The author of Sex God endorses same-sex marriages[1]
By Pastor Larry DeBruyn
“Ye adulterers and adulteresses,
know ye not
that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?
whosoever
therefore will be a friend of the world
is the enemy of God.”
know ye not
that the friendship of the world is enmity with God?
whosoever
therefore will be a friend of the world
is the enemy of God.”
(James
4:4, KJV)
4:4, KJV)
As one who has followed Rob Bell’s career for almost a
decade, from the time he was the youth pastor at the church I grew up in,
Calvary Church of Grand Rapids, Michigan, and then as the founding pastor of
the Mars Hill Bible Church in suburban Grandville of the same city, I wondered
when he, as he seemed so bent to be culturally relevant, would finally out what
he really thought about same sex marriages.[2]
Well, now he has, and not surprisingly, at least to me (I spotted him as a
false teacher a decade ago, for false teachers always seem engaged to the
culture more than to Christ), he recently endorsed same sex marriages in the
friendly confines in of all places, the liberal Grace Cathedral in San
Francisco during a forum held Sunday, March 17, 2013.[3] In
this endorsement he has taken cue from political leaders (the President comes
to mind, as also recently, Hillary Clinton), for they too are ever testing the
political winds of fortune to see which direction they’re a’ blowing. When
asked about his position on homosexual marriage, Bell stated:
I am for marriage. I am for fidelity. I
am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a
man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs—I think this is
the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.[4]
am for love, whether it’s a man and woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a
man. I think the ship has sailed and I think the church needs—I think this is
the world we are living in and we need to affirm people wherever they are.[4]
Biblical Integrity versus . . .
Now in addressing Bell’s endorsement, so to speak, I want to
make my position on homosexuality clear, and do so by way of a story. Years ago
in my first pastoral ministry during the mid-1970s, in of all places, Grand
Rapids, I was approached by a church member regarding some men who had just
moved into the neighborhood, men who at least from outward appearances, were
living together in a homosexual relationship. Bob (not his real name)
approached me about the same-sex couple who lived in the neighborhood. (Actually,
it was on the opposite side of the street I lived on, but several houses away.)
He wondered what I thought about it and what I, as a pastor, was going to do
about it. He was a burly man and he was angry about the same-sex couple living
in the neighborhood. Calmly, I addressed him regarding his concern. I said, “Bob,
Let me ask you a question. You work in a factory, don’t you?” “Yes,” he
answered. “Then let me ask you another question,” I continued. “Do you know men
you work with who commit adultery and are unfaithful to their wives?” Again he
answered, “Yes.” Then I proceeded, “Bob, do you get as upset with the
adulterers you work with as the gay guys down the street?” He pondered, and
honestly responded that he didn’t. Then I remarked to him, “Well, you should,
because in the Bible God always uses the sin of adultery, not homosexuality, to
describe people who are unfaithful to Him.” (See Jeremiah 5:7-9; 9:2; 23:10; Hosea
4:2; James 4:4.) In short, though I believe homosexuality is sin, it is no worse
a sin than adultery, nor for that matter, any other of the nine vices listed by
the apostle Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth (an ancient city where
homosexuality was common), that if habitually practiced, would disqualify the
practitioners from inheriting the kingdom of God (i.e., “fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards,
revilers, swindlers,” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NASB). As do the other sins listed,
habitual homosexual practice disqualifies people from God’s kingdom, and no
amount of linguistic and interpretive sugarcoating can make it anything less the
sin that it is (See Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1
Timothy 1:10).[5]
make my position on homosexuality clear, and do so by way of a story. Years ago
in my first pastoral ministry during the mid-1970s, in of all places, Grand
Rapids, I was approached by a church member regarding some men who had just
moved into the neighborhood, men who at least from outward appearances, were
living together in a homosexual relationship. Bob (not his real name)
approached me about the same-sex couple who lived in the neighborhood. (Actually,
it was on the opposite side of the street I lived on, but several houses away.)
