The Federal Election is over and many have let out a huge sigh of relief that Labor didn’t get in to enact their own narrow view of freedom of religious expression.

But just because we haven’t had a change of government doesn’t mean that our culture has really changed. Yes, the progressive left of politics have suffered a setback but they’re only seeking to implement what many in our society are already pursuing. In fact, if many of that persuasion are at all consistent in their behaviour then I foresee that there will be an angry backlash coming quite soon. We’ve already seen lots of vitriol on social media as more than half the voters get told how stupid/evil/selfish/homophobic they are for daring to not get with the program.

We know nothing has really changed because Israel Folau is still without a job. Do you remember Folau? While what happened to him served, perhaps, to crystallise something in the minds of many voters (and they let Labor know about it) he’s still unemployed and planning his next move.

The Folau affair is a difficult one for Christians. On the one hand we want to defend freedom of speech and expression, not only for ourselves but also for others. On the other, many of us are uncomfortable with some of his methodology. As Nathan Campbell points out, the original source of his “Warning” graphic is far from savoury. Besides, Folau isn’t even a Trinitarian. No wonder that I keep seeing some Christians not only find it hard to say anything positive about him but also distance themselves from his words.

What a mistake for us to make. I fear we’re in real danger of shooting ourselves in the foot over 2 related issues – the crass message of the gospel and the freedom to say it out loud.

One of the things you’ll hear people say regularly about Folau’s post is that he didn’t actually quote the Bible. Here, again, is what he posted:

The argument that “he didn’t quote the Bible” goes like this: This is not a direct citation of the Scriptures but rather a loose paraphrase of the following:

1Cor. 6:9-10 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

On face value it’s a solid argument. Not only is it a loose paraphrase, but it’s used in a manner inconsistent with its original intent. Paul is writing to the church in Corinth to urge them abandon sinful behaviour as inconsistent with their new status as Christians. Instead the meme turns it into a message to people who aren’t Christians as a warning about their eternal fate.

And yet, despite this I’m increasingly coming to the view that there’s more to say here. The meme is true. It’s as true as the original statement that Paul makes. Think it through with me for a minute.

First, there is a basic equivalence between “will not inherit the kingdom of God” and “will go to hell”. They’re essentially the same thing. If you had asked the Apostle Paul “do you think that those who do not inherit the kingdom are those who will end upon hell?” he would have said “of course”. He directly contrasts entrance to the kingdom and God’s punishment on more than one occasion (e.g. Eph. 5:5-6, 2Thes. 1:5-7 etc.).

Second, Paul’s argument in 1Corinthians (and elsewhere) is that these behaviours do lead someone to eternal punishment. Of course, the bigger issue that Paul himself shows us is our sinful nature and rejection of Jesus which then results in those behaviours but it is interesting that Paul is content to list those actions (and others in other places) as things which disqualify people from God’s presence, blessing and favour in eternity and, instead, bring condemnation. In doing this he only mirrors what Jesus himself has said (so, e.g. Mark 7:20-23 – it is abundantly clear what the fate of the “defiled” are).

So Folau may not have quoted the Bible exactly in his meme (although he does include a verbatim quote in the accompanying text) but what he wrote was entirely true and consistent with what we find in 1Cor. 6 and elsewhere. We might not like the way that it was expressed but it’s not as though Paul and Jesus wouldn’t recognise the statement as alien to the truth that they themselves expressed.

Which then brings us to Folau’s style. He was, let’s face it, as subtle as a tackle from a prop. We’ve already noted that the meme has an unsavoury source and wasn’t served up with the winsome eloquence that many of us might prefer.

But then the gospel itself hardly meets those criteria either, does it? Paul has this to say a little earlier in 1Corinthians (the same letter that Folau paraphrases in the graphic):

1Cor. 2:1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God.

Now I don’t want to overstate my claim here. When Paul contrasts his message with eloquence and human wisdom he is speaking primarily about the essence of the message, the cross itself. The world thinks that God dying on a cross is raw foolishness. They want their gods to be powerful and heavy on the latest sophistry, not offensively pathetic like the dying Jesus.

