Trouble Finds Me

The site equip.org gives a poorly put together post on arsenikoitai.


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.

Robert Gagnon the Hypocrite

Snippet of E-mails Robert Gagnon received and his responses taken from Gagnon's own website that shows his bias:

"How do you think pastors should deal with the question of divorce and remarriage?"

Gagnon's response:

The divorce-remarriage thing is difficult. While a serious issue it is not as serious as... homosexual practice." 

The question of heterosexuals living together outside of marriage asked Gagnon with the header; "Is heterosexual cohabitation grounds for denying church membership?"

Gagnon's response:

"My answer is: No, it is not as serious as homosexual practice..."

Robert Gagnon the Ass

A snippet of an E-mail Robert Gagnon received from a gay Christian and his response taken from Gagnon's own website:

"I pray that God will show you more compassion and love towards your gay brothers and sisters in the future."

Gagnon's response:

"Your prayers are self-serving and based on your own flawed logic and poor reading of Scripture. The remark is, frankly, arrogant on your part."


One blog critic had Gagnon prefacing a rebuttal with saying the blog author lost his job. The sole purpose of this was to embarrass him.

If Your Name Isn't On It Gagnon...

Steven Tuell, Professor of Hebrew and Old Testament, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. I found him by accident when I stumbled across his blog. What's unique about Mr. Tuell is that he was at the same theological seminary Robert Gagnon went to, but unlike Robert, he is gay affirming with the Bible.


In honor of Mr. Tuell who loves Appalachian music.

Scholar James Brownson on Gagnon's "Gender Complementarity"

Reviews of Brownson's book; "Bible, Gender, Sexuality: Reframing the Church's Debate on Same-Sex Relationships:"

*"Brownson does a great job of explaining the difficult verses in context and history. Over the years, as I have had conversations with conservative pastors in hopes that they would consider broader understanding of biblical texts, it is apparent that many of these pastors have relied heavily upon the writings of Robert Gagnon. Prof. Brownson tackles Gagnon's objections with ease. Gagnon is masterful at taking a verse, making a supposition, calling that a fact and creating a "biblical truth." Brownson skillfully confronts those assumptions... 

If I were to pick ONE book, and have it placed on the desk of every conservative pastor in the United States, that book would be Brownson's book."

- Barnes&Noble review.


*"This work is the only one I know of that gives such extended attention to dissecting and deconstructing arguments against same-sex relationships based on "gender complimentarity." Brownson clearly defines the different ways of understanding what is at the heart of different gender complimentarity arguments, and then proceeds to dismantle these arguments through very careful and close readings of the relevant biblical texts, especially Genesis 1-3. His critical interaction with the complimentarity arguments of Robert Gagnon, who has written the strongest and most comprehensive work for the traditional view, is worth the price of the book."

- Amazon review.


*"Along the way, Dr. Brownson offers gentle but strong critiques of previous works on the topic from both sides of the debate. Herein lies one of the strengths of the book: Brownson seems to have read everything out there on the topic prior to his own book. I can’t think of a single argument on either side that he leaves unaddressed (bold italics by author). True to his non-combative style, Brownson classifies the various positions of previous authors, not as “pro-gay” and “anti-gay” terms that incite more than they describe but as “traditionalist” and “revisionist.” And he is balanced in calling into question some approaches from both camps. (Particularly devastating is his analysis of traditionalist Robert Gagnon’s focus on the gender non-complementarity of gay relationships. I mean, there is just nothing left of Gagnon’s argument when Brownson is finished, and it all unfolds in the most scholarly, respectful manner)."

- Christian author Matt Rogers.

Gagnon and Anal Walk into a Bar...

This comment is from Jason Westerly, a commentator on my Disqus service, on Robert Gagnon and it's worth repeating here:

Preface: A fan of Gagnon happened to stumble on this post and said he found it offensive. He didn't find any other post offensive that showed Gagnon twisting the Bible like a double pretzel, but THIS post was way too much for him with besmirching the character of Gagnon. It's like Jason Westerly just insulted his school girl crush.

I give Mr. Westerly the floor.


"Reading through several of your published works and discerning your arguments, this is your hermeneutic:

1. God created things to follow a heterosexual order - the natural way biology functions.

2. Anal sex doesn't do this. Therefore it is a serious disorder.

3. Exegesis of all relevant bible passages condemns anal sex.

4. Jesus probably would condemn anal sex.

5. Paul did condemn anal sex.

6. Gay committed loving relationships can involve the practice of anal sex, therefore God condemns them.

7. Gay committed loving relationships are not really loving relationships because men are more promiscuous than women.

8. Though the civil marriage contract reduces male promiscuity, we must prevent homosexuals from engaging in marriage because that would reduce their promiscuity and add stability to their relationships. This is because God does not approve of loving committed homosexual relationships because there is anal sex.

9. Although homosexuals complain that the marriage ban restriction has harmed them and their relationships, making them very difficult to keep together in today's social and economic environment, they must be prevented because God condemns them because of anal sex.

10. Although homosexuals as well as various studies recount that orientation is very difficult to change and that efforts have resulted in enormous psychological damage, we must continue to encourage them to try, provide prayerful help, and provide assistance to maintain celibacy. We must do this because God condemns committed loving homosexual relationships because of anal sex.

11. If we permit the ban on civil marriage rights for homosexuals, then we will fall down the slippery slope to polygamy, incest, pederasty and other horrible things. We must not permit the ban to be lifted because God condemned committed loving homosexual relationships because of anal sex. God spent a great deal of the Old Testament enabling people to prevent people from doing things. Therefore we must prevent the ban on civil marriage for homosexuals to be lifted.

