Week 4—“I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant”
Words, Words, Words
Language is funny. We tend to act like words can mean only one thing, as if there were a definitive, set, limited meaning for each word with no variation. When there's a misunderstanding, both sides tend to blame the other for not "saying it right" or "not listening to what I'm saying."
I'm married to a Canadian. Our early years were full of learning the difference between "American English" and "Britishisms". Saying "mum" instead of "mom", "garburator" instead of "garbage disposal." "Pudding" to me is always a gelatinous mound of gooey sugary stuff, but to a Brit it can mean any sort of dessert.
Think about words like church, flag, purity, liberal, police, revival. Each one has a dictionary definition, yet comes loaded with all sorts of connotations, emotions, and associations that go far beyond the dictionary definition—and yet vary widely among groups and individuals.
This week's exploration focuses on how many of our misunderstandings and miscommunications really come down to definitions. This is especially true when it comes to the LGBTQ community. Even words like "gay" are often used differently by straight people than they are in the queer community. And the word "queer" can be uncomfortable for older folks, even sometimes within that community, who associate it with a derogatory slur.
This week we look at two very similar clobber verses, both from the apostle Paul:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10: 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 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9–10: We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.
The Greek word translated "perverts" or "homosexual offenders" is arsenokoitai. But when we talk about New Testament Greek, we are not talking about modern Greek or even classical Greek. The language the New Testament is written in is Koine Greek. There are no native Koine Greek speakers today. If you've ever struggled to read Canterbury Tales or other literature written in Middle English, you have an idea what the relationship of Koine Greek is to modern Greek.
Which is where the work of linguists comes in. When people trained in linguistics set out to translate a document from an ancient language, they have to do a bit of spelunking to translate each word. They will look at the context to give clues as to the meaning. They will look at other documents from the same era to see how they use it. For most words in the New Testament, that gives translators enough clues that they can be reasonably sure they have made a fairly reliable expression of their meaning.
But with these two verses, we have a unique challenge. First of all, there's no context in the verses themselves we can use to understand Paul's intent—they are both just lists. Lists of Bad Things, but no context to know what the Bad Thing is. Even more problematic, Paul's use of arsenokoitai is idiosyncratic—the words are found nowhere else in the Bible. Outside of the Bible it's only use comes after Paul, from writers quoting these verses. We have none of the usual clues used to translate.
Like many Greek words, arsenokoitai is a compound word—a mosh up of two other words. It literally means "men bedders." Historically it has been translated various ways: "abusers of themselves with mankind" (KJV), "the brutal," "pervert." The first time it is translated "homosexual" is in the RSV translation in 1946.
The Koine Greek word malakoi is used in conjunction with arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9. It means "soft", but can be understood in three ways: 1. Literally soft, like fabric. 2. Morally soft or spineless, not having integrity. 3. An insult aimed at effeminate men. Some apply it to the passive (penetrated) partner in sexual relations. In Roman culture, married men having sex with boys– often a slave, or protégé–was common. The "one on top" was a way of showing ranking or superiority. The NIV and NRSV both translate it "male prostitutes"—we'll talk next week about the role pagan cult prostitution might play in the clobber verses.
As we noted last week, you can see the prevailing cultural patriarchy in the notion that being "treated like a woman" is associated with shame or humiliation. Scholar Michael Vasey writes that "homosexual activity was "strongly associated with idolatry, slavery, and social dominance… often the assertion of the strong over the bodies of the weak."
Think back to the role that associations and connotations play in our understanding of words. Whatever Paul means by the term arsenokoitai what is he thinking of? Does it sound like he means anywhere remotely like loving, committed gay relationships?
The bottom line is that we simply don't know what arsenokoitai means— certainly not with enough certainty to denounce all same-sex relationships. For this reason, I like the Message translation: 1 Cor. 6:9: Don’t you realize that this is not the way to live? Unjust people who don’t care about God will not be joining in his kingdom. Those who use and abuse each other, use and abuse sex.
(for more on translating arsenokoitai, see David Gushee, Changing our Mind, p. 74-79, and Colby Martin, Unclobber ch 10).
What are the rules of sex? Are there any rules?
The fact that we are dismantling the clobber verses may seem like there are no rules, but that's not the case. It's not that sexual ethics don't matter. The way we live out our faith in our most intimate of relationships is significant. These discussions are important. But healthy sexual ethics go beyond just simplistic, arbitrary dos and don'ts. They challenge us to think deeper about how we care for and treat one another, about broad values and priorities. In many ways, that's more challenging than simply following the rules, but it also is more powerful.
Last week we looked at the relationship between the Old Testament laws and the Sermon on Mount. We saw how in the sermon, Jesus is not abolishing the Law, but "fulfilling" it—calling us to think deeply about the value or meaning behind what often look like arbitrary and superficial rules. Jesus is moving us from rigid rule-based thinking to a more thoughtful ethic based on heart attitudes.
For example, imagine for a moment that you're in a long-term monogamous marriage. One day, your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know the rules of marriage, so I've decided not to cheat. That would be breaking a rule."