He wondered what I thought about it and what I, as a pastor, was going to do
about it. He was a burly man and he was angry about the same-sex couple living
in the neighborhood. Calmly, I addressed him regarding his concern. I said, “Bob,
Let me ask you a question. You work in a factory, don’t you?” “Yes,” he
answered. “Then let me ask you another question,” I continued. “Do you know men
you work with who commit adultery and are unfaithful to their wives?” Again he
answered, “Yes.” Then I proceeded, “Bob, do you get as upset with the
adulterers you work with as the gay guys down the street?” He pondered, and
honestly responded that he didn’t. Then I remarked to him, “Well, you should,
because in the Bible God always uses the sin of adultery, not homosexuality, to
describe people who are unfaithful to Him.” (See Jeremiah 5:7-9; 9:2; 23:10; Hosea
4:2; James 4:4.) In short, though I believe homosexuality is sin, it is no worse
a sin than adultery, nor for that matter, any other of the nine vices listed by
the apostle Paul in his letter to the church at Corinth (an ancient city where
homosexuality was common), that if habitually practiced, would disqualify the
practitioners from inheriting the kingdom of God (i.e., “fornicators,
idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, homosexuals, thieves, covetous, drunkards,
revilers, swindlers,” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, NASB). As do the other sins listed,
habitual homosexual practice disqualifies people from God’s kingdom, and no
amount of linguistic and interpretive sugarcoating can make it anything less the
sin that it is (See Genesis 19:5; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1
Timothy 1:10).[5]
Cultural Relevancy
This aside, what concerns me is not Bell’s endorsement (I always had this gut instinct he one day would so.), but rather the
reasons he explicates for concluding that same-sex marriages are okay (“I’m
okay, you’re okay!” Remember that quasi-psychological dictum?). Bell, I am sure, knows
the plain language of the Bible (as has been pointed out in footnote 4) and
Scripture’s meaning regarding this sexual issue. Yet for the sake of getting along
with the culture, he chooses, like the editors of the The Queen James Bible:
a Gay Bible (QJB), to ignore and deny the meaning of the plain biblical language
and the contexts in which the language occurs, and all this with a view toward
making Christianity culturally relevant.[6] Note
the “relevancy motif” in Bell’s answer to the question posed to him at the
Grace Cathedral forum about what he thought the future holds for the
Evangelical Church. You should note in his answer how he obfuscates as he
accommodates as he communicates. His answer:
reasons he explicates for concluding that same-sex marriages are okay (“I’m
okay, you’re okay!” Remember that quasi-psychological dictum?). Bell, I am sure, knows
the plain language of the Bible (as has been pointed out in footnote 4) and
Scripture’s meaning regarding this sexual issue. Yet for the sake of getting along
with the culture, he chooses, like the editors of the The Queen James Bible:
a Gay Bible (QJB), to ignore and deny the meaning of the plain biblical language
and the contexts in which the language occurs, and all this with a view toward
making Christianity culturally relevant.[6] Note
the “relevancy motif” in Bell’s answer to the question posed to him at the
Grace Cathedral forum about what he thought the future holds for the
Evangelical Church. You should note in his answer how he obfuscates as he
accommodates as he communicates. His answer:
I think we are witnessing the death of
a particular subculture that doesn’t work [pragmatism]. I think there is a very
narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized, Evangelical subculture
that was told ‘we’re gonna change the thing’ and they haven’t [Christian
Dominionism]. And they actually have turned away lots of people [culture wars].
And I think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make
a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or you adapt [accommodate].
