Arsenokoitas, Etc

Recently, I was surfing the web. I was interested in how people try to square the language of ICorinthinans 6: 9-10 with the notion that practing, self-affirming homosexuals ought to be ordained to be Ministers of Word and Sacrament.

I found onw webpage (http://www.gaychurch.org/Gay_and_Christian_YES/calling_the_rainbow_nation_home/7c_gac_clobber_passages_arsenokoitais.htm) which attempted to do so.

Here is the language of ICorinthians 6:9-10: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Seems rather clear -- homosexuals shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

"Elaine" makes an effort to say that some homosexuals may, in fact, inherit the kingdom of God.

Here is how she does it: She takes the word that is translated "homosexuals" -- arsenokoitais -- and says that it can be translated a number of different ways -- it does not, according to Elaine, always mean "homosexuals", at least as she understands that word today.

Elaine observes this: "God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33) and given half a chance, Scripture will interpret Scripture. Furthermore, all Scripture (if properly interpreted) will ‘line up’ with other Scriptural truths, such as the Law of Agape love that is the great commandment and covenant we are now under (Matthew 22:37-40; Galatians 5:14; Romans 13:8-11; John 13:34). If our conclusions don’t line up with these truths or contradict other Scriptural truths, then we’ve missed it and we need to begin again."

In other words, if we conclude something, based on our interpretation -- or the tranlsation of a word -- of scripture, and if the conclusion contradicts another Scriptural truth (for instance, what Elaine calls "the Law of Agape Love" that Elaine says "is the great commandment and covenant we are now under"), then our conclusion (or the translation of a given word) is in error.

Then Elaine asks this question: "Does being a homosexual seem to fit into the same ‘line-up’ as the ones Paul describes in these passages?"

She quickly responds to her own question with this remarkable statement: "We can easily see how fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, swindlers, murderers and the like break the great commandment of Agape love."

She then says this: "But does a loving homosexual relationship? I just don’t see it. Sometimes a good dose of common sense is good when interpreting the Word of God."

I have a couple of observations. First, if, as Elaine postulates, we are now under the "Law of Agape Love", and if the Law allows loving homosexual relationships, then wouldn't the same Law (which Elaine seems to suggest is that we should just love everyone who loves) apply to people in loving polyamourous relationships? What would Elaine say about whether three, four, or more people all in a "loving relationship"? Would she say that they "break the great commandment of Agape love", or not. If not, why not? All three, four, or more, of the people involved are, after all, in a "loving relationship".

Moreover, what would Elaine have to say about two siblings who are in a "loving relationship"? Isn't incest forbidden only in the Old Testament? And aren't we living now under a New Covenant and a New Commandment -- the Law of Agape Love? Just what would be wrong with a brother and a sister (or two brothers and one sister or three sisters and one brother) being in a "loving relationship"?

There's another curious thing about what Elaine says. She says that "We can easily see how fornicators,...break the great commandment of Agape love." But I don't think that we can "easily" see that at all -- based on Elaine's description of the "Law of Agape Love". What, after all, is a fornicator? I understand a fornicator to be someone who has sex with a person he or she is not married to. But can't people who are not married be in a "loving relationship"? (Note that fornicators are not the same as adulterers. Adulterers are people who are married but who have sex with someone other than their own spouse.) I wonder why Elaine thinks it is so easy to see nhow fornicators break the great commandment of agape love. She seems to be quite judgmental -- suggesting that fornicators are never in "loving relationships". Perhaps Elaine just doesn't know any fornicator who is in a "loving relationship". I bet there are several. Or perhaps Elaine will find some way to say that the word translated as "fornicator" really doesn't mean "fornicator" -- as we use that word today.

Elaine's conclusion is this: "So what is God teaching us through these passages? First, that He is not for or against any particular sexual orientation. What God is against is a lifestyle of casually jumping from one bed partner to the next without regard to the consequences of such a union. Such sexual practices are self serving (read SELFISH), don’t foster long lasting commitments between partners and can spread diseases such as AIDS like wildfire!"

Note what she says: God is not for or against any particular sexual orientation. Would that include pedophilia, I wonder. Elaine would seems to suggest that pedophilia is OK -- as long as a pedophile doesn't "jump from one bed partner to another without regard to the "consequences" of such a union". Elaine seems to suggest that God would approve of a "loving relationship" between a 70-year-old man and a 15-year-old woman as long as it "fosters a long lasting commitment" and doesn't spread diseases like AIDS.

And what would Elaine say to all the young men and women who are bombarded with sexual images daily? Would she suggest abstinence until marriage? (Remember, Elaine said that we can easily see that "fornicators" will not inherit the Kingdom of God). Somehow, I don't think Elaine support abstinence education for young people. I bet she support teaching young people that sex is OK if it takes place in a "loving relationship", and if the young people take precautions to guard against the spread of STD's -- like AIDS.

I think Elaine is not quite right in her analysis.