Think for a moment about how you'd feel about that interaction, then imagine this alternate scenario: Your spouse comes to you and says: "I met someone new at work. They are very attractive to me, and they appear to be attracted to me as well. They've given signals they'd be open to a sexual relationship. But I know that such a betrayal would break your heart. I love you so much, I can't imagine causing you that kind of pain. It would break my heart to do that. I would never risk our relationship that way."
Notice that the outward result—fidelity—is precisely the same either way. Your spouse's behavior doesn't change. But the inner heart attitude—the motives, the stance your partner has toward you—is radically different. I think most of us would prefer the second scenario.
Sexual ethics are to be based around the values and priorities of the Kingdom of God. Colby Martin suggests these "rules" for sexual ethics (Unclobber, p.165-166):
If you are straight:
Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.
Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.
Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.
Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.
If you are gay, lesbian, bi, transgender, or queer:
Don't be flippant about your body. Don't treat it like it has no value.
Don't break your covenants, don't cheat on people.
Don't sell yourself and don't devalue others by treating them like a commodity.
Don't use your power or influence to take advantage of others.
Changing Our Mind: A Historic Example
Many of our churches are beginning to have these discussions about queer inclusion. As we do, the issue of tradition may come up. After all, "tradition" is one of the tools of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral we talked about in week two. Who are we to argue with 2000 years of Christian witness?
And yet, re-examination of long-held assumptions is also a part of Christian tradition, particularly for Protestants coming out of the Reformation. The Church has had several radical position shifts over the last two millennia. As we saw earlier in our exploration of Acts 15, in the 1st c. there was a radical shift from thinking of Christianity as something for Jews only to a broader movement that included both Jews and gentiles. In the 20th and even 21st c. we've seen shifts and debates within the church on women's roles.
A particularly revealing example is the shift in the In 17th & 18th c. among American Christians on the issue of slavery. It's interesting because it's relatively recent and was the source of intense debate—yet now is (for the most part) settled doctrine among Christians. That's a dramatic shift. How did that happen?
Let's begin by noting that the debates about slavery in the 17th & 18th c. were debates within Christianity. Both the proponents and the opponents of slavery identified as Christian. Like the discussion in Acts 15, both sides used Scripture in their arguments. But how they used Scripture was radically different. A side-by-side comparison of the texts usually cited by each side yields some interesting observations:
Proponents of slavery:
Ephesians 6:5–9 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ..
Colossians 3:22 Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.
Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,
1 Peter 2:18 Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
Abolitionist arguments:
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them
Luke 10:27 He answered: “Love your neighbor as yourself.
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus
1Corinthians 7:21–23 Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so.
1 John 4:11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another.
Looking at the two side-by-side we can see a couple of things: First, the verses cited by proponents all contain the word "slave." I believe they were written to an oppressed people, not to justify their oppression, but to reassure them that their bondage is not a barrier to belonging to the Kingdom. But the point I want to make here is that these verses were able to be plucked out without thinking or considering the context. In contrast, most of the verses used by the abolitionists did not contain the word "slave." Most were not writing about slavery per se. They weren't specific rules and regulations about slavery. Rather, they were laying down broad, general principles—Kingdom values like love and compassion and equality.
Theologian Mark Noll writes, "Nuanced biblical attacks on American slavery faced rough going precisely because they were nuanced. This position could not simply be read out of any one biblical text; it could not be lifted directly out of the page. Rather, it needed patient reflection on the entirety of the Scriptures; it required expert knowledge of the historical circumstances of ancient Near Eastern and Roman slave systems… and it demanded that sophisticated interpretive practice replace a commonsensical literal approach to the sacred text." -The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.
How can these same principles inform the way that we read the clobber verses? How often are we drawn to the simple, the easy, the obvious? We love certainty and clarity. But life is not like that. Life is not simple. Life is complex, full of complicated problems with multiple factors. As appealing as they might be, simple answers to complex problems are usually wrong.
One of the ways we show the value we place on the Bible, our faith, and one another, is our willingness to engage hard questions thoughtfully with complex, nuanced thought. That doesn't mean everyone has to be a biblical scholar, but it does mean we are called to be thoughtful and prayerful about our lives and our relationships. About Scripture and about our faith. About living life in the Kingdom.
In the US, almost every denomination ended up dividing over the issue of slavery during the Civil War. Some reunited after the war, some did not. At the end of our conversation about these radical shifts around gentile inclusion, slavery, and women's roles, one of our participants added a very wise observation: The pain that was felt as denominations, churches, and even families divided over slavery is so similar to the pain in Methodist and Nazarene Churches right now, as they were a decade ago in Presbyterian and Episcopal churches. And yet, there were those who were willing to endure the pain of conflict, to continue to speak out, because ending slavery was so vitally important. The pain they felt, the division and losses in membership, were the cost of justice, the necessary birth pains of what was to come. The same is true now in our debates around sexuality. This is holy work. So we pray for the UMC and the Nazarene Church, believing in faith that in the end, Love Wins.
This week's clobber verses were fairly simple to dispense with. Next week we will tackle the most challenging of the clobber verses—Romans 1. Taking these tools with us, being willing to do the hard work, will be essential to this task.
Come, Holy Spirit, come. Make us willing to do the hard work of loving well. Make us willing to think deeply about your word and the life you are calling us to. Help us move beyond simple answers to the deeper love, the deeper life, you have for us. Amen.