And if you adapt [accommodate], it means you have to come face to face
with some of the ways we’ve talked about God, which don’t actually shape people
into more loving, compassionate people [Our talk about God shapes people? Oh,
really? I thought that was the Word and the Spirit’s work.]. And we have
supported policies and ways of viewing the world that are actually destructive
[Sin destroys, at least that’s what the Bible says.]. And we’ve done it in the
name of God [A kind of Christian Jihad] and we need to repent [Any
controversy surrounding homosexuality is our fault.].[7][bracketed comments added]
a particular subculture that doesn’t work [pragmatism]. I think there is a very
narrow, politically intertwined, culturally ghettoized, Evangelical subculture
that was told ‘we’re gonna change the thing’ and they haven’t [Christian
Dominionism]. And they actually have turned away lots of people [culture wars].
And I think that when you’re in a part of a subculture that is dying, you make
a lot more noise because it’s very painful. You sort of die or you adapt [accommodate].
And if you adapt [accommodate], it means you have to come face to face
with some of the ways we’ve talked about God, which don’t actually shape people
into more loving, compassionate people [Our talk about God shapes people? Oh,
really? I thought that was the Word and the Spirit’s work.]. And we have
supported policies and ways of viewing the world that are actually destructive
[Sin destroys, at least that’s what the Bible says.]. And we’ve done it in the
name of God [A kind of Christian Jihad] and we need to repent [Any
controversy surrounding homosexuality is our fault.].[7][bracketed comments added]
As regards Bell’s ending caveat, such feigned repentance, of
course, needs itself to be repented of. Yet Bell’s words serve notice of his
accommodation of, if not outright capitulation to, the culture. And this is
ominous. As noted in my book Church on the Rise (And I don’t like
quoting myself; in fact, this is the first time I recollect doing so):
course, needs itself to be repented of. Yet Bell’s words serve notice of his
accommodation of, if not outright capitulation to, the culture. And this is
ominous. As noted in my book Church on the Rise (And I don’t like
quoting myself; in fact, this is the first time I recollect doing so):
The face of evangelicalism has changed, but so too, I believe, has the
movement’s heart. It is my view that in evangelicalism’s attempt to keep up
with a debased and debasing culture, there will come a reckoning when the
“relevant” church will be irrelevant to Christ. That will be a dangerous
condition to be in, and for that matter, we may already be in that state as the
ministry of the Word is under siege.[8]
movement’s heart. It is my view that in evangelicalism’s attempt to keep up
with a debased and debasing culture, there will come a reckoning when the
“relevant” church will be irrelevant to Christ. That will be a dangerous
condition to be in, and for that matter, we may already be in that state as the
ministry of the Word is under siege.[8]
It’s my view that, if Bell’s views are any indication of
what might be lying beneath the surface amongst the citizens of the evangelical
nation, we have now arrived at that point—relevant to the culture (wag the dog),
but irrelevant to Christ. Seems to me . . . Scripture is adamant against
compromising the faith, either in beliefs or behavior, with the culture. In
case we’ve forgotten, the Bible calls it “worldliness,” and for reason that the
majority within evangelicalism have only been exposed to the dumbed-down brand
of “seeker-sensitive, audience-driven, user-friendly” religion being peddled by
mega-church Christianity, they have forgotten the word “worldliness.” And Francis
Schaeffer explained how compromise with worldly values works. He analyzes:
what might be lying beneath the surface amongst the citizens of the evangelical
nation, we have now arrived at that point—relevant to the culture (wag the dog),
but irrelevant to Christ. Seems to me . . . Scripture is adamant against
compromising the faith, either in beliefs or behavior, with the culture. In
case we’ve forgotten, the Bible calls it “worldliness,” and for reason that the
majority within evangelicalism have only been exposed to the dumbed-down brand
of “seeker-sensitive, audience-driven, user-friendly” religion being peddled by
mega-church Christianity, they have forgotten the word “worldliness.” And Francis
Schaeffer explained how compromise with worldly values works. He analyzes:
First one starts questioning, based
upon what the world about us is saying, then looks at Scripture, then theology,
then scientific study—until finally what the Scriptures teach is completely
subjected to whatever view is currently accepted by the world.[9]
upon what the world about us is saying, then looks at Scripture, then theology,
then scientific study—until finally what the Scriptures teach is completely
subjected to whatever view is currently accepted by the world.[9]
Pointedly, the Apostle John warns against such compromise, telling
his readers that whoever allows the culture’s value system to adulterate their
Christian faith via the lust of the eyes (materialism), the lust of the flesh (eroticism)
and the pride of life (egoism), does not, despite whatever passion might be
ginned up in worship celebrations, does not love the Father—let it be repeated,
does NOT love the Father! (1 John 2:15-17) James tells us
that the Christians’ snuggling-up with the pagan culture (And there’s no
question that we’ve become a pagan nation.) is hostility toward God (James
4:4). That’s right, HOSTILITY toward God! Then in the seven
letters to the churches of Asia Minor, the living and ascended Lord Jesus
Christ, the head of the church, reserves His severest strictures for
compromised congregations. Read it (Revelation 2:1-3:22). Yet despite all these
warnings, and Yahweh’s warnings to Israel not to allow the surrounding culture
to “Canaanize” them, the contemporary church continues to play around with, and
in many instances commit harlotry with, the pagan mores of the culture.[10] Decades
ago Francis Schaeffer noted the nascent compromise already at work amongst the
“neo-evangelicals.” In The Great Evangelical Disaster he wrote:
his readers that whoever allows the culture’s value system to adulterate their
Christian faith via the lust of the eyes (materialism), the lust of the flesh (eroticism)
and the pride of life (egoism), does not, despite whatever passion might be
ginned up in worship celebrations, does not love the Father—let it be repeated,
does NOT love the Father! (1 John 2:15-17) James tells us
that the Christians’ snuggling-up with the pagan culture (And there’s no
question that we’ve become a pagan nation.) is hostility toward God (James
4:4). That’s right, HOSTILITY toward God! Then in the seven
letters to the churches of Asia Minor, the living and ascended Lord Jesus
Christ, the head of the church, reserves His severest strictures for
compromised congregations. Read it (Revelation 2:1-3:22). Yet despite all these
warnings, and Yahweh’s warnings to Israel not to allow the surrounding culture
to “Canaanize” them, the contemporary church continues to play around with, and
in many instances commit harlotry with, the pagan mores of the culture.[10] Decades
ago Francis Schaeffer noted the nascent compromise already at work amongst the
“neo-evangelicals.” In The Great Evangelical Disaster he wrote:
Accommodation, accommodation. How the
mindset of accommodation grows and expands. . . . For the evangelical
accommodation to the world of our age represents the removal of the last
barrier against the breakdown of our culture. And with the final removal of
this barrier will come social chaos and the rise of authoritarianism [An
American Reich and Fuhrer?] in some form to restore order.[11][bracketed comments added]
mindset of accommodation grows and expands. . . . For the evangelical
accommodation to the world of our age represents the removal of the last
barrier against the breakdown of our culture. And with the final removal of
this barrier will come social chaos and the rise of authoritarianism [An
American Reich and Fuhrer?] in some form to restore order.[11][bracketed comments added]
Schaeffer then adds, “To accommodate to the world spirit
about us in our age is the most gross form of worldliness in the proper
definition of the word.”[12]
about us in our age is the most gross form of worldliness in the proper
definition of the word.”[12]
In that the church, including many former evangelicals, has
become culturized, I suspect that Bell’s endorsement of same-sex marriages is
just but one of others that will follow. The “Dominees”
are just beginning to fall.[13] Other
emergent-evangelical pastors and religious leaders will soon follow suit.
become culturized, I suspect that Bell’s endorsement of same-sex marriages is
just but one of others that will follow. The “Dominees”
are just beginning to fall.[13] Other
emergent-evangelical pastors and religious leaders will soon follow suit.