12. Notwithstanding HIV transmission in Africa and the practice of anal sex among heterosexuals in North America, homosexual anal sex must be singled out as the primary vector for sexually spread disease. It is important we place emphasis on homosexual sex practices to the exclusion of others because God condemns loving committed homosexual relationships because of anal sex.

13. Speaking out against homosexuality is fraught with peril. People may yell at you and tell you that your viewpoints cause violence and hatred. You will feel oppressed while you are yelled at while doing the oppressing. But, we must carry on because God condemns loving committed homosexual relationships because of anal sex. We must discourage violence as much as possible so people don't go to Africa like Scott Lively did to help them pass laws encouraging the assassination, murdering, and burnings of homosexuals. We must do everything possible to try and disconnect our rhetoric and the apparent coldness of heart we exhibit toward them from such violence lest our indications of God's complete and utter condemnation make people inflamed, angry and violent.

14. Jesus demanded we love our neighbor. We do this all out of love. Even though they wail and scream and cry and demonstrate enormous personal and group suffering, we must press on because they are sinning horribly by having anal sex. Even though our message brings them to leave the church in droves, except for a pesky few, we must inject ourselves in civil secular society. We must do everything possible to gum up any chance of their lives improving, such as by removing bans allowing their relationships to strengthen, because this encourages more and more anal sex. And, God hates anal sex.

15. Although there are few verses in the Bible regarding anal sex, they are significant. Anal sex is condemned by God and we must, no matter the cost to anyone, continue to do whatever is possible to prevent homosexuals from having stable relationships because God condemns them because of anal sex.

16. Although Jesus says to love your neighbor, the six or seven scriptural passages condemning anal sex mean loving our homosexual neighbors means we must prevent them from having civil rights allowing them to form stable relationships that in any way symbolically or legally equate their relationships with heterosexuals because God hates anal sex.

Conclusion:
We must do whatever is possible to attack homosexuality because the natural law sitting at the base of our hermeneutic says anal sex is gross.

Dr. Gagnon, are you perhaps a goat?

- your happily married (19 yrs together) Christian homosexual fans."

Gagnon's Poor Passion

David Kyle Foster, who first posted this video on YouTube, pushes Gagnon videos on his website. And of course, he's yet another "ex-gay" who blames homosexuality for the same-sex trauma he experienced as a boy. He also blames it for his drug addiction, sex addiction, and steak fat addiction. He probably sat in a dark room thinking what else he could pin on homosexuality (this one makes the fantastic claim that 85% of lesbians come from abuse to all gay men have an "arrested emotional development"' because "not one of them had a loving father"). I don't know what it is, but ex-gays either come off as creepy, fanatical or feign this hyper-happiness with glassy eyes like they're in a cult. David falls in the first category.

He won't let anyone post a refute on this Gagnon video because he's afraid Gagnon is going to be made fun of in the comments section (exhibit: A) he can't control, so he just hoards this video that gives Gagnon the opportunity to bullet his arguments without a challenge.

Since Foster will delete any dissenting view or negative comment on all of his YouTube comments (I believe he's literally checking comments on the daily and is ready and waiting with his trigger finger on the delete button), I thought I'd bring Gagnon here.

Gagnon pulls the same stunt on his own YouTube channel with even a little length of a refute. Gagnon also refuses to debate the audience with any type of a Q&A after one of his speaking engagements because he's a control freak with a debate setting.

[Updated: Someone contacted me and stated Gagnon will answer little questionnaire cards submitted by the audience, cards he can either reject or accept as long as they don't talk, but this is very different with having a dialogue back and forth with someone in the audience who can point out the contradictions and errors of what he's saying after he's said them.]

This blog has pointed out the error that's the "moral, ritual and ceremonial" paradigm enough to what's being presented by Gagnon here. The man thinks Paul speaks from the center of these Old Testament prohibitions with almost everything he wrote, as if the old Pharisee Saul didn't really completely die to the Law, but still makes a guest appearance from time to time. He misses the very core message of Paul who said the old prohibitions are dead to us and ignores Paul saying in 2 Corinthians; "He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" and again in Romans; "But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." It's re-stated in Acts; "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?" And in Hebrews; "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless." "The law is only a shadow, not the realities themselves."
Even the ancient Jews believed the new "Messianic Torah" would replace their written Torah; "The Torah that a person learns in this present age is trifling compared to the Law of the Messianic King" (Koheles Rabah 11:8).

Homosexuality was never 'absolutely' proscribed in the New Testament. You have the homosexuality entwined with idolatry in Romans 1 where Paul patterns his sin list in Romans from other idolatry vice lists popular in his day and from Deuteronomy that mirrors Romans word for word. Paul only spoke on homosexuality through the narrow lens of idolatry or exploitation with Gagnon taking these examples to make a blanket statement on homosexuality using clever and deceptive hermeneutics tricks and I already brought up Gagnon's error of seeing homosexuality as being equal to exploitive homosexuality, so I don't need to go further with correcting this view he continues with now and later in the video with his interpretation of "arsenokoites" that's easily refuted by me all over this blog. This is a perfect example of Gagnon's "half-readings" which I first brought up in my critique of his book. He quotes extensively from David F. Greenberg's book; "The Construction of Homosexuality" (a book I've also read) in his book. Greenberg gives an exhaustive narrative of homosexuality through the ages as a practice without condemning comment or consequence, all documented by Greenberg, all deliberately left out by Gagnon.