But his argument is not just about the message itself. It’s also about style. As we read through 1st & 2nd Corinthians we see a church seduced into thinking its leaders and speakers need to look equally impressive. But that’s not who we are. We’re the exact opposite:

1Cor. 1:27-29 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him.

Paul’s argument goes beyond the message to the vessels it is presented with and, dare I say it, the style in which it is presented. Yes, he urges us to be wise about how we communicate the gospel but he also urges us not to be seduced by style and presentation.

There is something quite unsettling about seeing Christians hang Israel Folau out to dry because of the manner in which he sought to communicate himself. I fear that in many of those instances we’re in real danger of falling into exactly the same trap that the Corinthians themselves got caught in – valuing eloquent presentation far too highly. No, Folau didn’t do it the way that we’d do it. But to a large extent his foolishness was foolishness as the world assesses it.

Plus there’s one ancillary point to be made. Freedom of expression and speech must be the freedom to say things in stupid and foolish ways. After all (as Paul has shown us) one person’s wisdom is another’s foolishness. If we say that Folau blew it because of the foolish way in which he communicated himself, offending people and not quoting the Bible accurately, then we can hardly complain when others seek to silence us for speaking foolishness too – even when our foolishness is “pure” foolishness like Paul’s own message.

And I fear for the day when we also end up arguing that only totally accurate citations of the Bible can be protected. After all, somewhere someone said that “somewhere he has spoken” (Heb. 4:4) and Paul himself was partial to the odd paraphrase as he explained the gospel.

Folau’s communication of the Bible was nowhere near as eloquent and precise as it could have been. But in its imperfection it was surprisingly Biblical. Let’s not be so foolish as to insist otherwise. Ultimately, do we really think that the world thinks any different of us when (as if?!) we get it perfectly right?

Leave a Reply

23 comments on “Folau, the Gospel and the Foolishness of Eloquence

  1. In Revelation 21, verse 8, it is recorded that “the voice from the throne”, Almighty God himself, says that all who are sexually immoral will go into the lake of fire. That surely includes those who choose to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex. Nothing could be clearer. One might say this is the final word on the topic.

    Just in case any of us might feel comfortable about active homosexuals going to hell, as they surely will, we need to take pause and remember that hell was our destiny too. We and all other sinners were headed there until Jesus took the burden of our sins onto himself and died on the cross to save those who will repent and believe. That is the basis of Izzy Folau’s message to unrepentant sinners. It is a message of love, not hate, and one that all Christians as forgiven sinners should be trying to convey to all about us who have not turned to the Lord in repentance.

  2. Wasn’t Paul addressing a church with members who had been caught up in, and still wrestling spiritually with, all those habits that anticipated the Lord’s anger on judgement day? And in the meantime, the era of grace, Paul says “And such sinners were some of you before you were cleansed by the Spirit’s mercy.”

    There is also a political fact about the first preferences of the failed “alternative government” that is noteworthy. 33% is very close to 32%, the “score” of those who voted “No!” in the bogus survey held during the last Parliament. So whereas those of 33% lost Government by a whisker, and now have the elevated status of Opposition, the 32% are silenced totally by default. What respect did they receive from either “auctioneer” and their aspiring marketing agents? No equality there folks; merely a presumption that the 32% “losers” should acquiesce in being air-brushed out of the Marriage Act and whatever else of the undisclosed legislative consequences BOTH sides have refused to discuss as part of their inane shpeels during the “auction”. It’s a scandal. Not a dicky-bird! It was left to RA’s treatment of Israel Folau during the “auction” to provoke last minute minimalist comment from the two “auctioneers” to save face – that silence should alert us to what is still on the horizon … be warned!

  3. David

    You have articulated the arguments that have been trying vainly to explain on Facebook.

    I too have been perplexed with the number of Christians who seem to want to distance themselves from Falou, when ultimately he spoke the truth of the Gospel.

    I am reminded of Paul’s desire that the gospel be preached even for dodgy motives and I’m certain that that extends to it being preached in any form.

    I also take seriously the promise that God’s word never returns empty.

    How can we presume that Falou’s post has not caused many to enquire further into the Christian faith, that his boldness and refusal to back down has not been a powerful witness to the courage Jesus gives to his followers, especially in an age when capitulation to the PC police is the norm?

    Rejecting Falou based on criticism of his delivery is akin, I feel, to dictating to God how He ought to work at growing His Kingdom. Surely the stories of our own salvation is reason enough to trust that God can work in ways that are above ours.

  4. I noted your points David. I have yet to know more in-depth how the meme was posted and in what context. I am not for cushioning and icing the gospel over harsh / difficult truths that need to be said. But, what needs to be said, which is different from sophistication, is timing and context. I would not jump onto my own father on his grave illness to say you will go to hell unless he repents as the first thing when I visit him in the hospital. That needs to be said eventually. I need a connection and deeper conversation with him, leading up to the point about the gospel and this truth is part of it that will eventually be shared without cushioning. Didn’t Paul also advocates we should be peaceful neighbours and in due time share the gospel in the appropriate context? I have seen damages done where for example in Malaysia, one overzealous Christian group has caused other Christian organisations to be shut down in schools because because of unwise or less tactful connections with the local community it works in.

    • Not at all. I’m afraid you don’t understand me in any way. I’ve never claimed that Folau is a Christian. I would say, given his denial of Trinitarianism, that he may very well not be.
      My argument doesn’t hinge upon whether Folau is doctrinally correct or not. In fact, if you actually take time to read it properly you will see that I am complaining about those who insist upon doctrinal correctness as a shibboleth to be passed before we will defend the right to speak freely.

  5. I agree with you David that the issue is about the basic freedoms that frame the administration of public justice in this polity. But to say so is to give notice that the Ruddock panel failed to identify this matter as it needs to be identified – i.e. the importance of affirming the right of intending husband-wife marriage partners to speak freely and without hindrance or contradiction at their own civil wedding ceremony. If amending legislation would reform the Marriage Act and remove its blatant inequality at that point, then freedom of speech in such weddings would not be jeopardised as it is now. Folau continues to use social media (as we do here on this list) in an effort to ensure that the public-legal implications of a parliamentary-endorsed ideology are not lost from critical public consideration. But the “rights” of celebrity footballers in their “employment” is only a very minor part of the deep political problem that faces us. The Ruddock panel fudged or avoided the issue. They certainly have not been speaking out about it subsequently. What about the rights of the young woman and her fiancé who, in seeking lawful marriage for themselves through a civil ceremony, now have to face the prospect of being told (lectured) in THEIR wedding ceremony, clobbered with all the authorisation of the state apparatus behind the compliant “celebrant’s” statement, that she and her husband are not, in legal fact, entering a husband-wife marriage at all but simply a two-person alliance that (the former) Parliament wanted to magically call “marriage”? The Federal Parliament has thus become the wrecker of such weddings because it legislates to require the effective withholding of due public-legal respect on behalf of the Government from husband-wife marriage. Further, are not now all the Parliaments of the Commonwealth required by this law to consider such a couple, and EVERY OTHER married couple wherever or whenever they have been married, in such terms? So much for freedom of belief about marriage. Folau’s posting simply highlights the fact that important matters basic to our life are being systematically, politically AND IDEOLOGICALLY neglected. Notice the total bi-partIsan neglect of the 32% who said “No!” in the recent “auction”. It is a national disgrace, a scandal that suggests we are more of a failed regime than we hitherto suspected. The major parties have completely dudded themselves on this issue. Thanks David, keep up the good work.

