When “homosexuals” entered the Bible.

[Brian Stoffregen]

The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.

Are you suggesting the Church never cared much about homosexuality until 1948?

Yes. Homosexuality as an orientation wasn't much on the church's or anyone's radar back then. Even in recent years, when I've asked, "What is a homosexual?" Usually, if they answer, it's only about behaviors. Behaviors don't make one a homosexual. The first time I heard a more accurate definition was in 1975 or 1976 when a pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church spoke to us as the Denver House of Studies. Homosexuality is about what happens in the head: one's sexual dreams, fantasies, and desires; even if one never engages in any of those behaviors. In the earliest days of the ELCA, we would ordain homosexuals if they agreed to abstain from sexual relationships. There used to be a pastor in this forum who self-identified as homosexual, but who also agreed with those restrictions.


I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships.


I believe that the conundrum the ELCA ran into was that the original Vision and Expectations said: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful." Once same-sex marriages became available, the reason in this document for prohibiting sex relationships, i.e., being single; no longer applied.

[peter_speckhard]

Dreams, fantasies, and desires are not new, nor new as directed at people of the same sex. Nor would any ancient be stunned that some people seem uniformly to experience attraction to the same sex. What is new is the idea that “orientation” is an amoral category of human being like sex, and that committing sins one is oriented toward committing is therefore not sinful.

Much of the modern take on sexuality issues seems to stem from the idea that the purpose of religion is to offer fulfillment.

[Tom Eckstein]

The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.

Are you suggesting the Church never cared much about homosexuality until 1948?

Yes. Homosexuality as an orientation wasn't much on the church's or anyone's radar back then. Even in recent years, when I've asked, "What is a homosexual?" Usually, if they answer, it's only about behaviors. Behaviors don't make one a homosexual. The first time I heard a more accurate definition was in 1975 or 1976 when a pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church spoke to us as the Denver House of Studies. Homosexuality is about what happens in the head: one's sexual dreams, fantasies, and desires; even if one never engages in any of those behaviors. In the earliest days of the ELCA, we would ordain homosexuals if they agreed to abstain from sexual relationships. There used to be a pastor in this forum who self-identified as homosexual, but who also agreed with those restrictions.


I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships.


I believe that the conundrum the ELCA ran into was that the original Vision and Expectations said: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful." Once same-sex marriages became available, the reason in this document for prohibiting sex relationships, i.e., being single; no longer applied.

Brian, you wrote:  "I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships."

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but I know for a fact that the LCMS will ordain a man into the pastoral office if he has same-sex attraction - as long as he is repentant, and that means either single/celibate or married to a woman. 

In fact, years ago I personally endorsed a man who wanted to become an LCMS pastor and attend the St. Louis seminary.  He was up front with them that he had same-sex attraction, but that he agreed with Scripture that all forms of same-sex behavior are sinful and that as a single man he intended to remain celibate.  They welcomed him with open arms. 

A couple years after he was ordained he met a woman whom he eventually married and with whom he has had children - even though he continues to have same-sex attraction.  So your notion that people with SSA must marry people of the same-sex (even though Scripture condemns this!) just to avoid sexual temptation has no basis because a) many single Christians with a heterosexual orientation are expected to remain celibate as long as they're single even if they don't have the gift of celibacy, and b) those who DO have same-sex attraction still have the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex, having sex with this person and having children - and having  SSA doesn't prevent them from doing this.

Your argument that a person with same-sex desires must be given the option of marrying a person of the same-sex in order to avoid temptation fails to consider that many men continue to struggle with sexual temptation for women other than their wives.  Does this mean we should argue that we should permit polygamy just so men can avoid tempation?  Or what of the incestuous man in Corinth?  Should we argue that Paul should have permitted a polyamorous marriage between this man, his father and mother because that would help him avoid temptation?  Some same-sex couples are not satisfied having sex with their one partner because they have sexual desires for others of the same sex.  Does this mean we should permit group same-sex marriage so these people can avoid temptation?  Paul's point in 1st Corinthians 7 is that the ONLY option for avoiding sexual sin is marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  Paul does not give us the option of redefining marriage in order to help people make their sinful sexual desires "legitimate."