Gagnon brings up his two children and what they KNOW is wrong and equates that with how we are supposed to feel about homosexuality, we should KNOW it's wrong. Gagnon believes so strongly and so deeply homosexuality is so contrary to anything right or good or holy, that he's incredulous you can't see it. This is a tactic of his to make you feel foolish with what he thinks you should see as a given. This is Gagnon who sees homosexuality as the equivalent of "a child touching a hot stove."

He takes apart the easy argument of those who bring up the "abomination" of mixing two types of cloth with the "abomination" of homosexuality in Leviticus. Why doesn't he bring up the more complex issue of divorce Christ takes away from Moses? The sin of usury in the Old Testament Christ actually carried over, unlike homosexuality? Breaking the Sabbath that also calls for the death penalty? Circumcision the Old Testament says is a "forever" act? Or the other slew of what the Bible calls "abominations?"

Leave it up to Gagnon to make the story of the woman who was going to be stoned to be about the woman's adultery and not about how we are to be merciful and not judging, what Christ tells us to go and 'do likewise' in Luke 10:37. What do we get out of what Jesus did in here according to Gagnon? Saving someone for the future "Kingdom of God" who may choose not to repent. Is it this? Or is it Jesus showing the example of bestowing mercy over the letter of the law (James 2:12,13) to the crowd of witnesses? What made Him an enemy to the Scribes and the Pharisees who brought the woman to Christ to be stoned according to "The Law." By implication, Gagnon says Jesus would have taken part in the stoning if He could, but begrudgingly stops Himself for the singular reason of saving her for "The Kingdom." This is yet another case of Gagnon not being able to take his head out of "Old Testament" weights and balances and missing the mark that Christ did what He did to give an example to the listeners around the adulteress and to us.

Paul called out a man at the church in Corinth for what he was doing that hurt another with what was a transgressional relationship, Gagnon says it's the same with two non-related homosexuals (ironically, Gagnon has stated that the Corinthian man's incest is preferable to homosexuality even when the Bible gives no such account of Paul taking a stance with a homosexual man in the church). He takes the Greek word "Porneia" (harlotry) in the verse describing the Corinthian man's sin and carries that description to mean homosexuality. In all Biblical instances, the word is used, without exception, it is either in reference to a breaking of a marriage obligation or prostitution and is never carried over to homosexuality, what Gagnon would have you believe that again is him broadening a prohibition beyond it's clear and stated borders.

Gagnon gives away his bias against Homosexuality by saying tolerance is not loving, but then he says to show tolerance to the divorced with the excuse it's a "one-time sin" and immediately it stops being a sin or living in a state of sin.

His question of; "Are homosexuals at risk?" He answers his own question because to him there is no other answer. Gagnon uses the term "Aggressive Love" which to him translates as fighting legislation that would stop gay children from being bullied in school to writing letters to church bodies telling them to kick gays out, THIS is Gagnon's "love" in action, a love he thinks he sees with Christ. Unlike what Gagnon believes, love does not dishonor others or demand its way... just ask Paul (1 Cor 13:5), a 'good disciple' of Jesus.

No comment is needed further with Gagnon's claim the only problem the Pharisees had with Christ was because he was pushy with an even more intensified Old Testament ethic while at the same time being loving, I really wonder if Gagnon believes this stupidity himself.

This is one of Gagnon's weakest arguments (I'm assuming you stop the vid and read what I say as he's talking), along with the since discredited "science" in his book, that somehow men and women are to be 'complimentary parts' to each other and is a large part of why he believes as he does. I point out this error of his in my review of his book; "The Construction of Homosexuality... " and another reference to his work is another solid treatise on this pagan-based belief. Gagnon goes to bogus science because he can never show the "consequence" of homosexuality he compares to vices that do have notable consequences in Paul's vice lists.

When Gagnon brings up the fact Christ never talks about homosexuality by saying Christ never brought up incest either, he misses the fact Sodom was brought up to Christ. Instead of leading Christ to expand further with what was the sin of Sodom, Christ says nothing other than making it a case for hospitality.* When Christ comes across the same-sex practicing Centurion, He says nothing other than to admire the faith of the Centurion, When Christ does speak on marriage, he's quick to bring up "born eunuchs" Gagnon himself concedes could fit the the historical definition of a homosexual.

He claims that the Christians of Paul's day would have seen homosexuality as a given prohibition from the Old Testament like incest, let's look at that closer.

Gagnon states; "There is no record of a Jew practicing homosexuality in early Judaism" and "There is no dissenting opinion anywhere in Judaism on the subject of homosexuality," he's wrong (see; "Wrestling with God and Men: Homosexuality in the Jewish Tradition" by Steven Greenberg and "Jacob's Wound: Homoerotic Narrative in the Literature of Ancient Israel" by Theodore W. Jennings Jr).

Gagnon's false claim of the Greek term "Malakoi" he tries to pass off as meaning an effeminate 'gay' man is easily refuted by myself and others (see "Love Lost In Translation" by K. Renato Lings with outside sources referenced: 490 - 499).

The Hebrew expression mishkav zakhar is the Hebrew translation of "lying of a male" from Numbers 31:18 and is only describing the act of penetration. 

This is a refutation of Gagnon saying Leviticus is an absolute prohibition on homosexuality even outside of its idolatry context with outside sources referenced (see; Myth 2# and 2-3 A – Seven Myths in the Homophobic Interpretations of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that also addresses Gagnon's other points mentioned in the video.

