Scripture's "critical nuance" of 'malakoi' and 'arsenakoitai' lost on Wheaton as identity politics prevail...
Under the post, "Wheaton announces 'homosexuality' is not sin...," one brother comments:
Tim, I may have missed something.... While, as a former "Wheatie," I would have preferred that Wheaton not enter into this spiritual minefield, let’s not read more into this than is there. As for Provost Jones, I believe that he is correct in saying that ...the mere attraction to members of the same sex, if not acted upon, is no more sin than the attraction a heterosexual feels to members of the opposite sex. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is not to the contrary. It’s clear that Paul is describing behaviors, not merely states of temptation, here, so there is no reason to believe that Paul in using the term "homosexual" is referring to anyone other than those who practice homosexuality. Indeed, the ESV, generally recognized as the most reformed-friendly English translation, translates the Greek as "men who practice homosexuality."
To which I respond:
Yes, I think you have missed some things. We're dealing here with the politics of identity and the world is saying men have no control over being homosexual and so they should not be penalized for it. This is the entire basis of the sodomite marriage movement. Equal rights for homosexuals.
But if you apply this to any sin that our culture doesn't want to privilege, it's shown as the sham it is. Take bestiality, for instance: if Phil Ryken and Stan Jones were to issue a statement announcing a support group for those who identify as "rutters"—let's say that were the name they took for themselves; if they explained that many rutters feel very alienated and are in danger of committing suicide because of how different they feel among their peers, what would our reaction be?
Because no one yet has convinced our society that rutters have no control over their identity, over being into bestiality and identifying as "rutters." Then too, there hasn't yet been a rutters disease that's wiped out whole rutters' neighborhoods and left a generation of those identifying as rutters dead from their peculiar disease. In other words, so-called compassion has not yet done its work of softening everyone up to rutters. (And no, I'm not lacking compassion for those who have died of AIDS, but I am working to show the way AIDS has softened us up for acceptance of "homosexuality.")
Take murderers. What if a Ph.D. from Oxford with his TE from the PCA who is president of the proudest Evangelical academic institution in the world were to come out with a statement that he and his provost have created a support group for those who identify as murderers yet have agreed not to commit murder while students at Wheaton? You'd scratch your head, right? "A support group for those who identify as murderers? Can the man be serious? I thought he had a Ph.D.? I thought he was a Christian? But my friends tell me he's a good man and he used to be the Sr. Minister of one of the most prestigious tall-steeple Presbyterian churches in Philadelphia. What's going on, here?"
And so on.
Try it with feminism.
President Phil Ryken and Provost Stan Jones announced today that they have started a new support group for those who identify as feminists. This support group is in response to depressed and oppressed feminists feeling alienated at Wheaton; they say they feel different from their peers and colleagues at Wheaton and those closest to them report that, without such support group, some of them may be in danger of committing suicide. The President and his Provost tell us the critical nuance is between feminists and rebels. Say Drs. Ryken and Jones, "This group, while supporting those who are feminists, will continue to uphold Wheaton's proud tradition of teaching and adhering to God's Creation Order. It is understood that these feminists will not act out on their feminism. If married, we expect them to submit to their husbands, and we trust none of them will cross that line and live their identity out loud by preaching or teaching or exercising authority over men—particularly in any church."
But of course, that one's a joke, not least because Wheaton is a hotbed of feminism. Yet even if Wheaton still had a some small commitment to submit to the Word of God and confess and obey God's Creation Order of Adam, then Eve, we could imagine how ridiculous the above would look and sound. She's a feminist but she promises only to identify as one and not to act as one? What's that about?
We could go one and on. Rapists who have to commit violence against women in order to experience sexual satisfaction; they feel alienated and are in danger of suicide because of their angst resulting from their "difference" from the rest of the community—and of course, some insensitive brutes who privilege consensual sexuality and make no bones about their disapprobation of those who identify as rapists.
See how it doesn't work?
We could go on and on. Pederasts. Adulterers. Fornicators. Where would we stop?
Better to ask why we started such nonsense with homosexuality?