[Tom Eckstein]

I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that BDAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.

Brian, your post quoted above is erroneous for two reasons.

First, the German word Knabenschänder, used by Luther to translate the NT texts referring to same-sex behavior, even though it has a literal meaning that is narrow ("boy molester"), also had a broad meaning which referred to a person who engaged in same-sex behavior even if it was between two consenting adults.

Second, and I've pointed this out to you in the past, you would be hard pressed to find any evidence that Luther used Knabenschänder because he was trying to argue that Scripture only condemns pederasty as though Luther and other Christians of his day would have been just fine and dandy with adult, consensual, committed same-sex behavior.  There is NO evidence that Luther or the Church of his day would have been open to adult, consensual same-sex behavior.  So, your point about Luther using Knabenschänder makes no sense!

[David Garner]

The right assumption it makes is that the translation of 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy has been culturally bound through the ages. It wasn't about "homosexuals" until 1948.

Are you suggesting the Church never cared much about homosexuality until 1948?

Yes. Homosexuality as an orientation wasn't much on the church's or anyone's radar back then. Even in recent years, when I've asked, "What is a homosexual?" Usually, if they answer, it's only about behaviors. Behaviors don't make one a homosexual. The first time I heard a more accurate definition was in 1975 or 1976 when a pastor of the Metropolitan Community Church spoke to us as the Denver House of Studies. Homosexuality is about what happens in the head: one's sexual dreams, fantasies, and desires; even if one never engages in any of those behaviors. In the earliest days of the ELCA, we would ordain homosexuals if they agreed to abstain from sexual relationships. There used to be a pastor in this forum who self-identified as homosexual, but who also agreed with those restrictions.


I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships.


I believe that the conundrum the ELCA ran into was that the original Vision and Expectations said: "Single ordained ministers are expected to live a chaste life. Married ordained ministers are expected to live in fidelity to their spouses, giving expression to sexual intimacy within a marriage relationship that is mutual, chaste, and faithful." Once same-sex marriages became available, the reason in this document for prohibiting sex relationships, i.e., being single; no longer applied.

Okay, I might (or might not) grant that homosexuality "as an orientation" was not studied much in the nascent Church, nor spoken of in depth by the Fathers.  I won't do a research project to see one way or another.

But homosexual acts are thoroughly condemned in the Patristic literature.  It isn't even a question.

As for your question, I have no doubt that the Orthodox Church has priests right now who have same-sex attraction, but agree to live chaste lives.  I'd guess most if not all of those are monastics, and I'd also guess there aren't all that many, all things considered.  We would not, under any circumstances, ordain a gay man who was married to another man.  I'm not sure how any given bishop might deal with a gay man who is married to a woman, but I'd imagine he would have to be convinced that the marriage is an honest attempt to live a chaste life and not simply a cover.  I'd have to ask my bishop how he would handle such a situation, and I would be unlikely to report it here if he told me.  It is not unusual, though, for ordination to be withheld from those who suffer from other sexual sins, including (for example) the sin of divorce.  Even in cases where the divorce was biblical and a second marriage was allowed (or not sought), the bishop would have a hard time I think entrusting the care of an entire parish to one who struggled to maintain a Christian home. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Dreams, fantasies, and desires are not new, nor new as directed at people of the same sex. Nor would any ancient be stunned that some people seem uniformly to experience attraction to the same sex. What is new is the idea that “orientation” is an amoral category of human being like sex, and that committing sins one is oriented toward committing is therefore not sinful.

Much of the modern take on sexuality issues seems to stem from the idea that the purpose of religion is to offer fulfillment.

I have never said that "lusting" is not sinful. I've even raised the question if such lust for a spouse falls under that sin. Jesus did not say, "Every man who looks lustfully at a woman unless she is his wife, is committing adultery in his heart."