It's worth repeating what scholar Jean-Fabrice Nardelli has to say on Gagnon that needs no further comment:

"Once and for all, let it be said that Gagnon is an inaccurate and poor student of Biblical homosexuality: he is far too opinionated and self-indulging for someone who would have us believe in his impeccable judgment (whence my jibe at his status as an ayatollah), has no grasp whatsoever of the major ancient Near Eastern languages apart from Masoretic Hebrew, never consults scholarly literature in other tongues (German and French Bible studies simply do not exist for him), and he is ridiculously parochial in his selection of primary and secondary sources (they are principally American, and wherever possible come from the Evangelical right). Just consult any piece of his which appears on his website; you will discover that he is all rhetoric and blistering, with virtually nothing in guise of scientific apparatus. I would have been loathe to expose him for what he is had he been decent enough not to charge his opponents with gross dishonesty. So let us not mince words any longer. As a parting shot, I shall like to adduce a point which speaks volumes about his academic credentials: in more than a decade, Gagnon only produced one large book (under, one might add, the covers of a religious publisher, not an academic press) and a handful of papers in peer-reviewed journals; such an output for a senior scholar, coupled with the fact that at well over fifty he is still an Assistant Professor in a second-rate theological seminary, comes on a long way, I think, towards explaining his tooth-and-nail stance as an ideologue and his preference for online preaching over academic work."



*Gagnon brings up Sodom in not this video, but elsewhere in an attempt to force the story from lack of hospitality he admits is the gist of the story to homosexuality. My response is here that also covers Jude 1:7. He makes the lack of hospitality with Sodom about homosexuality and then says no ancient Jews ever practiced homosexuality, yet Jeremiah 23:14 says this about the people of Israel; "...They are all like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah." You can't have it both ways by making Sodom about homosexuality and saying the Jews didn't practice homosexuality when Israel was like Sodom.
As you can see, Gagnon has thoroughly refuted with what are his general arguments he condensed in the above video on homosexuality and the Bible.

Gagnon the Martyr

"The opening subtitle of Gagnon's (book) Introduction is "The Personal Risks Inherent in Writing Such a Book" outlines the great personal danger he is facing for entering this debate.

Such a claim is extremely unrealistic. Gay people don't persecute Christians except in the minds of those with a "persecution complex". Nobody has ever heard of gay parents throwing out their kids for being Christian, Christian teens are not committing suicide at unusually high rates, the boy-scouts don't ban Christian leaders, we do not hear of cake shops and B&B's denying business to Christian couples, gay cults don't picket the funerals of Christian soldiers, there is no alarming violence perpetrated on those who are perceived to be Christians in the streets, nor do people get fired from gay organisations if they're outed as Christian by a colleague ... You get my drift. "Persecution" is faced by the vulnerable in society, not by dominant ideological forces such as conservative Evangelicalism. Gagnon's "personal risk" is a fantasy. It is about as sympathetic, if slightly less melodrmatic, than Pauline Hanson's video tape recording: "if you are watching this, I have been murdered..."

As a male, heterosexually married, Christian author, Gagnon ought to be aware of his privilege, and write with some humility about it. Because he does not acknowledge it, and in fact maintains a delusion of persecution, his unrecognised privilege become a blind spot which will distort his interpretation of biblical texts."

- Unknown.

- From critical-discipleship.blogspot.com

On Gagnon, Eunuchs, and Bed Keepers

linkasa

For a Lost Soldier

One thing I never approached in the Bible is the story of the "Centurion and his Servant" (Luke 7:1-10, Matt 8:5-13). Whether or not the Centurion's servant was his gay lover never mattered to me because even though Jesus heals the servant, He never either condemns or condones the relationship, so it tells me nothing about how Jesus felt about homosexuality in this specific instance.

4 days ago I went on a poorly put-together website that posted about the Centurion's story with how the word for his servant was the Greek word "Pais." That's about all the blog author got right about the story. The anti-gay blogger tried to make it very clear it had no sexual connotations and that it was a pro-gay apologist like me reading into the text. He also threw in the colorful kicker that I should stop with "my inordinate affections" and turn from this "Chimera Christ I invented." I don't know what he thought I did with Christ when I said nothing about Him saying anything about homosexuality. It's ironic that this blogger is talking about monsters when he stitched together bits and pieces of what he thinks the Bible says about homosexuality to make his anti-gay Frankenstein.

First, the whole story of the Centurion and his servant is strange in that you had a Roman Centurion building a Synagogue for the Jews. The Romans and the Jews had nothing to do with each other, so what was it about this Roman who developed such an affection for these Jews to do this? Where and how did he develop this love for the Jews who like him back so much that go looking for Jesus to plead his case for him? 

So here you have a Roman Centurion, given the utmost respect in Roman society, looking for a Jewish faith healer to humiliate himself before with BEGGING (the term parakaloon used in Matthew verse 5 means 'beg') him to heal his "beloved" servant. Keep in mind that a Roman Centurion can get a replacement for his sick servant as easily as getting a loaf of sourdough bread (1st century Romans were big on sourdough). 

So is this just a run-of-the-mill story of a military man of high ranking in Roman society who debased himself for his lowly servant to be healed?

A pais, the term used for this servant in the verse is used in other parts of the Bible without a sexual component (the Centurion ALSO talks about a common house servant in verse 9 because a different Greek word is used), but in this SPECIFIC CONTEXT, the outside-the-Bible historical record of a Roman Centurion with his male slave, narrows it down for us. Historians like Kenneth Dover, and what even Robert Gagnon himself admits, shows that a pais is used for homosexual sex (The Bible And Homosexual Practice, p. 163, footnote 6.) and there are accounts from the time that back it up (Plato’s Symposium (385 B.C.E.), The History of the Peloponnesian War (433-411 B.C.E.), Aeschines [Against Timarchos] (345 B.C.E.). Around 13 B.C.E, Augustus banned soldiers from marrying so it could not have been his "son" or even a bastard son that would have cost him his position and a banishment from Roman society.

