Sexuality, Identity and the Word of God: Part 1

A few weeks ago in one of my classes we were discussing ancient Greek concepts of sexuality. The texts we were working with were Against Timarchus by Aeschines and Michel Foucault’s The History of Sexuality: Volume 2, The Use of Pleasure. The first of these is a juridical speech from ancient Athens in which Aeschines accuses Timarchus of several crimes, the worst of which is the fact that he prostituted himself. The second is the volume in Foucault’s history in which he examines ancient Greek sexuality. The first work doesn’t bear too much on what I have to say, but is a fascinating glimpse at Greek conceptions of the public and private spheres and what role sexuality—sexual misconduct particularly—plays in each of them (a discussion of which would make a captivating future post…maybe someday). Foucault’s explanation of Greek conceptions of sexuality is what really got me thinking about what I hope to share with you.

But first, a few words about Foucault himself. He was a 20th century French philosopher who wrote on a whole range of subjects. More relevant to our current discussion is the fact that he was certainly no friend of Christianity—he was openly gay, experimented with the most extreme manifestations of sexual perversion and dabbled with various drugs., eventually dying of an AIDS-related disease in the 1980s. Nevertheless, I believe his analysis of ancient Greek sexuality may reveal a more biblical conception than that with which most of us are familiar.

Before I go on though, allow me to make a few disclaimer-type statements. Foucault and our class discussion really only provided the seed for my thoughts on the subject. I have been mulling over these ideas for a few weeks now. All the news flying around in the past couple days about Dr. Al Mohler and hormone treatments for gay babies provided a final impetus to share my thoughts on the blog. Since I am neither an expert on sexuality, identity, or the word of God, and since all these ideas are basically original, it is with some trepidation that I post them on the world wide web (since they might be totally wrong!). My comfort is that I can preface them with this disclaimer and state that they are really only the results of personal brainstorming, not extensive research.
The argument I hope to present will be pretty dense and possibly a little complex, so I think it would be helpful to try to lay out the basic structure beforehand:

I. Our Conception of Sexual Orientation
. The Misleading Nature of the Language we Use
. We See Sexual Orientation as a part of our Existential Identity
II. The Ancient Greek Conception of Sexual Orientation
. They do NOT see Sexual Orientation as a part of Existential Identity
. What this Means for Contemporary Debates
III. Romans 1
. Role-reversals
. Homosexuality as Rebellion
. Identity in Romans 1

If and When…

My dear mother directed me to these sage words of James Fraser, missionary to China:

“The temptation I have often had to contend with is persistent under many forms: ‘If only I were in such and such a position’ for example, ‘shouldn’t I be able to do a great work! Yes, I am only studying engineering at present, but when I am in training for missionary work things will be different and more helpful.’ Or ‘I am just in preparation at present, taking Bible courses and so on, but when I get out to China my work will begin.’ ‘Yes, I have left home now, but I am only on the voyage, you know; when I am really in China, I shall have a splendid chance of service.’ Or, ‘Well, here in the Training Home, all my time must be given to language study—how can I do missionary work? But when I am settled down in my station and able to speak freely, opportunities will be unlimited!’ etc., etc.

It is all if and when. I believe the devil is fond of those conjunctions… The plain truth is that the scriptures never teach us to wait for opportunities of service, but to serve in just the things that lie next to our hands… The Lord bids us work, watch and pray; but Satan suggests, wait until a good opportunity for working, watching and praying presents itself—and needless to say, this opportunity is always in the future…”

Life Under the Sun

“…most of them are old enough to know by experience that a gun is no more likely than a toothpaste or a cosmetic to do the things its makers say it will do. It is the same with all their machines. Their labour-saving devices multiply drudgery; their aphrodisiacs make them impotent: their amusements bore them: their rapid production of food leaves half of them starving, and their devices for saving time have banished leisure from the their country. There will be no radical change. And as for permanence—consider how quickly all machines are broken and obliterated.”

C.S. Lewis, The Pilgrim’s Regress

Comfortable Christianity

“Is the Christianity of our day of the lofty kind of which apostolic men have left us so bright an example? Is it not feeble, indolent, self-indulgent, second-rate? Is there in it anything of the presentation of ‘living sacrifices’ to God, which is our acceptable and reasonable service? Are we not seeking our own, not the things which are Jesus Christ’s? Are we not feasting when the world is starving? Are we not at ease in Zion? Are we not sitting still and in luxurious comfort, when many noble and self-sacrificing ones amongst us are rushing into the toil or the war, and, for want of being supported by their fellow Christians, are sinking under the burden and heat of the day?

“O easy, luxurious, comfortable Christian! While you are lolling on your couch the sinner is going down to woe! While you are soothing your conscience with the opiates of religious routine; or pampering the flesh; or killing time in mirth and music, at the concert, or oratorio, or social party; or idling days in sport; or talking politics; or drinking in the applause of public opinion; or sunning yourself in the blaze of the ballroom; or absorbed in the latest novel; or engrossed with the unmeaningness of the card table;—men are dying, the present scene is passing, the eternal world is hastening on, and the Judge is at the door!