Reformation by Subjugation
Today’s evangelical mass—which is shrinking—has utterly
failed to influence our paganizing culture. The Evangelical-Dominionists have
tried. Their tactic has been one of reformation by subjugation—Christian
values must be asserted by conquering the Seven Mountains of the culture—“the
stick”. But if the last election has shown us anything, it’s that Dominionism is
viewed by non-Christians—and the number is growing—as intruding upon their
turf.[14] The
evidence of cultural depravity is all around us because it still remains in us.
failed to influence our paganizing culture. The Evangelical-Dominionists have
tried. Their tactic has been one of reformation by subjugation—Christian
values must be asserted by conquering the Seven Mountains of the culture—“the
stick”. But if the last election has shown us anything, it’s that Dominionism is
viewed by non-Christians—and the number is growing—as intruding upon their
turf.[14] The
evidence of cultural depravity is all around us because it still remains in us.
Reformation by Accommodation
So now Evangelical-Emergents like Rob Bell are trying to get
a hearing from the culture by extending “the carrot”. In the name of being
relevant, they’re now trying to achieve reformation by accommodation. Bell
so much as said so at the Grace Cathedral forum. But neither will this cultural
overture work. The church cannot influence the world when it’s under the
influence of the world. The resulting mess is that sinners are left “having no
hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12).
a hearing from the culture by extending “the carrot”. In the name of being
relevant, they’re now trying to achieve reformation by accommodation. Bell
so much as said so at the Grace Cathedral forum. But neither will this cultural
overture work. The church cannot influence the world when it’s under the
influence of the world. The resulting mess is that sinners are left “having no
hope and without God in the world” (Ephesians 2:12).
Reformation by Regeneration
Isn’t time to go back to God’s formula; to the biblical
basic of evangelizing to achieve reformation by regeneration? Isn’t that what
the word evangelical denotes, one who believes in the power of the Gospel to change
a person’s life, something neither legalism nor libertarianism can do? Christian
laws, however valuable they might be to live under for the common good, do not
in the end, make Christians. Neither will the denial of law serve as a basis
for the common good. Who wants to live in anarchy, which is where this
society and nation are headed. A long time ago Jesus told a man that in order
to see the kingdom of God persons must be born from the outside in, or from the
upside down. Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God, to
experience the reign of God in his heart, that he had to be born from above
(John 3:3, 7). If God truly rules within us then He can rule among us. But His
rule will come neither by Christian subjugation nor accommodation. In part,
God’s reign will only arrive as persons are regenerated by the Holy Spirit (In
popular parlance, its call being “born again.”). And then if enough persons
experience God’s rule inside them, their number might reach critical mass and society
will experience relative transformation, though that will still fall far short
of the one that will accompany Christ when He comes to establish His kingdom in
the world (See Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-9; Matthew 19:28; Revelation 20:4-6). Only as people’s constitutions are changed will change occur around us. That’s the
message of the biblical prophets; that is of “repentance toward God, and faith
toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).
basic of evangelizing to achieve reformation by regeneration? Isn’t that what
the word evangelical denotes, one who believes in the power of the Gospel to change
a person’s life, something neither legalism nor libertarianism can do? Christian
laws, however valuable they might be to live under for the common good, do not
in the end, make Christians. Neither will the denial of law serve as a basis
for the common good. Who wants to live in anarchy, which is where this
society and nation are headed. A long time ago Jesus told a man that in order
to see the kingdom of God persons must be born from the outside in, or from the
upside down. Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God, to
experience the reign of God in his heart, that he had to be born from above
(John 3:3, 7). If God truly rules within us then He can rule among us. But His
rule will come neither by Christian subjugation nor accommodation. In part,
God’s reign will only arrive as persons are regenerated by the Holy Spirit (In
popular parlance, its call being “born again.”). And then if enough persons
experience God’s rule inside them, their number might reach critical mass and society
will experience relative transformation, though that will still fall far short
of the one that will accompany Christ when He comes to establish His kingdom in
the world (See Isaiah 9:6-7; 11:1-9; Matthew 19:28; Revelation 20:4-6). Only as people’s constitutions are changed will change occur around us. That’s the
message of the biblical prophets; that is of “repentance toward God, and faith
toward our Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 20:21).
