrated it but then became anti-sexual and even used the “against nature” (“para physin”) term in referring to gay sex (Ironically, Plato himself was gay, and his Academy was inherited three times after his death by lovers and lovers of lovers). Could St. Paul have been drawing on this when he was inspired to write Romans? Maybe. If so, we can be sure that “God Provides” – that even when a human error is made, God shows us the way around it – sort of like a divine checksum or CRC. This is certainly the case in the obvious error in I Cor. 14:22-25, where the context (and common sense, another Divine gift) makes it very clear that tongues are actually for believers, and prophecy for unbelievers, not vice versa as St. Paul and most translations have it (The Good News Bible switches it, and provides a footnote to explain this). It seems to me that the use of “against nature” does not condemn homosexuals at all, as used in Romans. It does condemn homosexuals in Plato's Laws; so here is St. Paul (perhaps unwittingly) refuting the pagan, Late Platonic notion that homosexuality is unnatural by noting that rejecting God and one's true nature in all things is what is truly unnatural and the path to ruin; but that there is still hope since God is merciful.
In any case, we don't worship nature, we worship God. So let people argue on about what is natural (Greed, arrogance, and other sins are very “natural” in our fallen state). What really matters is what is right.
In Christ,
Nick Zymaris President, Axios USA
Login can be anonymous and anyone who logs in is welcome to add their own ideas to the Public Discussion Page.