If any man is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away. Behold, all things have become new. (2Corinthians 5:17)
If this means anything, it means the Holy Spirit sanctifies us by removing our desire for sin whether that sin is rape, fornication, murder, gossip, greed, or homosexuality. Thus those who believe should "make no provision for the flesh." The greedy man should not threaten suicide because the church condemns his greed. How evil! The rapist should not threaten suicide because his fellow students condemn his rapist identity—say, for instance, his love of rap music. How evil!
There is not one other place where Christians are submitting to backmail and cowering in the corner just now. The menu is sodomy and homosexualists are in full dudgeon to stamp out any lingering witness that because of such wickedness the wrath of God descends on man. So they claim that homosexual tendencies aren't chosen and, being at the heart of a man or woman's identity, should be treated tenderly and accepted. And the way to do this moral shuffle within an Evangelical church or college is to talk about the "critical nuance" of homosexuality as opposed to homosexual acts.
What bunk! What foolishness! What betrayal of the souls bedeviled by this cursed temptation! What lovelessness! What postmodern equivocation! What faithlessness.
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate (malakoi), nor homosexuals (arsenakoitai), nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. (1Corinthians 6:9-11)
Did you see that? "Of such WERE some of you." No politics of homosexual identity here. No coddling of the effeminate.
Just past tense—"were."
It's way too late in the day for Christians to get up to speed on the battle for God's Law surrounding us today. If Phil and Stan Jones were good men, they would understand these things and guard their sheep. And the way to guard them is clear. I ended the post with the path they must take:
I call on President Ryken and Provost Jones to reverse their position and change the nature of their LGBT group. Announce to everyone that it is now going to be a group designated to help those in bondage to homosexuality and effeminacy to repent and escape this bondage.
Unless, of course, Wheaton denies anyone needs to repent of effeminacy.
Simple, isn't it? So very simple.
But they won't.
Because they use the ESV and the ESV has removed 'malakoi' from the text of God's Word. Two Greek words naming two distinct sins are compressed into one sin in the ESV: 'malakoi' and 'arsenakoitai' become "men who practice homosexuality." But of course, when the Holy Spirit inspires the Apostle Paul to write two words—not one—both words describing both sins should be translated. What word, what sin was left out by the ESV (published by Crossway across the tracks from Wheaton College)?
And what does 'malakoi' mean?
My friend Dr. Robert Gagnon who is without question the top scholar on all things homosexual in Scripture writes:
The word 'malakoi' and its Latin equivalent 'molles' (and their cognates) were often employed in antiquity in a restrictive sense; namely, to refer to adult males who were biologically and/or psychologically disposed to desire penetration by men and who actively feminized their appearance and manner as a means to attracting such partners.
The ESV removes this critical nuance inspired by the Holy Spirit and Wheaton's best and brightest start a support group for those Scripture calls the "effeminate" and Wheaton now calls "homosexuals."
It doesn't matter how nice these men are when you have them to dinner and ask them about inerrancy or their cat. It's the gap in the wall that shows them for what they are and the ability to distinguish between a salad and dinner fork matters not a whit when it comes to their duty to guard the souls under their watch-care. Feminism has long held Wheaton in bondage and their trustees and presidents and pastors of College Church in Wheaton across the front campus from Blanchard Hall have all known it good and well. To see Wheaton blithely move into homosexualist identity politics and cover it over with the whitewash of the very pair of sins that the ESV has deleted from 1Corinthians 6, taking the particular word deleted and building support groups for those given over to that sin, is very sad. Also damnable.
Some years back I invited my friend, Hudson Armerding, to Bloomington to preach. After the service he was greeting souls in the doorway of the church and, he told me later at dinner, a young woman stopped in the doorway and said she was getting her Ph.D. in Higher Ed. Administration and wondered if Dr. Armerding knew anyone who could mentor her as she pursued the presidency of a Christian college?
Dr. Armerding told me this and said he hoped he had not caused me problems with his response? He went on: "I told her that I saw the president of a Christian college as a pastor to the community and I didn't think it was Scriptural for a woman to hold that position."
Hudson Armerding was president of Wheaton College from 1962-1985. He recently went to be with the Lord.
I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting.