When I googled the question: “Can a Christian be Homosexual?”, a link to a page by a fellow named Matthew Vines was among the top on the list. Mr. Vines is of the view that homosexuality should be allowed in the Church. A link to his page can be found here: The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality.

Mr. Vines makes several points (the bold is covered in this post, click previous points to see my response):

• Despite growing up in a loving, stable family, devoid of abuse, living an abstinence-until-marriage lifestyle, and desiring to have a family of his own someday, he has concluded that he is gay.
• Traditional “anti-gay” views of the Church have forced homosexuals to be lonely, which is against God’s design.
• The Old Testament Law does not apply to Christians, which means that references to the law in regard to homosexuality being evil are no longer valid.
• The concept of sexual orientation is new, so the Bible cannot shed light upon this subject as ancient forms of homosexual acts were offensive or abusive, not examples of two people coming together in a committed relationship.
• “Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change.”
• Certain compound words around the New Testament references to homosexuality are really meant for the economic sexual exploitation of homosexuals.
• The Church has been really harmful toward people of homosexual orientation and it needs to become more accepting of homosexuals and not so condemning.
• Being different is not a sin and being “gay” is not a sin either.

Vines says that certain compound words which reference homosexual behavior in the New Testament may not apply due to the syntax (the literal meaning) of the word and the context (meaning gathered from the use of the word). The main word that he mentions is Paul’s use of “arsenokoitai,” which is a compound word from two words: one meaning “man” and the other meaning “bed” (1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10).

His point is that most compound words are put together to create a new word and so the literal meanings of the original words cannot be used to describe the thing the new word was created for. Let’s take a look at a few modern day compound words he mentioned and see if this is true.

Butterfly – a compound word of “butter” and “fly.” If you have ever caught a butterfly, you would understand why it is called this. Butterflies have a powder on their wings that feels and sometimes looks a lot like butter. While the flying insect is not made of butter, it seems that it is aptly named.

Honeymoon – a season of life shortly after one is wed, in which the spouses get to celebrate their commitment to each other in a sensual and enjoyable way. Taking the literal words: Honey – something sweet; and moon – the heavenly body that usually references the night. By combining these two words together you get a literal meaning close to “sweet night.” Being married myself, I cannot disagree with that meaning. 

Now that we understand its It can be used in its original meaning, people have used it in other contexts to refer to a season of easiness or bliss. It can be used in an employment context, for instance when your boss informs you “the honeymoon is over.” That means that the initial part of the job is over and now much more is expected of you.

Understand – This one I admit is more difficult to define by its semantics alone. It means to know another person’s knowledge as they know it. “Under” of course means below. “Stand” – could be a position of a person, place or thing, or it could be referencing an actual physical object. To have “understanding” in this sense would mean that you possess the knowledge that is deeper (underlying) than the superficial knowledge, or that you possess enough basic (underlying) knowledge of a topic upon which to build further knowledge. This could be in the case of anything, whether you are talking about knowledge of a subject, idea, or relationship information. 

My point is this: that even though the compound words do reference a new thing, which has a new definition, often the meaning of the original words are important to that definition. I think we find the same thing with our analysis of Paul’s compound word. If Paul has created a new compound word that means “man bed” or “man bedder,” how else can the insinuation mean but a homosexual act?

Now in regards to context, there are various studies by the Christian gay movement and Vines himself concluding this word is grouped with others that are referencing the immoral situation between men at the time. It was more of a prostitutional situation in which some men were selling younger men and boys to be sex slaves for other men. A lot of sinful things were happening with that whole situation and Paul was right to say these things were wrong (as the proponents for Christian homosexuality would agree). 

However, included in this condemnation is the “man bedder,” the one who is taking advantage of the boy prostitutes. This is the one who is engaging in and initializing the active homosexual behaviors. So what is the sin: the prostitution, the taking advantage of innocent boys, or the homosexual act? Why not all three? It would seem to me that this would fit in the context of the whole Bible. 

“But no,” my gay friends would say. “This does not represent a mutually consenting relationship.” I would agree, but adultery is also a “mutually consenting” relationship which is punishable by death in Old Testament Law (as is homosexual relations), which is still applicable as I have discussed in Point 3. You don’t get rid of sin just because both parties agree to do it. In fact, both parties were supposed to be punished and deserved death for both homosexual acts and adultery. Thus, I think it is best to conclude that the whole mess is sinful.

Another point is that many of those fighting for the acceptance of homosexuality in the Church bring up that Paul is using a rare word that does not have a lot of outside cultural use or reference. The cultural words used commonly would have applied directly to the situation. Perhaps Paul was trying not to be profane in his references to the homosexual abuse situations. Or, maybe Paul was ahead of his time and created the word to apply to such a definition as to match our “modern” definition of the active homosexual, the person with the tendency or “bend” toward homosexual activity who is actively engaging in the behavior.