“Rouse thyself from thy indulgence, and work! Do it with thy might. Spend and be spent. Give thy money to the Master; give thy strength and thy life to Him. For He is at hand. He may be nearer than thou thinkest. And how shouldst thou like to be caught by Him lounging on thy soft couch, or feasting at thy well-spread table, when thou shouldst have been working for Him, or fighting His battles,—visiting His brethren, soothing His sorrowing children, ministering to His poor disciples, grudging no weariness or hardship for a Master like Him?”

-Taken from Light & Truth: Bible Thoughts and Themes, Vol. IV, The Lesser Epistles, by Horatius Bonar, 1870.

I stole all of this from horatiusbonar.com, which you should really check out. It offers a CD full of almost all Bonar’s works, including one of my favorite books: God’s Way of Peace–a book which I know has, by God’s grace, done many souls eternal good.

Ehrman vs. the Word, Part III

Here’s a sample from one of Ehrman’s lectures: “You shouldn’t think something just because you believe it. You need reasons. That applies to religion. That applies to politics . . . just because your parents believe something isn’t good enough.” The statement is true enough, but coming at the end of lecture designed to tear away all credibility from the canonical gospels, it leaves a bitter taste. What Ehrman’s eyes are blind to is the fact that Christians do have reasons to believe. Lots of them.

Here’s another excerpt from the article:
“To get an idea of how complicated this can be, consider: Greek, the lingua franca of the day, was written without capitalization or punctuation.

Here, you play biblical translator. Look at this, an example in English, from Ehrman’s book:

godisnowhere

Does it say: God is now here.

Or: God is nowhere.”

That is what really got me angry. That is the most underhanded, dishonest load of (as St. Paul would say) dung that I have ever heard!! First of all, the fact that ancient Greek is written without punctuation or capitals does NOT translate into the confusion which we see above. While it can introduce minor alterations over centuries of transmission, Ehrman’s “godisnowhere” example is ridiculous! Greek is an inflected language, which means that the precise endings of words are essential to the meaning and there are only a finite number of them. Room for error is minimal. Ehrman is a Greek scholar; he knows that! Furthermore, an instance of “godisnowhere” is only ambiguous if it is removed from its context. Come on Bart!
thefactthatyoucanreadthissentancewithminimaldifficultyprovesmypoint
—andenglishisnteveninflected!
The article is full of similar drivel; but I’m getting sick of it, and you probably are too. Rest assured, the authority of the Bible is not imperilled by Bart Ehrman. Unfortunately, many of your neighbours and co-workers will believe that it is. Live a life so full of the same Spirit which inspired the Word that they cannot but believe that there must be something to it all. And pray for Bart, that his eyes may be opened.

Ehrman vs. the Word, Part II

The saddest part of this whole tale is not the eternal peril Bart himself is in (though that alone would be sad enough). Rather, it is the fact that he seems determined to lead others down the same road of destruction. By all accounts, he’s doing a good job of it. His book, Misquoting Jesus, was a New York Times bestseller, and he has written many similar books besides.

Now, I haven’t actually read Ehrman’s book (if I ever do, I’ll post a full review), so my comments are based on what I gleaned from his interview with the Washington Post. The article cites three passages in the Bible which Ehrman states are later interpolations: Jesus and the Woman Caught in Adultery (John 8:1-11), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-19), and the reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7. The article calls the first an issue which goes right to the heart of the Christian faith. Hardly! What’s more, this is nothing new that Ehrman brings up. Christian scholars have had doubts about the veracity of this passage since at least the 19th century (see Ryle’s discussion of the passage in his Expository Thoughts). Even if the point were granted, it would not alter the Christian faith in any way.
The last 12 verses of Mark, which Ehrman says are a later addition, are cited by the article as “the only verses in that book that show Christ reappearing after his death.” While true, this particular wording makes it sound as if the entire idea of the resurrection was added to the Gospel of Mark by some later scribe. A quick perusal of Mark 16 will show that this is certainly not the case—the resurrection is still there, just not an account of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances. Lastly, the explicit reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5 is handled in this way: “It is a cornerstone of Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in the entire Bible — but it appears to have been added to the text centuries later, by an unknown scribe.” As if the doctrine of the Trinity stands or falls with this one verse! Again, scholars have known about this for years. The fact that it is a later addition is so obvious that no modern translations include it at all. Some pass over it without so much as a footnote. The KJV is the only translation which includes the verse and while the NKJV was bound to include it since it too was based on the Textus Receptus, it clearly notes the suspect nature of the verse with this strong footnote: “NU, M omit the words from in heaven (v. 7) through on earth (v. 8). Only 4 or 5 very late mss. contain these words in Greek.”
So Christians have nothing to fear and nothing to hide. These passages are by far the most substantial passages in scripture which are questioned and none of them changes Christian doctrine appreciably. In fact, the last example doesn’t even count since basically nobody believes that it was part of God’s inspired word. Ehrman is kicking over straw men. The Word of God stands secure. Sadly, many uninformed Christians may be cast into serious doubt by Ehrman’s rhetoric and hearts that are closed to Jesus Christ will gladly jump on his bandwagon to confirm themselves in their unbelief. Nevertheless, God’s arm is not weakened. He is still mighty to save, and he does save hardened sinners every day.