Were the Centurion and his servant lovers? When you think about it, it really doesn't matter whether his pais was or not (Even though he started out as a "servant," who knows how the relationship evolved. Boswell showed the age range can be up to only 3 years in age difference between a Centurion and his male slave so it wouldn't have been a case of pederasty. Gagnon also states it could be a full-grown man). The people who were witnessing this exchange between Jesus and this Roman BELIEVED, as according to the custom and norm of Roman Centurions with male slaves, there was sexual hanky-panky going on between the two. Historically this was a given and Jesus never clarified to the surrounding crowd saying; "Wait! I know you're thinking this Centurion is talking about his servant lover as is the custom with these Romans, BUT, that's NOT the case here crowd of people and that's the only reason I'm healing his beloved pais"

Jesus ends with being "amazed" (amazing the Son of God is itself amazing) and praising the centurion's faith by saying; "I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith." Maybe that's why the anti-gay crowd won't give this nameless Centurion 'the love that dare not speak its name,' who wants to be bettered in faith by a man lover?

In the comments section below, a blogger (who's posting as "Anonymous") links to what Robert Gagnon has to say on the Centurion's story (I refuted a bogus scientific study on homosexuals he posted and it looks like he couldn't wait to get back at me). 

I'll respond here outside of the comments section. Let me start by saying I'm the wrong person to bring Gagnon up to. I have no respect for his hackneyed scholarship. Others have pointed out his circular way of reasoning and there are significant refutes others have given to his harangues.
Let me address his 6 points that are "airtight."

1. "Sex with male slaves not a universal phenomenon."

His claim that a homosexual practicing Centurion can't be "God-fearing" just shows how out of touch Gagnon is with the subject he claims to be an expert on. Gagnon really believes that if you do homosexual acts, whether it's an innate desire or not, it's IMPOSSIBLE to be "God-fearing" so the Centurion couldn't possibly be practicing homosexuality. This is a perfect example of Gagnon not seeing the real world with real people. He gives no evidence for his claim that a male slave being a sexual subject was NOT the norm with the Romans with all the evidence clearly showing otherwise from historians (Dover, Nissinen, Jennings & Liew, and David F. Greenberg who Gagnon quotes extensively in his book; "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics").

2. "Jesus would have had to have been endorsing rape in this case."

Gagnon assumes the relationship between the Centurion and his pais was an exploitative rape relationship when the historical record shows how a slave was treated was dependent on the slave owner. The story shows a relationship of affection, not an exploitative one. It fits the character of the man in this story with love in his heart for a hated people by the Roman populace and having a great faith that even amazed the Son of God.

3. "Jesus’s fraternization with tax collectors and sexual sinners does not suggest support for their behavior."

I actually agree somewhat with Gagnon on this point even though Jesus was criticized for fraternizing with all types of sinners, Like I said in my post, the Centurion's story really doesn't tell me anything about Jesus's view of homosexuality. The problem with Gagnon is that he loves to read omission as prohibition in the Biblical narrative, a bad way of reading the Bible even for an elementary Bible reader and he lumps homosexuals with sexual sinners even when we have no account of Christ encountering a homosexual outside of the Centurion that we know of outside of the Gospel accounts.

4. "The Jewish elders in Luke 7 could not have supported a homosexual relationship."

Once again Gagnon not living in the real world. This man built a synagogue (at no small expense) and became a friend to the Jews who were in the hostile environment of Roman occupation. Notice the Jewish elders give no comment on the Centurion's relationship and even went as far as pleading his case to this Jewish healer roaming the city? They would have turned a blind eye to this non-Jew and his expected sexual habits if he was a man in service to God's people. As long as THEY weren't practicing the sexual habits of the Romans, what would they have cared if he, a Roman not bound by Jewish laws, was?

5. "Q, Matthew, and Luke did not interpret Jesus’ healing as support for same-sex intercourse."

Gagnon somehow believes the Gospel writers had a say in what Jesus did, and that they would have never affirmed a positive spin on this story if it involved homosexuality. No personal opinion, even if it was negative, is given in this story, but that doesn't stop Gagnon from bringing up Paul who never commented on it, or the mysterious Q community to bolster his opinion. Once again Gagnon tries to link porneia (fornicator) with homosexuality because this fits in with HIS personal opinion and wishful thinking. Every instance, without exception, the word pornoi is used in the New Testament, it's talking about adultery, sleeping around, and basic whoredom with no connection to homosexuality whatsoever. I've already pointed out long after the writing of Gagnon's book that corrects Gagnon's error with claiming Jesus, Paul and the Apostles saw homosexuality as a prohibition carried over from Leviticus that makes up most of his arguments ad infinitum.

6. "Historical Jesus study does not support a pro-homosexual reading"

I love how Gagnon says this point is the "final blow." What's his final blow? He stated; "The earliest recoverable version of the story PROBABLY did not contain the requisite elements for a pro-homosex spin." Some blow THAT was. I'm personally surprised Gagnon would bring this up when "Historical Jesus" studies that he supports that doubt the divinity of Jesus and say half of the words written in the Bible attributed to Him weren't really from Him, but made-up inserts put in the Bible at a later date.

I've already shown it would be impossible for his 'pais' to be his son without him being stripped of his position and banished from Roman society with what was a very public confession he feared no repercussion from with the Roman crowd who were hearing this very public exchange with Christ. I'm not going to bother further with Gagnon if that's all he's got or the blog author who's now debasing himself with personal attacks. 

