C. Wayne Mayhall, who wrote the article, starts with telling us about his meeting with the Reverend Robyn Provis of MCC in Minneapolis. By his account, she stated that the sure fire way to stop inter-faith dialogues is for Evangelicals to bring up the supposed "Clobber Passages," what she believes is an underhanded tactic. First, this is the opinion of one woman. I, and all who advocate gay-affirming theology from the standpoint the Bible is God-breathed, not only want to engage these passages, we HAVE to engage these passages. Second, I believe he only brings this conversation up is because he's implying gay affirming Christians try to avoid having to look at these passages.
This article is big on personality and little with explaining arsenokoitai. I'm asking my self now why am I even at this party?
He next quotes Theologians Douglas Stuart and Gordon D. Fee. Now Fee is a respected theologian giving a sound approach to the quote. What Mayhall might have missed is Fee admits arsenokoitai is 'almost never (?)' used to mean "homosexual" and Paul would have used other terminology if he in fact wanted to convey that. Reading Fee, who's a prominent member of the First Assembly of God Church, you come away with a sense, at least with the 1 Corinthians passage, that he knows it probably doesn't mean homosexuality as we understand it today, but his church saying; "Clearly the Bible states homosexual practice is sin" stops him from coming right out and saying it. I wish Fee would man up and be true to the Gospel instead of pandering to the prejudices of men that keep him in the contented place he has in the AoG church I once belonged to. Only you will answer for your cowardice Gordon. God forgive you.
Not to take away from Mel White being a relevant voice in the dialogue with the Church on homosexuality, but I really don't see why his opinion is here in what should be a hermeneutics discussion on arsenokoitai. He is not a legitimately credentialed "Theologian" as claimed in the article and the only reason I see White here is that it's of his opinion; "... the Greek word arsenokoitai, used for “homosexual” in 1 Corinthians 6:9, seems to refer to same-sex behavior," what the author of this article wants to establish.
Mayhall then quotes White in saying; "Some scholars believe Paul was coining a name to refer to customers of ‘the effeminate call boys’ (White is talking about Boswell).
White says a biased translator put the word "homosexual" in the 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy passages (he's talking about Bruce Metzger, translator and editor of the RSV Bible).
Stanton L. Jones is a Psychologist and is as much as a Theologian as White. As with White, I don't know why his opinion is here in a hermeneutics discussion. Asking an Evangelical Psychologist about asenokoitai is like asking an Evangelical pastry chef about malakoi.
I do give credit to Mayall for including a gay-affirming theologian with legitimate credentials and whose opinion should be the only one that matters here. Even this biased article had to admit; "Theologian John H. Elliott has written one of the most thorough studies of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 to date."
This ends on Gagnon giving his 2 cents.
This is yet another example of why of this blog dedicates so much time on Robert Gagnon. Over and over Gagnon will be cited in discussions like these as the final say.
This is my response to Gagnon's 4 "propositions."
1. Ironically, Gagnon is broadening the Levitical prohibition from it's unqualified nature of Moloch worship forbidden to the ancient Jews entering the land of Canaan to narrow the ambiguous nature of arsenokoitai.
Proposition 2 is deceptive. The accounts of arsenokoitai being used outside of vice lists are exploitative acts of homosexual rape or pederasty (Zeus raping Ganymede, Nass sexually exploiting Adam).
3. This is refuted by 1 Timothy's absence of malakoi. Koites when used as a suffix in compounds always denotes a penetrative aggressor, never the passive. A passive homosexual would not be prohibited here.
4. A circular argument (what Gagnon does often). Romans speaks on 1 Corinthians as prohibitive of homosexuality - 1 Corinthians echoes back to Romans prohibiting homosexuality.
Romans should be unpacked according to its own context. It also begs the question. If Romans prohibits homosexuality regardless of its idolatry context, why doesn't Paul use arsenokoitai in Romans?
Equip also has less-than-fair article writers like Joseph Gudel who wrote these little tidbits:
" ... even from a secular perspective, the unbiased reader is forced to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy nor a natural lifestyle.
"... influencing children at a very early age is part of the "gay rights agenda."
"It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God [italics his]."
Nope, no personal bias from Mr. Gudel here.
I also commented (RQC) on this site and my reply button was yanked away, stopping me from furthering the debate by making me look like I stopped responding. A Catamite is not a type of "homosexual." The closest you can come with catamite to any 'type' of homosexuality is a boy being feminized for sexual purposes or as an insult you are one to a grown man.
Brent Bolin wrote an excellent post on the error of people like Bruce who think Strong's Concordance should interpret the Bible.
6 comments:
Hello, good sir! This is C. Wayne Mayhall, the writer of the article that you critique here. I am not sure you are still maintaining this site, but I would love to enter in to dialogue with you over this particular subject (or any other for that matter).
Please let me know if you are interested?
Kindly,
C. Wayne Mayhall
There is zero evidence arsenokoitai was understood as referring to the kind of male same sex acts two gay men in a loving marriage would practise today. Where it appears in early Christian literature it exclusively refers to abusive male same sex acts with a societal or age power differential like a freeman raping a freeborn boy or boy slave, or a freeman raping a man slave. That’s not to say it wasn’t referring to male same sex acts in some description, but it was exclusively used with reference to acts that even today we would find morally abhorrent & unacceptable. Gay men do not rape men or boys.
Gagnon is I believe in the minority position of scholars in his stance:
In The Source New Testament and The Gay and Lesbian Study Bible, Dr. Ann Nyland, Faculty in Ancient Greek language and Ancient History in the Department of Classics and Ancient History, the University of New England in Australia, says the following “The word arsenokoitai in 1 Cor. 6:9 and 1 Tim. 1:10 has been assumed to mean “homosexual.” However the word does not mean “homosexual,” and its range of meaning includes one who may anally penetrates another (female or male), a rapist, a murderer or an extortionist.”
Dr Gordon Fee in The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The First Epistle To The Corinthians, p. 244, writes the following: “arsenokoitai is rarely used in Greek literature when describing homosexual acts.”
Welcome. It's nice to have confirmation of what I wrote. Thank you.
I give the sources on what you stated on arsenokoite here: https://www.rottenqueerchristian.com/2012/07/arsenokoitai.html
I believe I have audio, or at least reference it, of Gagnon stating in an interview his hermeneutics are in the minority and I was surprised he admitted it.
In a scholarship editing of the Greek New Testament, I discuss Nyland's view with a man who tried to state the opposite of what she said.
Thank you for the source on what Fee stated on arsenokoite for anyone who would question it.
I truly appreciate your feedback.
Do you have a source that Gagnon admitted he was in the minority because if so that would be very helpful? (I’m the anon that commented above btw)
Hey you. I said that in a post 10 years ago. It was just an audio and I wouldn't even know where to look for it again now.
Two sources, both 4 years old, are YTs of him saying he left teaching at Pittsburgh Seminary because his viewpoint was now the minority (Falls Pillar Podcast, Houston Christian University) and how his view is the minority one in mainline denominations (Worldview Conference, Illinois Family Institute). He made a post in 2014 (tongue in cheek) asking if Evangelicals would take him because no one likes him for what he says about homosexuality now. And of course, Gagnon sees this turn as coming from "indoctrination by culture" and not from hermeneutics better than his.
Thank you
Post a Comment