  6. It is interesting, isn’t it, that the RA didn’t complain about a QANTAS code of conduct violation (at least not what we heard publicly) when it was mooted in the press that the carrier was entering into negotiations with the Brunei regime and its proposed legislation. The difficult point now for RA after Folau’s (28/6) reported request of a public apology is that that would mean RA actually joins with Israel and concedes with him (and his religious profession) that they (with their code-of-conduct corporatistic piety) are also less than what they should be.

  7. In our limited interactions, I have observed you claim that “theological liberals” never answer a particular question about the nature of Jesus’ resurrection (which you then declined to answer yourself, when pressed), and implying that what you believe to be heterodox should exclude someone from appointment to a prominent Anglican position. In this case, having found someone who agrees with you in relation to what consenting adults should do with their genitals, yet is far more unproblematically heterodox – in fact, heretical – in regard to Christian doctrine, apparently we should listen to him on Christian doctrine because he makes some great points?

    Israel Folau is worth listening to in regard to Christianity – any of it – to the same extent that I am worth listening to in regard to scoring a try or running fast with a ball. Not much at all. Has he engaged with the contentious nature of translating the words “malakoi” or “arsenokotai” in the text he has cited? Given his theological illiteracy in relation to the trinity, almost certainly not. Here is the way David Bentley Hart translates the passage in question:
    “Do not be led astray. Neither the whoring, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor feckless sensualists (malakoi), nor men who couple with catamites (arsenokoitai), nor thieves, nor the acquisitive, nor drunkards, nor the vituperative, nor the rapacious will inherit God’s Kingdom.”

    In the critical apparatus, Hart discusses the fraught nature of translating these two words, indicating why he has elected to go with the translation he has, arguing that Paul most likely refers to “a master’s or patron’s exploitation of young male slaves.” Of course, Hart is far from the only one who flags the difficulties of translating this passage – scholars across the spectrum from conservative to inclusive.

    I note your entire discussion of this very difficult text focuses on the end – who will inherit the kingdom, and who will go to hell – rather than on the ongoing discussion of translation, which you offered your readers no insight into. In Israel Folau’s case, he at least can plead ignorance.

    For LGBTIQ readers of this blog (I don’t know why there would be any, but you never know) – I hope you realise that the position held here is a very particular one. Keep searching.

    • Yes, Hart goes one way. Other scholars go other ways. For instance Gagnon has an impressive body of work dealing with this exact issue.
      And, of course, pedantry over the translation of individual words won’t distract the more discerning reader from the clear testimony of the whole of Scripture in these matters; never once are same-sex relationships, let alone sexual activity, affirmed. And this is the face of many proscriptions.

      • What “many” proscriptions? There are two – the Levitical prohibitions. Neither of them mention hell, because the Hebrews had no belief in hell at the time the Pentateuch was put together.
        In the NT, there is Romans 1:18ff, but this is not a proscription. St Paul does not think same-sex activity is permissible, that I will grant based on that passage, but he describes it as indicative of the wrath of God, rather than proscribing it. So, that takes us to a grand total of three (while noting that the Romans passage is not a proscription), which is a long way off “many,” and still nothing about hell.

        Interpreting these passages today is another story altogether, and perhaps will be told another time.

        • Some proscriptions are explicit, some implicit. So, as you note, there are several NT passages that speak negatively about same-sex activity. I trust you’re not suggesting that therefore those passages are somehow prescribing or neutral on same-sex activity. If not then they are also, quite clearly, telling the Christian that such behaviour is not for them.
          As for the question of “hell”. The passage in 1Cor. 6 that Folau paraphrases warns that those who engage in such activity “will not inherit the Kingdom of God”. Any reasonable reader of that can see quite clearly what is being set out; there are only two eternal futures for anyone – some will inherit the Kingdom and others will be eternally damned.
          So when we stop being pedantic and simply allow the text to speak for itself we see that there’s really no lack of clarity at all.

  8. “So, as you note, there are several NT passages that speak negatively about same-sex activity.”

    The rest of your response is based on this, which is simply untrue. Any reasonable reader of my what I have written here will note that I have pointed out a single (as in, one) NT passage which speaks negatively about same-sex activity. Not many, and not several. One. And it is not a proscription, and it says nothing about hell.

    You seem to want to proceed as if there is agreement between us that 1 Cor 6 is a proscription against same-sex relations. There is not.

    And hence, your conclusion does not follow.

    As for being pedantic: there is nothing pedantic about the fear of hell. I have spoken to many LGBTIQ people who have emerged from churches that hold your position, who had been filled with fear of eternal damnation. And as I have argued here, you simply cannot get there based on the Bible. The Levitical prohibitions say nothing about hell, as the Hebrews at the time had no concept of an afterlife, and the Romans says nothing about eternal damnation.

    What you are presenting as a matter of simple clarity is, as it turns out, simply a non sequitur.

    • You seem to want to proceed as if there is agreement between us that 1 Cor 6 is a proscription against same-sex relations.

      Not at all. I am proceeding on the basis that the church has read this passage correctly for 2000 years and that you are therefore in a minority opinion on the subject.

      As for being pedantic: there is nothing pedantic about the fear of hell

      Those reading along will note the big shift in the goalposts here. The pedantry I was referring to was (quite obviously) the silly argument that since the word “hell” is not mentioned in a text there is, therefore, no indication that eternal punishment is in view. This is a tangibly failed argument since Paul’s warning that they “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” is an equivalent statement.
      You then take my statement about pedantry and turn it into something else as though I had suggested that fear of hell was something “pedantic”.
      I’d go so far as to say it’s disingenuous. It should be quite obvious to the fair reader that I hold the opposite opinion – that I think hell is a very serious thing. But you choose to recast my words as meaning the opposite.
      That’s not a dialogue that I want to be part of.

  9. From you:

    “Not at all. I am proceeding on the basis that the church has read this passage correctly for 2000 years and that you are therefore in a minority opinion on the subject.”

    No, you said “as you note” and then went on to make some claims I did not ‘note.’ Go back and read it yourself if you want. The only one shifting goal posts is you.

    From you:

    “Those reading along will note the big shift in the goalposts here. The pedantry I was referring to was (quite obviously) the silly argument that since the word “hell” is not mentioned in a text there is, therefore, no indication that eternal punishment is in view. This is a tangibly failed argument since Paul’s warning that they “will not inherit the Kingdom of God” is an equivalent statement.
    You then take my statement about pedantry and turn it into something else as though I had suggested that fear of hell was something “pedantic”.”

    Actually, those reading along, the reasonable reader you keep referring to, will note that I am not talking about 1 Corinthians 6, as that does not deal with same-sex relations. I have stated, repeatedly, that the so-called ‘clobber texts’ number three – the Levitical prohibitions, and Romans 1, and none of them talk about hell, nor do any of them mention not inheriting the Kingdom of God. The reasonable reader of yours, as well as me, are waiting for you to stop dodging and address this.

  10. No, you said “as you note” and then went on to make some claims I did not ‘note.’ Go back and read it yourself if you want.

    I have. You acknowledge that there are texts that are negative about same-sex behaviour. We might disagree on exactly how many and quite how clear they are but that you acknowledge their presence I think is clear from your comments.

    As for your last comment, a couple of observations:
    1. You raised the issue of “hell” in a conversation all about whether the warning of hell was implicit in 1Cor.6. I’ve argued that it is in the OP. One of the arguments of the OP is that you don’t need to have an explicit mention of “hell” to have eternal punishment in view and therefore Folau’s paraphrasing of 1Cor 6 as “going to hell” rather than “will not inherit the Kingdom” is a fair equivalent. Your mentioning of “hell” was in the context of that conversation.
    2. 1Corinthians 6 is quite clearly talking about same-sex activity. You might claim that it’s pederasty in view rather than a more general descriptor but that it’s same-sex is, surely, beyond doubt. So in 1Cor.6 we have a list of behaviours that will lead to “hell” (although described as “not inheriting the kingdom”). One of those behaviours is same-sex activity.

  11. Actually, you said I was noting there were several NT passages that address same-sex relations. So you aren’t re-reading carefully enough. I do not, and have not, conceded that, and that is an important element of my critique of your original post.

    To move to another element, again, I do not consider 1 Corinthians 6 to be about same-sex relations. There is a failure of logic here. Your claim is that when Paul talks about malakoi or arsenokotai not inheriting the kingdom of God, this is the equivalent of saying the same are going to hell. My claim is a completely different one – that malakoi or arsenokotai in 1 Corinthians 6 simply does not refer to same-sex relations (suggesting it might be pederasty, or some other form of what we would now call non-consensual sexual relations, really doesn’t get either of us anywhere, I am certainly not advocating that non-consensual sexual relations are moral, regardless of the genders involved), and that the texts which arguably do have a negative view of same-sex sexual relations do not refer to hell. You are collapsing several arguments into a single one, in an attempt to claim the case is simple. It isn’t.

  12. Actually, you said I was noting there were several NT passages that address same-sex relations. So you aren’t re-reading carefully enough. I do not, and have not, conceded that, and that is an important element of my critique of your original post.

    Well I’ll let readers judge what’s going on there. The thread is clear.

    To move to another element, again, I do not consider 1 Corinthians 6 to be about same-sex relations. There is a failure of logic here. Your claim is that when Paul talks about malakoi or arsenokotai not inheriting the kingdom of God, this is the equivalent of saying the same are going to hell. My claim is a completely different one – that malakoi or arsenokotai in 1 Corinthians 6 simply does not refer to same-sex relations

    Well I think that’s just a failure of exegesis on your part. Those terms are quite clearly about same-sex activity, as are the other places in the NT this is addressed.

    As for your final point, I’ve already addressed it. To not inherit the Kingdom of God is to have a negative eternal outcome. Another way of stating that crudely would be “goes to hell”. I’ve made the point more than once but you don’t address it.

    • Starting with your final point – those terms are not “quite clearly” about same-sex activity, anymore than non-consensual sex is the same thing as sexual relations. Even you were prepared to concede, once I posted the evidence from Hart’s translation, that interpreters differ on how to translate malakoi and arsenokotai. If you want to conflate “men who couple with catamites” (or a pederast in more user-friendly parlance) with consensual same-sex relations, it is my turn to say that is pretty disingenuous.

      And that is the reason I have not addressed what you bring up in the last two sentences. My point is that you cannot get from these passages that consensual same-sex relations is hell-worthy. You seem to want to proceed as if it is all “quite clear” that 1 Cor 6 is referring to consensual same-sex relations, that this is who the apostle refers to when saying that they will not inherit the kingdom of God, and that the latter phrase is the equivalent of saying they are going to hell. Whether or not I agree with the last two premises is contingent on agreement re the first. There is no such agreement. Hence the failure in logic.

      And as to your first: I have never conceded there are multiple NT passages that address same-sex relations in the way you have claimed I have.

  13. Starting with your final point – those terms are not “quite clearly” about same-sex activity, anymore than non-consensual sex is the same thing as sexual relations. Even you were prepared to concede, once I posted the evidence from Hart’s translation, that interpreters differ on how to translate malakoi and arsenokotai. If you want to conflate “men who couple with catamites” (or a pederast in more user-friendly parlance) with consensual same-sex relations, it is my turn to say that is pretty disingenuous.

    The different words used encompass a variety of ways of describing same-sex activity. To concede that there are some differences in translation is not to concede that those differences are all valid. It’s just to acknowledge the debate.

    You might want to argue that there is uncertainly about the terms used in 1Cor. 6. One might be able to mount such an argument for malakoi (although I don’t think it holds up) but for arsenokoites it’s really quite contrived. The word is quite clearly (and widely acknowledged to be) a construct by Paul based upon the LXX of Lev. 18.22: arsenos/arsen “man” and koiten/koite “lie/copulate”. The simplest way to read it and the way it was read by those nearest to the author historically is as a simple description of male same-sex activity.