If we are hyper-literal, Jesus didn't say anything about a woman looking lustfully at a man, or lust between same-sex individuals; but we broaden his words to also include them.


Regardless of sexual orientation, we are all in the same ball park. Inner lusts are sinful. It's also highly unlikely that we can completely rid ourselves of them.


What, I believe, makes sexual acts sinful or not, is not the acts themselves; but the relationship between the people. Sexual intercourse can be God-pleasing, loving act between spouses; or an illegal act of rape. It's not the act itself that changes, but how the people are connected (or not) to each other.


Kissing can be misconduct if it is not wanted by the other party; or, it is an act of mutual love when both want that act of affection.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I think his essay suggest that our discussions about homosexuality would be quite different today if the RSV and subsequent translations had used "sexual perverts" in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy rather than "homosexuals."


However, DBAG 3rd edition includes these comments on ἀρσενοκοίτης: "(on the impropriety of RSV's 'homosexuals' [altered to 'sodomites' NRSV] s. WPetersen, VigChr 40, '86, 187-91; cp. Dwright, ibid. 41, '87, 396-98; REB's rendering of μαλακοὶ οὔτε ἀρσενοκοῖται w. the single term 'sexual pervert' is lexically unacceptable)"


The only gloss that BDAG suggests for ἀρσενοκοίτης is "pederast".


That is the understanding Luther had when he translated it with die Knabenschänder.

Brian, your post quoted above is erroneous for two reasons.

First, the German word Knabenschänder, used by Luther to translate the NT texts referring to same-sex behavior, even though it has a literal meaning that is narrow ("boy molester"), also had a broad meaning which referred to a person who engaged in same-sex behavior even if it was between two consenting adults.

Second, and I've pointed this out to you in the past, you would be hard pressed to find any evidence that Luther used Knabenschänder because he was trying to argue that Scripture only condemns pederasty as though Luther and other Christians of his day would have been just fine and dandy with adult, consensual, committed same-sex behavior.  There is NO evidence that Luther or the Church of his day would have been open to adult, consensual same-sex behavior.  So, your point about Luther using Knabenschänder makes no sense!

I believe Luther used that word because that's what he believed Paul was talking about: child molesters. I'm not saying that the church was open to adult, consensual, same-sex behaviors; but that that was not their understanding of ἀρσενοκοίτης.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Brian, you wrote:  "I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships."

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but I know for a fact that the LCMS will ordain a man into the pastoral office if he has same-sex attraction - as long as he is repentant, and that means either single/celibate or married to a woman. 

In fact, years ago I personally endorsed a man who wanted to become an LCMS pastor and attend the St. Louis seminary.  He was up front with them that he had same-sex attraction, but that he agreed with Scripture that all forms of same-sex behavior are sinful and that as a single man he intended to remain celibate.  They welcomed him with open arms. 

A couple years after he was ordained he met a woman whom he eventually married and with whom he has had children - even though he continues to have same-sex attraction.  So your notion that people with SSA must marry people of the same-sex (even though Scripture condemns this!) just to avoid sexual temptation has no basis because a) many single Christians with a heterosexual orientation are expected to remain celibate as long as they're single even if they don't have the gift of celibacy, and b) those who DO have same-sex attraction still have the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex, having sex with this person and having children - and having  SSA doesn't prevent them from doing this.

Your argument that a person with same-sex desires must be given the option of marrying a person of the same-sex in order to avoid temptation fails to consider that many men continue to struggle with sexual temptation for women other than their wives.  Does this mean we should argue that we should permit polygamy just so men can avoid temptation?  Or what of the incestuous man in Corinth?  Should we argue that Paul should have permitted a polyamorous marriage between this man, his father and mother because that would help him avoid temptation?  Some same-sex couples are not satisfied having sex with their one partner because they have sexual desires for others of the same sex.  Does this mean we should permit group same-sex marriage so these people can avoid temptation?  Paul's point in 1st Corinthians 7 is that the ONLY option for avoiding sexual sin is marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  Paul does not give us the option of redefining marriage in order to help people make their sinful sexual desires "legitimate."