(I noticed on Gagnon's website he's now saying it was the "son of an official" with absolutely no evidence of it in the narrative stating as such and he even goes so far as forcing that interpretation saying Luke was mistaken in saying pais)

Someone who read this post with Gagnon's book in front of him wrote me this because there has been some discrepancy with exactly what Gagnon was saying in his footnote 6:

"I interpret you to be saying that Gagnon believes that the 'pais' in the Greek of Luke 7:1-10 is likely the younger gay partner. Is that right? Because that is not what Gagnon was saying (the reason why Gagnon is trying to dismiss Luke is because Luke uses the Greek term "doulos" that leaves no question it was a slave to the Centurion because "doulos" is never used in the Greek to mean son). Gagnon says the STANDARD MODEL (emphases mine) of homosexual relationships in the examples (Roman men and their male slaves examples), is pederastic. Footnote 6 is in reference to those non-biblical citations. Footnote 6 explains that pederasty involved eroticism with a boy who was approximately beginning puberty, but then Gagnon adds a note of caution, that 'pais' COULD (emphases mine) be used of any junior partner in a homosexual relationship, even one who was full grown." Nowhere in the footnote, or in the relevant text or nearby text, does Gagnon mention the centurion and his servant."

My response:

If Gagnon admits a "pais" could be a junior partner in a gay relationship from non-Biblical historical sources (what I said myself), what makes you think it can't be applied to the Centurion in the Biblical narrative even though Gagnon doesn't mention it by name? Like I said, of course, Gagnon isn't going to read a homo-sex angle in it, but Gagnon is looking ridiculous, again with this, with saying sexual relationships are the standard for Centurions and their slaves, BUT, not in this singular case of the Centurion and his slave in the Bible story? Really? Again, Boswell showed a pais to a Roman centurion could also be a fully grown man.



By the way, Gagnon says this story is a favorite of his, so I'm sure he tried to cover all the bases in his anti-gay reading of it. This also answers the challenge of those who say there isn't a gay couple in the Bible.

Refute to Gagnon's Adam and Eve fixation

link 

"He (Gagnon) seems, in particular, to be fixated on Genesis as if it were more than it is; in the document in question, he expands on Jesus' regard for this passage as applying essentially to monogamy and anti-homosexuality, and passes lightly over the real matter Jesus was addressing: divorce. (Gagnon elsewhere actually defends divorce and remarriage in a particularly twisted fashion).

He is also mistaken on slavery in the OT. He claims among other things that it was not mandated or related to the creation, and is wrong on both counts: Lev 25:44ff for example is a clear mandate (and the Rabbis accepted it as such (see Gittin 38b), and God created Adam as his "eved" -- his slave. The whole story of salvation is tied up with God's recovery of "his people" who are to serve him and no one else, for their entire lives. Jesus appears in the lowliest position "as a slave" in order to bring salvation. Slavery is more closely related to the creation/salvation account than sexuality is."

That's just for starters. As few outside Gagnon's circle of admirers take him seriously."

 - Tobias Holler BSG.

Daniel Helminiak on Robert Gagnon's circular reasoning ad absurdum

“Six Degrees of Separation”

Robert Gagnon's strained argument,
respectably entitled “intertextuality,”
to support a prior opinion.

• Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) 16:8: “He [God] did not spare the neighbors of Lot, whom he loathed on account of their arrogance.” The sin is arrogance, nothing sexual. BUT…

• Arrogance would be prideful, and in an oracle against pride in another place, Sirach says, “The one who clings to it [pride] pours out abominations” (10:13 ). No sex here either, BUT…

• These “abominations” would certainly have to include (why?) “man lying with man” (Leviticus 18:22). AND …

• Sirach does have sex on his mind:

In 9:1-9, he warns against sexual sins—no mention of pride or same-sex acts. BUT…

In 23:18, 22, 26-27, he decries other heterosexual sins—and, ah, yes, the lack of “fear of the Lord”! AND …

• Lack of fear of the Lord is prideful. SO…

• In six steps, (1) sexual sins link with lack of (2) fear of the Lord, which is like (3) pride, which both is like (4) arrogance and produces (5) abominations, one of which is (6) the sin of Sodom.

“Consequently, it is possible that in 16:8 ben Sirach interpreted the sin of Sodom…as hostile behavior toward ‘sojourners,' climaxing in an act of homosexual rape” (Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, pp. 86-87).

Gagnon is smart enough not to say 16:8 actually refers to homosexual rape. For his purposes it suffices to raise doubts about Sirach's outright statement and to let this doubt—attributed to a biblical scholar—bolster the naive opinion of uneducated "Bible believers" that the Bible actually does condemn homosexuality.

Not Another Gagnon Refute

Photo booth Gagnon

linko                                              

Gagnon's Thorn

What I love about the Nardelli/Gagnon exchange is that Gagnon is getting a taste of his own medicine with Nardelli giving pages and pages of rebuttal to a few lines of what Gagnon is saying. Gagnon is usually on the giving end of these types of exchanges (what one critic called "Gagnonisms") and it made him furious because it's never happened to him before. Gagnon never did respond to Nardelli's rejoinder, but he sure did have time to respond to other people and other subjects soon after on his blog with spouting off his same arguments Nardelli refuted. Gagnon starts his criticism with calling Nardelli a "Classicist" and not a true Bible scholar, but who does Gagnon quote over and over again to try to prove his points on his website? Author Thomas Hubbard, a "Classicist."

ROBERT GAGNON’S THE BIBLE AND HOMOSEXUAL PRACTICE TEN YEARS AFTER : A NON-THEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
by Jean-Fabrice Nardelli, PhD.

Gagnon's response (bitingly) titled: "The Dogs Bark But the Caravan Moves On"

Nardelli's counter response.

Robert Gagnon

This is a review I did on a book called "The Bible and Homosexual Practice: Text and Hermeneutics" by Robert A. J. Gagnon.

Gagnon is a nasty piece of work who tries to make you believe the Bible condemns homosexuality. There should be no grace or kindness extended to this man. 

Loving kindness stops at false teachers because false teaching is a weed that chokes the vines that need to grow. Gagnon is the foremost anti-gay theologian current in this debate and his work is cited by entire church denominations as to why they should hold out against homosexual acceptance. 

The fruit of his book and efforts repel homosexuals from knowing a loving Christ, stopped Christians from having a dialogue with those who they claim to love, and has caused believer to turn against believer.

Gagnon sees all gays as repugnant to God and considers them to be sexual narcissists, immoral, a threat to the church and even to the very fabric of society (all his own wordings). He will say the church should approach us with love while at the same time opposing the inclusion of gays in employment discrimination and hate crime laws. He has a snit if challenged in the media, but then will make a publicity event in responding back with long-winded rebukes.

The “practice” of homosexuality isn’t enough for his condemnation. He blurs the line that misleads his readers into believing the Bible also condemns same-sex attraction. Only when called on it, Gagnon reluctantly admits its reading into the text. He says Christian doctrine and morality should be based on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience and than goes about manipulating scripture, reason and experience to fit tradition. 

For him there cannot be anything outside of a man-woman construct or his made up term, “structural complementarity.” Gagnon’s interpretation of the biblical account of creation of two halves becoming a whole is just a re-hash of Aristophanes’ pagan belief, stir-fried into his own understanding of the biblical account of creation. In fact, he references Aristophanes elsewhere in his book, along with other pagan writers, in an attempt to give validity to his two halves becoming a whole theory, and though Aristophanes also makes a case for same sex unions, Gagnon conveniently ignores this and also selectively ignores anything in the historical record that goes against his "only man with woman." It’s no exaggeration in saying he sees most of the Good Book through these two halves-becoming-whole colored glasses. To start, the Hebrew word for “rib” in Geneses denotes a smaller part of a whole and not a complete half, as Gagnon believes. That God made a women for Adam because he saw he was lonely in the garden, and not to complete him before the eyes of God, is a simple and plain stated fact lost on Gagnon. Love and companionship was the aim of God with sexuality following; not the other way around. Gagnon believes we are the sum of what parts fit where.

This is Gagnon’s first watershed of a book and for the casual reader it's intimidating and seems as though he has never met a footnote he didn’t like; however, under deeper scrutiny it falls apart. He cites in his book bogus studies (13 instances) by the likes of discredited “researcher” and Holocaust revisionist Paul Cameron who, in 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” Cameron’s studies claim gays are more likely to be child abusers (“myth,” according to the American Psychological Association) and die at a younger age (“bad science,” according to the Center for Disease Control). Gagnon also claims that gays can be cured by reparative therapies, but offers not a shred of legitimate scientific evidence to substantiate his claim and ignores all studies proving not only their futility but also their resulting cause of mental harm. (For example, see “Treatments of Homosexuality in Britain since 1950 - An Oral History,” by Smith, Glenn, Bartlett and King, based on the experience of various patients). Extrapolating results from studies in one group, then applying it to another group excluded from the study, is a favorite, albeit deceptive, trick of his. His use of sub-par scientific data was counted in over 50 instances by accredited researchers Charles R. Peterson and Douglas A. Hedlund, (both Christians), who summed it up with this quote, “Instead of scholarly objectivity, Gagnon employs non-Biblical scientific words ambiguously.” It would appear that baring false witness is acceptable to Gagnon if it suits his own personal aim.

He likes to boasts that monogamous relationships are a rarity among gays, yet ignores substantially high divorce rates in the Church mirroring the general population. He downplays scripture on heterosexual divorce with the absurd claim for it not being a continual state of adultery, even going as far as stating that an incestuous, “loving,” heterosexual relationship is preferable to a gay relationship (stated by him in a private correspondence). This in itself should sound off alarms about him. He links homosexuality with other devious sexual behavior while demonstrating no proof of the Bible making such a link.

Much of his exegetical arguments depend on making and maintaining a link between homosexuality with other forms of abhorrent sexual behavior (rape, pedophilia, etc) merely because he personally believes this to be true. His take on the Sodom story is, at best, a stretch (see my take on Sodom HERE). The first connection between homosexuality and Sodom was not referenced in original scripture but was, in fact, incorporated just prior to the 2nd century, yet he seems to think that the homosexuality/Sodom connection is peppered throughout the Bible. Gagnon’s take on homosexual rape in the Bible, making Homosexual rape speak on homosexual relationships, is offensive to any serious scholar. Homosexual rape is not a reflection of homosexuality anymore than Dinah & Shechem’s heterosexual rape is a reflection of heterosexuality.