    You can argue the counter, as others have. You’ll not be surprised that I and others find such arguments wanting.

    In addition, as others regularly note, we have not one single positive affirmation of same-sex activity in the whole of Scripture, let alone any endorsement of same-sex partnerships as any form of equivalence to marriage. The overwhelming silence of Scripture on this, along with the repeated proscriptions, is very persuasive to very many of us – not just now but in the last 2000 years.

    As for my last point, it does not need you to concede my first to engage with it. It’s a simple concept that stands in its own right. “Will not inherit the kingdom” is a statement that is the eschatological equivalent of “will go to hell”. They both signal a failure to receive and participate in a positive eternal future. The alternative, that eternity will be negative, is again the clear testimony of Scripture. There is no middle neutral outcome described in Scripture with regard to one’s eternal fate.

  14. Well, no. Same-sex relations, as we know it, is very much a modern concept. If we were to look at Plato’s Symposium, for example, which is largely written in praise of love between males, we don’t find the modern idea of two adult males or females in a consensual and loving same-sex relationship, but a much more unequal relationship (in terms of power and maturity) between a teacher and a student.

    This is all as much to say that claiming that people over the last two thousand years have agreed with you is anachronistic. That is without even looking at any of your evidence, because you haven’t provided any.

    To paraphrase Fezzik from the Princess Bride: you keep using that word “simple” – I don’t think it means what you think it means. If the interpretation were “simple” there would be no issues with the translation. As I said right at the start of our interactions, these two terms are very difficult to translate and interpret. The fact that there are pluralities of translation testifies to this.

    Arguments from silence (i.e. there are no positive affirmations of same-sex activity) are fallacious. There are many modern things that aren’t affirmed in the Bible. So what?

    Finally: what are you asking me to engage with? Do you want me to concede that when Paul says “will not inherit the kingdom” is the equivalent of saying “will go to hell,” even though the point Folau (and you) are actually trying to make is that it is people who participate in consensual same-sex relations who will not inherit the kingdom/go to hell? Is that what you are asking me? About your interpretation of the phrase “will not inherit the kingdom”? Even though I don’t concede your main point?

    If so – it seems reasonable enough, though I would like to take a look for myself at what the undisputed Pauline corpus says elsewhere about hell. Is that enough engagement for you?

  15. Well, no. Same-sex relations, as we know it, is very much a modern concept.

    Well then I suggest we are, to some extent, talking at cross purposes.
    By “relations” I took you to be using the word to mean “sexual activity”.
    Nevertheless, the underlying argument remains. Those who want to urge a new reading of these texts will consistently point to their claim that such “relations/relationships” were unknown in the ancient world. Those that disagree (those that read the texts consistently for the past 2000 years) will point out, as I have done, that to speak about relationships is a red herring. The proscription is on sexual activity, whether promiscuous or as part of a long-standing relationship.
    We will also note that sexual activity is very often seen by those who propose the liberal reading as an essential (even defining) element of those relationships. If that’s the case then the distinction is rather moot if the proscriptions are about activity.

  16. You are correct, my apologies. The regular reading of same-sex relations is indeed sexual activity, as I have used it elsewhere. I did indeed mean consensual romantic relationships between people of the same gender, which may include but is not limited to sexual relations.

    That does not really address the main point I am making. And I do find the “2000 year” argument quite an odd one for a conservative Protestant (which I presume from this and other interactions is how you identify) to be making. I can’t imagine Martin Luther would ever have nailed those theses to the Wittenberg door 502 years ago if he had just shrugged his shoulders and said “Well – that is the way we have been interpreting it for 1500 years – whadareyagonnado?”

    Be that as it may, and turning to your last point – it is anything but moot. I am talking about the difference between consensual sexual relationships and sexual relations between adults, and what we would now regard as engaging underage prostitutes. It is my reading, and not only mine (nor is it a particularly new or original reading) that the 1 Corinthians text is referring to the latter.

Leave a Comment - but please pay careful attention to the commenting rules