I've known too many men who entered a heterosexual marriage, even had children; but the desire for same-sex relationships remained so strong that they ended up divorced and married to a same-sex partner. For them, it would be like you being forced into a same-sex relationship.  The body might perform OK, but the mind wouldn't be into it.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Okay, I might (or might not) grant that homosexuality "as an orientation" was not studied much in the nascent Church, nor spoken of in depth by the Fathers.  I won't do a research project to see one way or another.

But homosexual acts are thoroughly condemned in the Patristic literature.  It isn't even a question.

As for your question, I have no doubt that the Orthodox Church has priests right now who have same-sex attraction, but agree to live chaste lives.  I'd guess most if not all of those are monastics, and I'd also guess there aren't all that many, all things considered.  We would not, under any circumstances, ordain a gay man who was married to another man.  I'm not sure how any given bishop might deal with a gay man who is married to a woman, but I'd imagine he would have to be convinced that the marriage is an honest attempt to live a chaste life and not simply a cover.  I'd have to ask my bishop how he would handle such a situation, and I would be unlikely to report it here if he told me.  It is not unusual, though, for ordination to be withheld from those who suffer from other sexual sins, including (for example) the sin of divorce.  Even in cases where the divorce was biblical and a second marriage was allowed (or not sought), the bishop would have a hard time I think entrusting the care of an entire parish to one who struggled to maintain a Christian home.

Ah, maintaining a Christian home; or 1 Timothy 3:4-5 words (CEB): "They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?"


What does a congregation or judicatory do if a pastor's child has moved in with partner? This has happened with numerous family members and some clergy I know. Should a pastor resign if children do not follow the church's teachings about sex and marriage? Or, enters into a same-sex relationship?

[David Garner]

Okay, I might (or might not) grant that homosexuality "as an orientation" was not studied much in the nascent Church, nor spoken of in depth by the Fathers.  I won't do a research project to see one way or another.

But homosexual acts are thoroughly condemned in the Patristic literature.  It isn't even a question.

As for your question, I have no doubt that the Orthodox Church has priests right now who have same-sex attraction, but agree to live chaste lives.  I'd guess most if not all of those are monastics, and I'd also guess there aren't all that many, all things considered.  We would not, under any circumstances, ordain a gay man who was married to another man.  I'm not sure how any given bishop might deal with a gay man who is married to a woman, but I'd imagine he would have to be convinced that the marriage is an honest attempt to live a chaste life and not simply a cover.  I'd have to ask my bishop how he would handle such a situation, and I would be unlikely to report it here if he told me.  It is not unusual, though, for ordination to be withheld from those who suffer from other sexual sins, including (for example) the sin of divorce.  Even in cases where the divorce was biblical and a second marriage was allowed (or not sought), the bishop would have a hard time I think entrusting the care of an entire parish to one who struggled to maintain a Christian home.

Ah, maintaining a Christian home; or 1 Timothy 3:4-5 words (CEB): "They should manage their own household well—they should see that their children are obedient with complete respect, because if they don’t know how to manage their own household, how can they take care of God’s church?"


What does a congregation or judicatory do if a pastor's child has moved in with partner? This has happened with numerous family members and some clergy I know. Should a pastor resign if children do not follow the church's teachings about sex and marriage? Or, enters into a same-sex relationship?

Also a question for the bishop, in our polity.

[peter_speckhard]

Dreams, fantasies, and desires are not new, nor new as directed at people of the same sex. Nor would any ancient be stunned that some people seem uniformly to experience attraction to the same sex. What is new is the idea that “orientation” is an amoral category of human being like sex, and that committing sins one is oriented toward committing is therefore not sinful.

Much of the modern take on sexuality issues seems to stem from the idea that the purpose of religion is to offer fulfillment.