Gagnon frequently attacks other scholars that speak from textual silence yet he does the same thing with Jesus on homosexuality. He believes that the traditional view of ancient Judaism has always been strongly against homosexuality, so Jesus must have held that same strong belief even with the absence of it being shown in the Gospels and likewise with the Apostle Paul. There are several problems with this, not least is begging the question; if the Levitical passage was understood as a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, why did it take a period of a thousand years before the Talmud (Jewish commentary on the Bible) only then state it as a perversion? Gagnon would have us believe the issue weighed heavily with the Jews in the time of the Christ, yet no case of male homosexuality was ever brought before the Sanhedrin (Jewish court of the land) before or after Jesus. The one account of a Rabbi attempting to bring a prohibition to lesbianism was in the 3rd century and it was soundly rejected. To the ancient Jews, the Levitical passages only concerned anal sex and nothing was ever enforced, it certainly wasn’t important enough to find room to be written about by the Gospel writers if in fact it was ever brought up to Jesus at all (unlike the problematic issues with heterosexual divorce he was asked to answer and the only time he even bothered to speak on marriage). Simply put, homosexuality by all historical accounts, or lack of, was of little importance in the life of the everyday Jewish population of 1st century Jerusalem, much like the sodomy laws of today. Most of Paul’s converts were pagan Gentiles to the Christian faith and ignorant of the Jewish view on homosexuality; Paul never bothered to teach it to them and the early church followed in kind. Paul went through great pains to explain his “dying off” from the old law (Gal.2:15-21) and was in complete favor of, and had a total reliance on, a “new” law which was the only one that brought new life; a law that replaced “be fruitful and multiply,” with “seek ye the Kingdom first."

The lack of clear-cut, though hinted at, gay relationships in the Bible to prove a point is also faulty. He sees it as proof that the creation story of the man and woman procreation line as set in stone, ignoring Jesus’ statement on “born” eunuchs in Matt.19:11, 12 (Eunuchs being gay men is historically understood; I reference the work of scholar/author Faris Malik and Theologian Ragnhild Schanke) and how our Savior lived his personal life as well with Paul with not seeking marriage and with both telling their followers to copy their examples of how the lived on Earth.
The fact that the key players (Moses, Jacob, etc), whose story's are detailed in the Bible happen not to be gay, says nothing about those who were. There are more instances of polygamy than monogamy in the Biblical narrative, so did God mean it to be the standard because there are more details or accounts of it? How do we know the other players in scripture like Tabitha in Acts.9:36 or Dionysius in Acts.17:34 did not have a desire for their own sex? It is Heterosexist arrogance (a term that infuriates Gagnon) to say gays existed only outside of the Bible.

Arguing from tradition and the sayings from church fathers is also a poor attempt by him to support his arguments. Tradition has been an excuse for everything from exploiting the environment and exploiting the animal kingdom to the subjugation of woman and the defense of slavery because of the mistaken understanding of a few Bible passages and not understanding of what taking “Dominion” in Genesis actually means. More of a case can be made for the protection of the environment and the care of animals from Genesis than anything supporting Gagnon’s theory of two becoming one in opposite sex unions; yet those subjects are largely ignored or opposed by the Christian world even today. As for the church fathers, even though the input they gave the early church is the reason why we have it as it is today, they were still imperfect men with imperfect views that ranged from rabid antisemitism and sexism that bordered on hatred of women, to seeing indigenous persons as less than human.

Gagnon’s take on the Apostle Paul’s use of Malakoi (literally, ‘Softie’) in 1 Corinthians, and Arsenokoitai (literally, “Male lying the beds”) in 1 Timothy has been soundly refuted since the writing of Gagnon’s book by many including myself. In an attempt to narrow the definition of Malakoi by using selective historical references, Gagnon can only then come up with the anti-gay interpretation concerning Arsenokoitai (HERE).

Aside from other non-biblical aspects in Gagnon’s book, he utilizes the Apostle Paul to drive the nail in his anti-gay coffin. It really boils down to what bias of the interpreter you want to believe. Paul may not have been the biggest proponent of gay relationships, but he was no fan of heterosexual ones either (1 Cor.7:7). What slips by most translators, including Gagnon, is Paul breaking the Male/Female mold from Genesis with what he states in Gal.3:28, “There is neither Jew NOR Greek, slave NOR free, there is no male AND (often miss-translated as ‘nor’) female; for you are all one in Christ.” Paul’s use of the word ‘AND’ instead of ‘NOR’ in that one instance is no accident (Gen. 1:27) and THAT was the final say of Paul on the matter.

With quack science, shoddy exegesis, half readings, and carefully thought out omissions, Gagnon selectively takes the little he wants then leaves the rest without discussion. He could no doubt write a lengthy thesis on a haiku and still get it wrong. He anticipates people to not delve into the cracks of what he puts forth because he argues his connect-the-dots way of reading Scripture so exhaustively. As a gay man writing about an overzealous ‘straight’ scholar who said he’s only in the debate because he was drawn into it, I cannot tell you his heart, but I see Gagnon the man. He is quick to point out the sexual orientation of his critics. His refusal to budge on whether gays should be treated justly in a non-Christian secular society along with everyone else is very telling and speaks more about him than he is willing to reveal. It's interesting how religious conservatives have championed him, though Gagnon will be the first to say the Bible is not wholly inspired, including words attributed to Jesus and Paul.

The love Jesus said would be the measuring rod to tell the world we are His as well as a love Paul said will be the only thing left standing after everything else has fallen away, is just a side-note buried and forgotten by Gagnon because he's too busy giving us anatomy lessons to care.

You cannot find a condemnation of homosexuality outside of rape, exploitation, or Idolatry.
God will allow the pleading of ignorance because of tradition for only so long. Judaism believes all of the Torah was given to Moses on Mount Sinai including the future understanding of it; an understanding that was expected to evolve and change, so it can reach out to coming generations as the living word of God. The people that God gave the Law to understood that (Matt.23:2), Paul re-iterated it (1 Cor.2:15, 10:15), and Jesus expected nothing less (Luke.12:57, John.7:24).

I truly believe that history will paint Gagnon as he truly is: a one-man hate show only bigots clapped to.