Ehrman vs. the Word, Part I

Bart Ehrman is the devil’s dream come true. ‘Born again’ in his teens, Ehrman went on to study at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College before earning his PhD in Biblical Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. The more he studied the documents on which his Christianity was based, however, the more he realized that everything he ever believed was a lie.
Understandably the anti-Christian members of the press have had a heyday with Bart. What could be a stronger indictment against Christianity than one of its own who, after taking an honest and scholarly look at its primary documents, was forced to conclude that the whole thing was a sham? I recently read one such article in the Washington Post. It reminded me of a similar article I had read in that same publication a few months earlier. I just had to blog about it.

The Washington Post seems to like Bart Ehrman and dislike Christianity. When the “In the Beginning: Bibles Before the Year 1000″ exhibition was showing at the Smithsonian (to which, I might add, I would TOTALLY have gone if I could have afforded it!), the Washington Post ran an article about the documents on display there. The piece took for granted the idea that these documents prove there never was a monumental Christian faith until the Ecumenical Councils of later centuries and that Christianity was entirely nebulous before that time. Guess who they interviewed. None other than Bart Ehrman, author of the book Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why.
The year previous, when Ehrman released that book, they had interviewed him as well. It was that interview that really got me going…

Greek Font Test

Below are some words in ancient Greek. Please leave a comment in the following format: “[OS] [Browser] [Can you see the letters?] [Can you see the accents (including the one below the line)?]” Also, if you note anything that you think doesn’t belong, please describe it (eg. boxes).
An example comment would be: “Windows, Internet Explorer, Yes, Yes” or “OSX, Safari, Yes, No”

Thanks a lot, this is greatly appreciated.

So here’s the Greek:

Καλῶς γένοιτο Ῥωμαίοις καὶ τῷ ἔθνει Ὶουδαίων

The Bible

Here’s an awesome little video to whet your appetite for more of what can be found in the book I just reviewed below. It really is worth the 10 minutes it will take you to watch. (click either of the play buttons to watch it here, or click the picture to watch it at Youtube.com)(Also, if it’s a little choppy at first, just press pause and wait for the red line to get ahead of you.)

Review: The Case for Christ

“Strobel’s tough, point-blank questions make this remarkable book read like a captivating, fast-paced novel. But it’s not fiction. It’s a riveting quest for the truth about history’s most compelling figure.
What will your verdict be in The Case for Christ?”

So states the back cover of Lee Strobel’s book, The Case for Christ: A Journalist’s Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus. Captivating, fast-paced and riveting as it may be, the question remains: is it worth reading?
In a word, yes.
The book is basically a compilation of Srobel’s interviews with various scholars regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ. It is divided into three parts: the first deals with the reliability of the biblical narrative of Jesus’ life; the second with Jesus’ identity; the third with the resurrection.
The basic premise of the book is that if Jesus really existed and if Jesus was/is who the gospels say he was/is and if his resurrection from the dead really happened in time and space, then Jesus of Nazareth has a unique claim on all of our lives. Strobel himself began a personal journey to find if these things were so after the salvation of his wife turned him from hardened sceptic to intrigued investigator. In his book, Strobel attempts to recreate his journey from sceptic to believer by asking scholars the same hard questions he himself asked of the evidence.
Satan has often assaulted the church of Christ by trying to undermine its key doctrines (the word, the identity of Jesus, the resurrection) and this book is a great introduction to some of the extra-biblical evidence that supports what believers already know to be true. In that sense it can definitely be used by God to strengthen the believer’s faith and is a recommended read.
There is, however, a major weakness which undercuts what seems to be Strobel’s primary purpose with this volume: evangelism. In this capacity I think its usefulness will be limited. The problem is that the book is structured in such a way so as to leave us with the impression that we should believe the Bible is true because five guys with their PhDs say it is. We should believe Jesus is who he says he is because three guys with their PhDs say he is. And we should believe the resurrection really happened because four guys with their PhDs say it did. You see the problem. For every one of these PhDs, there are a hundred other PhDs who would answer Strobel’s questions very, very differently. This is not to say that the PhDs don’t provide encouraging corroborative evidence or that what they say doesn’t matter. It is to say, however, that in the end we must believe the Bible because we are convinced by the Holy Spirit of God that it is his word to man. Nothing less will change our lives.
There are other little quirks about this book as well. Strobel doesn’t play the role of the hardened sceptic too convincingly and the real hardened sceptic will complain that he concedes his points too easily. In addition, his writing style can be wearisome at times.
In the end though, this book is worth the read for a Christian. Just don’t expect it to convince everyone on your street that Jesus is Lord. Stick to God’s own word for that. By the way, when was the last time you used God’s word to try and convince everyone on your street that Jesus is Lord?