I have never said that "lusting" is not sinful. I've even raised the question if such lust for a spouse falls under that sin. Jesus did not say, "Every man who looks lustfully at a woman unless she is his wife, is committing adultery in his heart."


If we are hyper-literal, Jesus didn't say anything about a woman looking lustfully at a man, or lust between same-sex individuals; but we broaden his words to also include them.


Regardless of sexual orientation, we are all in the same ball park. Inner lusts are sinful. It's also highly unlikely that we can completely rid ourselves of them.


What, I believe, makes sexual acts sinful or not, is not the acts themselves; but the relationship between the people. Sexual intercourse can be God-pleasing, loving act between spouses; or an illegal act of rape. It's not the act itself that changes, but how the people are connected (or not) to each other.


Kissing can be misconduct if it is not wanted by the other party; or, it is an act of mutual love when both want that act of affection.

Sexual desire per se is not the same thing as lust. Also, consent/mutuality is a 5th commandment issue, not a 6th commandment issue. The proper use the body/sexuality is the 6th commandment issue.

[Tom Eckstein]

Brian, you wrote:  "I don't know about the LCMS or the Orthodox if they will ordained a self-identified homosexual if they agree to abstain from sexual relationships."

I can't speak for the Orthodox, but I know for a fact that the LCMS will ordain a man into the pastoral office if he has same-sex attraction - as long as he is repentant, and that means either single/celibate or married to a woman. 

In fact, years ago I personally endorsed a man who wanted to become an LCMS pastor and attend the St. Louis seminary.  He was up front with them that he had same-sex attraction, but that he agreed with Scripture that all forms of same-sex behavior are sinful and that as a single man he intended to remain celibate.  They welcomed him with open arms. 

A couple years after he was ordained he met a woman whom he eventually married and with whom he has had children - even though he continues to have same-sex attraction.  So your notion that people with SSA must marry people of the same-sex (even though Scripture condemns this!) just to avoid sexual temptation has no basis because a) many single Christians with a heterosexual orientation are expected to remain celibate as long as they're single even if they don't have the gift of celibacy, and b) those who DO have same-sex attraction still have the option of marrying a person of the opposite sex, having sex with this person and having children - and having  SSA doesn't prevent them from doing this.

Your argument that a person with same-sex desires must be given the option of marrying a person of the same-sex in order to avoid temptation fails to consider that many men continue to struggle with sexual temptation for women other than their wives.  Does this mean we should argue that we should permit polygamy just so men can avoid temptation?  Or what of the incestuous man in Corinth?  Should we argue that Paul should have permitted a polyamorous marriage between this man, his father and mother because that would help him avoid temptation?  Some same-sex couples are not satisfied having sex with their one partner because they have sexual desires for others of the same sex.  Does this mean we should permit group same-sex marriage so these people can avoid temptation?  Paul's point in 1st Corinthians 7 is that the ONLY option for avoiding sexual sin is marriage between ONE man and ONE woman.  Paul does not give us the option of redefining marriage in order to help people make their sinful sexual desires "legitimate."

I've known too many men who entered a heterosexual marriage, even had children; but the desire for same-sex relationships remained so strong that they ended up divorced and married to a same-sex partner. For them, it would be like you being forced into a same-sex relationship.  The body might perform OK, but the mind wouldn't be into it.

Brian, I also know some heterosexual men who enter a heterosexual marriage, but the desire for other women remained so strong that they ended up getting a divorce so they could marry other women to whom they were sexually attracted.

We all have various sinful sexual desires that God does NOT allow us to act upon, and attempting to condone such sinful sexual behaviors with the label of "marriage" is not the solution.

[Randy Bosch]

Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

[Brian Stoffregen]

Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?

[Donald_Kirchner]

Hebrews 13:4:  Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

Hmmm, if marriage should be honored by all, wouldn't that mean that y'all should honor same-sex marriages?

No. I know, you're only asking an illogical question, in the context of this conversation, but what is your answer?