A Word About the “Reformation Project”

Homosexuality and related issues continue to be a major point of contention across Christendom. Mainline Protestantism has largely embraced homosexuals, while evangelicals and the Roman Catholic Church have struggled with how exactly to respond, especially as homosexuals have gained more and more mainstream acceptance. Books have been written, lectures delivered, and debates waged, all of which has done little to actually alter course or delay much of anything. I’m not so much interested in the political aspects of the debate, but rather the theological.

It’s hardly surprising that when a major social issue arises to heightened public conscience, responses arise from every corner of Christendom. One example of that is the Reformation Project, founded by one Matthew Vines. Dedicated to furthering the acceptance of LGBTQ community into Christendom broadly speaking, this organization has been around for a few years, and Vines has been in dialogue about these issues since he authored God and the Gay Christian and delivered a speech on the case for Christians affirming same sex attraction in 2012. Periodically, articles from the Reformation Project make their rounds and I’ve even been asked about this article. With all that said, I want to briefly respond to the good, the bad, and the obvious in this article and in the debate generally.

What We Can Agree On

The church should be a group of people among whom anyone can feel safe and loved. This should be a top priority for anyone who values Jesus’ affirmation of the second greatest commandment. (Matt 22:39) I can appreciate this emphasis, even with the key exceptions I take to Vines and others in this debate. Further, I believe it to be a net positive to have this debate, because it requires the church at large to discern not only what it is against, but what it is for. Christians will have to develop and articulate a holistic, healthy, and Biblical view of human sexuality, a subject that has sometimes been neglected.

Some Areas of Concern

With the positives stated, I have a methodological concern and a theological concern. The methodological concern could be entirely a question of intended audiences, but I do think it’s noteworthy that the article is very light in its citation of scholarly sources, especially when discussing the meaning of Greek terms (a reference is made to a monograph by Dale Martin, with a link to the relevant chapter, as well as an article on the history of using the word “homosexual” in translations, and a YouTube link to a discussion on the matter, but little else).

I recognize that blogs and the like written at popular level often don’t provide footnotes or the like, and some may disagree with me, but I find it troubling when a writer makes a research based claim without showing where they did their research, especially with reference to the meanings of words in foreign and dead languages. The reason for this is simple: intentionally or otherwise, not providing these citations removes the ability of the reader to go back to the sources you used and verify the information you cited. Even if a person lacks the training to read in another language, a citation both shows where you got your information and allows for accountability in making a claim. This is not to say that I think that Vines, or anyone else in this debate, is engaged in deception or the like, but to make the point that given the availability of well researched lexicons and other sources, people who purport to write with any level of authority on this subject should cite their sources, especially in settings where doing so is fairly easy. Even a title and page number would be sufficient in this context, I think.

The second issue, the theological one, is an apparent disconnect between the Old Testament and the New in the eyes of advocates of LGBTQ lifestyles. Particularly, in debates that I’ve watched between James White and LGBTQ advocates, there is a heavy emphasis on the New Testament. In some cases, it’s because the debate’s thesis centers on the New Testament and that’s fair enough. In others, it seems like one stays in the Old Testament only long enough to discuss Leviticus 18 and then makes a beeline to Jesus. I recognize that some find James White distasteful, and I can understand that, but set that aside for the moment and consider the scope of the question at hand. To ask, “What does God say about homosexuality,” and then ignore roughly 2/3 of what has been divinely inspired is puzzling, especially for LGBTQ advocates who claim to otherwise be historically orthodox Christians. Further, the rush to Jesus in the New Testament ignores another key point of historic orthodoxy: Jesus is God the Son and therefore, existed and acted as God in the Old Testament. I don’t mean this in the sense of “finding Christ in the Old Testament,” but rather as a fundamental point about Jesus. If he is in fact God the Son, equal to and one with the Father, then he was God in the Old Testament as well, meaning that the Old Testament is still remarkably relevant for understand issues today, even when one accounts for distinctions between the cultic and moral aspects of Mosaic Law. Further, given that Jesus frequently quotes the Old Testament, I suspect that if one were to ask him about homosexuality, his answer would begin with, “Have you not read?”

Response to Key Claims

With all of that said, there are a few key claims that merit a response. Firstly, to note that “homosexual” doesn’t appear in English Bibles until the 20th century, as well as noting the use of terms implying pederasty in other translations, while factually correct, is a non sequitur when discussing what the terms originally meant. Obviously, a term that wasn’t coined until the middle of the 19th century in German and the late 19th century in English (as claimed here) isn’t going to be present in translation before then and will require mainstreaming before use in later translations. Further, such a claim, even if totally factually accurate, misunderstands the authority of the Bible. Aside from KJV onlyists, Christians do not locate ultimate authority in translations, but in the texts as they were originally written. This is why many Christians have such an intense interest in text criticism and why knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is (or at least was) highly prized as a skill for teachers and preachers to have. Translations are trustworthy representatives of God’s authority when they accurately represent what God originally said.

As to the claims regarding the meaning of the specific terms, arsenokoitai and malakoi (transliterated here for convenience), there is some history of debate, that is itself too lengthy to fully develop here. That said, a few key points can be noted here:

  • I believe it to be fully consistent with good lexicography to understand arsenokoites to mean, merely, a homosexual or more precisely, a man who has sex with men. BDAG, 135 is especially helpful on the subject noting the range of use, as well as some of the key literature on the debate around the terms meaning. Further helpful, albeit brief, entries include BrillDAG, 590, and LSJ, 247. The entry found in NIDNTTE, v.1, p. 405–8 is also helpful, especially because it references key articles and a monograph.

  • The term malakoi, I think, is similarly settled, meaning soft primarily and having, amongst other meanings, the contextually derived meaning of effeminate when applied to men. See especially, NIDNTTE, v. 3, p. 217 and BDAG, 613.

  • To argue that Paul is actually drawing on Greco-Roman styles such as the vice list or actually addressing issues such as exploitation both fails to adequately account for Paul, for all his contact with the Greco-Roman world, being distinctly Jewish in his thinking and framing and his reliance on the Old Testament (see especially Thiselton’s NIGTC volume on 1 Corinthians, 440-52 for an excellent and, I think, even-handed discussion that both covers many of the aforementioned aspects and cites a variety of sources for further research).

Some Final Recommendations

In summary, I find the arguments presented by the Reformation Project unsatisfactory, as you may have guessed. With that said, I don’t want to bash Vines and his colleagues, or anyone else for that matter. What I do want to do, however, is urge you, dear reader, to continue your own research and reading, and come to your own conclusions. I’ve cited several things here, including links where possible, and I encourage you to roll your sleeves up and do your homework. Some reference materials are expensive and you may not be able to just buy them, but university libraries often have many of these sources (or can get them in some way) and you may know someone who actually owns their own copy. Whatever the case may be, you don’t have to trust me. You can do this kind of research yourself and you can even learn Greek and Hebrew if you have the time to commit to it. You can also watch debates on the matter. Sean McDowell and Matthew Vines have debated this very issue and you can watch that debate for free. My point is, dear reader, there is an embarrassment of riches to work with, and I believe that anyone who wishes can dive in and mine those riches.