BHP journal: The Vice Lists in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Seeing as how this is the last section examining the places in the scriptures that possibly mention same-sex relationships, Gagnon's approach has become clear. And that is, had Paul (or the other biblical authors who mention the subject) been confronted with the idea of a consensual, equal and loving same-sex relationship as are the norm today, would he have approved? And the answer, according to Gagnon, is a resounding, "No."

To make my point let me share this interesting imaginary letter that Gagnon supposed the Corinthians may have written back to Paul if they had wanted clarity on the issue:

Paul, we have a brother in our church who is having sex with another man. But that other man does not put on makeup or heavy perfume, wear women's clothing, braid his hair, or otherwise try to look like a woman. And the other male is an adult. The two men really do love each other and are committed to spending the rest of their lives together. Neither is involved in idolatrous cults or prostitution. When you mentioned that arsenokoitai would be excluded from the coming kingdom of God, you were not including somebody like this man, were you?

First, just to nitpick a few small things. He emphasizes the sex ahead of the committed relationship. For Gagnon, a gay relationship is mainly about the sex. And he seems to portray the "other person" in the relationship as a passive partner, only one that does not dress like a woman. (Why not just say, "Two brothers in our church..."?) It seems Gagnon cannot escape the ancient idea of a power differential in a same-sex relationship.

More significantly, the Corinthians would not have written this letter. There is no evidence which suggests they may have had a couple like this in their church - it seems fair to say that no one in the culture at the time would imagine such a relationship. Two, if Paul had actually received such a letter, he would of course have condemned whatever bizarre act was going on, again, because it's completely outside of what he's ever even considered, or could conceive of.

The exercise of the imaginary letter is, let's go back in time, and replace the biblical authors' and their audience's minds with twenty first century minds and see what they would say. It's just not helpful.

Even if you wrote the letter like, "Paul, imagine a time, two-thousand years from now..." and gave him enough context and description. First, I think he'd say, "Two-thousand years from now? Yeah right!" Second, even if he would condemn it, it's not up to him, is it? He wrote what he wrote based on his understanding, and here we are two thousand years later, and it's our responsibility to understand what he meant at the time, and what his audience understood at the time, and then translate that into how we should apply it to our lives today. We should do this responsibly, as spiritual adults, according to our understanding of the law of Christ.

Now, if you had said, what if Jesus or Paul were to dispositionally reincarnate in the twenty-first century (without memory of their previous lives) what would they think about the issue today? Now that is an interesting question. And I believe they would agree with me. Sorry, haters.

I reject Gagnon's question of "what would Paul have thought of equal and consensual same-sex relationships?" on very firm standing, and this section on the "vice lists" only supports my argument that Paul and his audience had a radically different perception of same-sex relationships than we do today.

In Corinthians, as I mentioned above, it's associated with idolatry, and there is some truly bizarre necessity to talk about tops and bottoms. And in Timothy, Gagnon admits same-sex sex acts are directly associated with human trafficking (andrapodistai).

Given the association between the practices of some slave traders and the homosexual desires of some buyers, the close proximity of the two terms is not surprising. The mention of arsenokoitai may well have called to mind the andrapodistai.

Now, in typical form, he argues that just because these associations exist does not mean that the commands wouldn't have included equal and consensual same-sex relationships. Like I've argued, I think it's a bizarre question to ask, "What would this person think about this if extracted from their culture and inserted into another one?"

And then there's this...

There is no chance that the very same Paul who was concerned about blurring the distinctions between the sexes even over such relatively minor matters as hair coverings in 1 Cor 11:2-16 could have limited the meaning of arsenokoitai in the same letter to only specific types of same-sex intercourse. If in Paul's view inappropriate hairstyles and head coverings were a source of shame because they compromised the sexual differences of men and women, how much more would a man taking another male to bed be a shameful act (Rom 1:27), lying with another male "as though lying with a woman"? Paul did not make head coverings an issue vital for inclusion in God's kingdom, but he did put same-sex intercourse on that level.

So Gagnon's argument here is that Paul's prescriptive, lengthy and unambiguous instructions for females to wear headcoverings in church can be ignored because they are not in the vice list. He's acknowledging that Paul had a screwed up sense of genders and gender roles, but it very conveniently, as modern Christians, we needn't worry about hair length and hair coverings - only sexual relationships.

So at this point the argument is finally clear, and I'm honestly really ready to move on. But the last chapter of the book is on hermeneutics. Will he change my mind? Ha. (But I'll do my best to read with an open mind! Hey - good arguments sway me. That's not what I'm expecting - just a note that they do work on me.)