A truly compassionate response to those in sexual depravity is to tell them about Jesus Christ and His salvation. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. (1 John 1:9)[15]
“The word of the truth of the Gospel
[has] come unto you,
as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit,
as
it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it,
and knew the grace of God in
truth . . .”
[has] come unto you,
as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit,
as
it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it,
and knew the grace of God in
truth . . .”
Colossians
1:5-6, KJV
1:5-6, KJV
[1] Rob
Bell, Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections between Sexuality
and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). In this book, Bell makes
a couple of statements indicating that his pan-spiritual
worldview is pan-sexual. “We reflect what God is like and who God
is. A divine spark resides in every single human being.” (19) “Sex carries
within it the power of Life . . . Something divine.” (197)
Bell, Sex God: Exploring the Endless Connections between Sexuality
and Spirituality (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007). In this book, Bell makes
a couple of statements indicating that his pan-spiritual
worldview is pan-sexual. “We reflect what God is like and who God
is. A divine spark resides in every single human being.” (19) “Sex carries
within it the power of Life . . . Something divine.” (197)
A little bio about Bell: In 2011, Time magazine
named Bell to its list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. The
“hip” Bell has authored many books, in the past published by the evangelical Zondervan
Publishing House, with other books on the horizon—What We Talk About When We
Talk About God and Love Wins: For Teens. In January 2012, Bell left
Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan. It may be surmised that the resignation
resulted from his big-hit book Love Wins, in which he postulates that
there’s no hell and everybody’s, even the despots in history, going to heaven.
See my review of it referenced in the next footnote, footnote 2 below.
named Bell to its list of the 100 Most Influential People in the World. The
“hip” Bell has authored many books, in the past published by the evangelical Zondervan
Publishing House, with other books on the horizon—What We Talk About When We
Talk About God and Love Wins: For Teens. In January 2012, Bell left
Mars Hill Bible Church in Michigan. It may be surmised that the resignation
resulted from his big-hit book Love Wins, in which he postulates that
there’s no hell and everybody’s, even the despots in history, going to heaven.
See my review of it referenced in the next footnote, footnote 2 below.
[2] See
Larry DeBruyn, “Love Loses: A Review of Love Wins by Rob Bell,” May 9,
2011 (http://guardinghisflock.com/2011/05/09/love-loses/#more-1774)
and “Everything is not Spiritual: A Critique of Rob Bell’s Pan-Spiritual
Worldview,” February 12, 2011 (http://guardinghisflock.com/2011/02/12/everything-is-not-spiritual/#more-1567),
both of which available online at the Guarding His Flock Ministries
website. I have also discussed Bell in my books Church on the Rise: Why I am
not a “Purpose-Driven” Pastor (2007, pages 73-75) and Unshackled:
Breaking Away from Seductive Spirituality (2009, pages 97-114). Both books
are available from Discernment Ministries (http://home.etcable.net/hestervanboven/index.htm)
P.O. Box 520, Canton, TX 75103, Tel: 903 567-6423.
Larry DeBruyn, “Love Loses: A Review of Love Wins by Rob Bell,” May 9,
2011 (http://guardinghisflock.com/2011/05/09/love-loses/#more-1774)
and “Everything is not Spiritual: A Critique of Rob Bell’s Pan-Spiritual
Worldview,” February 12, 2011 (http://guardinghisflock.com/2011/02/12/everything-is-not-spiritual/#more-1567),
both of which available online at the Guarding His Flock Ministries
website. I have also discussed Bell in my books Church on the Rise: Why I am
not a “Purpose-Driven” Pastor (2007, pages 73-75) and Unshackled:
Breaking Away from Seductive Spirituality (2009, pages 97-114). Both books
are available from Discernment Ministries (http://home.etcable.net/hestervanboven/index.htm)
P.O. Box 520, Canton, TX 75103, Tel: 903 567-6423.
[3] “Rob
Bell Supports Same-Sex Marriage,” March 19, 2013, www.woodtv.com
(http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/Rob-Bell-supports-same-sex-marriage).
The church is a member of the Episcopalian Diocese of California.
Bell Supports Same-Sex Marriage,” March 19, 2013, www.woodtv.com
(http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/kent_county/Rob-Bell-supports-same-sex-marriage).
The church is a member of the Episcopalian Diocese of California.
[5] The
two words listed which denote same-sex sexual activity in the KJV are
“effeminate” (Greek, malakos)
and “abusers of themselves with mankind” (Greek, arsenokoites). The former word (malakos) is variously translated “boy prostitutes” (NAB, NLT,
NRSV); “effeminate” (NASB, ASV); “male prostitutes” (NIV); and “homosexuals”
(NKJV). The latter word (arsenokoites)
is variously translated “abusers of themselves with men” (ASV); “abusers of
themselves with mankind” (KJV); “practicing homosexuals” (NAB); “homosexuals”
(NASB, NLT); “homosexual offenders” (NIV); and “sodomites” (NKJV, NRSV).
two words listed which denote same-sex sexual activity in the KJV are
“effeminate” (Greek, malakos)
and “abusers of themselves with mankind” (Greek, arsenokoites). The former word (malakos) is variously translated “boy prostitutes” (NAB, NLT,
NRSV); “effeminate” (NASB, ASV); “male prostitutes” (NIV); and “homosexuals”
(NKJV). The latter word (arsenokoites)
is variously translated “abusers of themselves with men” (ASV); “abusers of
themselves with mankind” (KJV); “practicing homosexuals” (NAB); “homosexuals”
(NASB, NLT); “homosexual offenders” (NIV); and “sodomites” (NKJV, NRSV).
Of the
two Greek words and as an adjective malakos
carries the meaning of “soft,” and was used in the ancient world to describe “catamites,
men and boys who allow themselves to be misused sexually.” See Ralph Earle, Word
Meanings in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986):
226. The latter word arsenokoites
is a compound word consisting of “male” (arsane) and “bed” (koite). The resultant meaning is “one who lies with a male
as with a female, a sodomite.” See Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
Reprint of 1889 Edition): 75.
two Greek words and as an adjective malakos
carries the meaning of “soft,” and was used in the ancient world to describe “catamites,
men and boys who allow themselves to be misused sexually.” See Ralph Earle, Word
Meanings in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1986):
226. The latter word arsenokoites
is a compound word consisting of “male” (arsane) and “bed” (koite). The resultant meaning is “one who lies with a male
as with a female, a sodomite.” See Joseph Henry Thayer, Greek-English
Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House,
Reprint of 1889 Edition): 75.
In his
excellent commentary and after consulting numerous ancient sources, Garland
concludes that the former word (malakos)
refers to “those males who are penetrated sexually by males,” and the latter
word (arsenokoites) to
“those males who sexually penetrate males.” See David E. Garland, 1
Corinthians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 2003): 214. The point is that contra The
Queen James Bible, the words the Apostle lists in tandem and contextually
associates in his list with “fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers” can only
refer to inter-masculine sexual activity, whether it be pederasty (homosexual
intercourse with a boy, which was common in the ancient Greco-Roman
civilization) or between two consenting adult males. And only by linguistic
contortion can the plain meaning of Scripture be altered on this point.
excellent commentary and after consulting numerous ancient sources, Garland
concludes that the former word (malakos)
refers to “those males who are penetrated sexually by males,” and the latter
word (arsenokoites) to
“those males who sexually penetrate males.” See David E. Garland, 1
Corinthians: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker Book House Company, 2003): 214. The point is that contra The
Queen James Bible, the words the Apostle lists in tandem and contextually
associates in his list with “fornicators, idolaters, and adulterers” can only
refer to inter-masculine sexual activity, whether it be pederasty (homosexual
intercourse with a boy, which was common in the ancient Greco-Roman
civilization) or between two consenting adult males. And only by linguistic
contortion can the plain meaning of Scripture be altered on this point.
[6] One
promo states that the QJB, with its rainbow cross on the cover, “has sought to
resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality by
editing those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations
impossible.” Then the promo exhorts: “You can’t choose your sexuality, but you
can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too.” See “A Gay Bible,” (http://queenjamesbible.com/). Under Editor’s
Notes, the translators cover the verses they’ve changed and provide their
“interpretations” for their having done so.
promo states that the QJB, with its rainbow cross on the cover, “has sought to
resolve interpretive ambiguity in the Bible as it pertains to homosexuality by
editing those eight verses in a way that makes homophobic interpretations
impossible.” Then the promo exhorts: “You can’t choose your sexuality, but you
can choose Jesus. Now you can choose a Bible, too.” See “A Gay Bible,” (http://queenjamesbible.com/). Under Editor’s
Notes, the translators cover the verses they’ve changed and provide their
“interpretations” for their having done so.
[11]
Schaeffer, “Evangelical Disaster,” 401. Erwin Lutzer traces the history of the
majority-accommodating church during the rise of Hitler and the Reich. The
characteristics look eerily familiar. See Erwin W. Lutzer, Hitler’s Cross: the
Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ was Used as a Symbol of the Nazi
Agenda (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995): 101-156.
Schaeffer, “Evangelical Disaster,” 401. Erwin Lutzer traces the history of the
majority-accommodating church during the rise of Hitler and the Reich. The
characteristics look eerily familiar. See Erwin W. Lutzer, Hitler’s Cross: the
Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ was Used as a Symbol of the Nazi
Agenda (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1995): 101-156.
[14] See
Pastor Larry DeBruyn, “Dominionism’s Fatal Flaw: The Depravity of Humanity,
Including ‘Us’,” Herescope, April 13, 2010 (https://herescope.net/2010/04/dominionisms-fatal-flaw.html).
[15] See Pastor Ken Silva’s article Jan 5, 2013 article, “Homoppression is at Least as Bad as Homophobia,” where he states: “looming only slightly off the horizon of the heart of the church visible there is indeed a same-sex storm that’s right now gathering hurricane force. So those of us who confront the pro-homosexual lobby are deemed homophobic. I say it’s about time that we answer that baseless charge by offering that, just maybe, they are heterophobic. And the homoppression I refer to here is not telling the truth to someone, claiming to be Christian, who self-identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT) and thereby leaving them under oppression in their sin. For you see, as with any other sin, e.g. heterosexual adultery or fornication, we are specifically commanded to tell people the truth according to God’s Word….” http://apprising.org/2013/01/05/homoppression-is-at-least-as-bad-as-homophobia/
Pastor Larry DeBruyn, “Dominionism’s Fatal Flaw: The Depravity of Humanity,
Including ‘Us’,” Herescope, April 13, 2010 (https://herescope.net/2010/04/dominionisms-fatal-flaw.html).
[15] See Pastor Ken Silva’s article Jan 5, 2013 article, “Homoppression is at Least as Bad as Homophobia,” where he states: “looming only slightly off the horizon of the heart of the church visible there is indeed a same-sex storm that’s right now gathering hurricane force. So those of us who confront the pro-homosexual lobby are deemed homophobic. I say it’s about time that we answer that baseless charge by offering that, just maybe, they are heterophobic. And the homoppression I refer to here is not telling the truth to someone, claiming to be Christian, who self-identifies as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered (LGBT) and thereby leaving them under oppression in their sin. For you see, as with any other sin, e.g. heterosexual adultery or fornication, we are specifically commanded to tell people the truth according to God’s Word….” http://apprising.org/2013/01/05/homoppression-is-at-least-as-bad-as-homophobia/