Pressure from the surrounding culture may push some evangelicals to seek to accommodate professing Christians in same-sex relationships as members of the body of Christ. Yet the explicit teaching of this text, penned by the inspired Apostle Paul, closes the door to pastoral accommodation. 

Introduction
With increasing pressure from the culture to revise the traditional moral disapproval of same-sex relations, evangelicals are wrestling with how the church ought to treat same-sex attracted Christians. A shift toward greater openness is taking place among some evangelical churches committed to the authority of Scripture as the only infallible rule of doctrine and life. A small but growing number of evangelical pastors and congregations have shifted from holding that same-sex activity is irreconcilable with commitment to Christ to allowing committed same-sex relationships within their membership.[1]
It remains to be seen how these evangelicals will answer further questions, such as whether same-sex relationships can be blessed as a “marriage” by the church and whether such individuals are eligible for ordained office in the church. Progressive evangelical churches could accept them as members, but hold the line there and reject gay ordination and same-sex wedding ceremonies. Presumably, if they wish to remain Bible-believing evangelicals, they would still want to maintain that same-sex relationships fall short of God’s creation ideal for sexuality and cannot be called “marriage” as the Bible defines it—a male-female one-flesh union. They would thus be pastorally accommodating same-sex relationships rather than treating them as true marriages fully blessed by God and endorsed by the church.
The best example of an evangelical holding this position is Lewis B. Smedes (1921–2002), who was a minister in the Christian Reformed Church and a professor of ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary. In Sex for Christians (1976), Smedes outlined a three-step discernment process for the same-sex attracted Christian. Step one is self-knowledge, meaning that the homosexual person must face the abnormality of having a same-sex orientation and refuse to blame themselves for this unchosen condition. Step two is hope—they should believe that change (from being homosexual to being heterosexual) is possible and seek it. But for those who have sought change and could not find it, there is a third step, which Smedes labels “accommodation.” The third step has two sub-steps. Step 3a is to consider whether the homosexual person is called to celibacy. For those who cannot manage celibacy, we come finally to Step 3b, and that is what Smedes calls “optimum homosexual morality,” which he describes as follows:
What morality is left for the homosexual who finally…can manage neither change nor celibacy? He ought, in this tragic situation, to develop the best ethical conditions in which to live out his sexual life…. To develop a morality for the homosexual life is not to accept homosexual practices as morally commendable. It is, however, to recognize that the optimum moral life within a deplorable situation is preferable to a life of sexual chaos…Here, as in few other situations, the church is called on to set creative compassion in the vanguard of moral law…It cannot fulfill its ministry simply by demanding chastity…. The agonizing question that faces pastors of homosexual people comes when the homosexual has found it impossible to be celibate. What does the church do? Does it drop its compassionate embrace and send him on his reprobate way?…. Or does it, in the face of a life unacceptable to the church, quietly urge the optimum moral life within his sexually abnormal practice?[2]
Smedes recognizes that each church community will have to answer these questions for itself, but he himself leans toward urging the optimum moral life within sexually abnormal practice. He is more explicit in “Second Thoughts” in the 1994 revised edition of Sex for Christians. While continuing to affirm that “the Creator intended the human family to flourish through heterosexual love,” Smedes nonetheless believes that “God prefers homosexual people to live in committed and faithful monogamous relationships when they cannot change their condition and do not have the gift to be celibate.”[3]
This is the pastoral accommodation approach to homosexuality. Accomodation is not affirmation. Those adopting this position do not endorse homosexuality as positively good and intended by the Creator. They acknowledge that homosexuality is a result of the fall. They also generally refrain from speaking of “same-sex marriage.” They want the church to uphold the creation ordinance of opposite-sex marriage and the church’s traditional sexual ethic. But they also want the church to be pastorally sensitive, adopting a compassionate embrace rather than driving such people away from the church.
As attractive as such an approach may be to some, it runs up against a major hurdle: the apparent teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:9–11:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (ESV, emphasis added)[4]
Verses 9–10 are in the literary form of a vice list,[5] and one of the vices is the practice of homosexuality. Paul’s teaching seems fairly clear: those who persistently practice these vices, including the practice of homosexuality, are the unrighteous, and the unrighteous are excluded from the kingdom of God. Paul states that among the membership of the church of Corinth there were those who had formerly been such sexually immoral people, but he says they are not such any more. They had repented and received cleansing and forgiveness in Christ. The implication is that such people would be excluded as long as they do not repent. This would seem to rule out pastoral accommodation of same-sex relationships. The purpose of this article is to engage in a careful exegesis of this paragraph and its immediate context (1 Cor 5–6) to see if that is in fact Paul’s teaching.
The Context: 1 Corinthians 1–6
Paul begins his first letter to the Corinthians by addressing factionalism (chs. 1–4). The church was divided based on different understandings of “wisdom” (σοφία). David Garland convincingly argues that some of the Corinthians had imbibed values from the surrounding culture that were antithetical to the message of the cross—striving for power, honor, prestige, status, and fleshly wisdom. In response, Paul shows how the wisdom of the cross annihilates all pride and leaves no room for factions based on following one supposed wise man over another.[6]
Then in chapters 5–6, Paul turns to the topic of church discipline and rebukes the Corinthian Christians for their failure to act as wise men who judge those inside the church. They claim to be wise and yet their toleration of grave immorality in their midst shows the hollowness of their claim. Already in 1 Corinthians 4, Paul sees the Corinthians as being “puffed up” with spiritual pride (4:6, 18–19). When he turns to the discussion of the church’s toleration of an egregious case of incest (a Christian man in a sexual relationship with his father’s wife), Paul uses this obvious moral failure on the part of the church to puncture their pride, “And you are arrogant (πεφυσιωμένοι)! Ought you not rather to mourn?” (5:2), and then again a few verses later, “Your boasting (καύχημα) is not good” (5:6).
First Corinthians 5:1–6:20 forms a unit that can be subdivided as follows:

5:1–13: Call to exercise church discipline in a case of incest
6:1–8: Rebuke of brothers taking each other to court
6:9–11: Don’t you know that the unrighteous will not inherit?
6:12–20: Flee from sexual immorality

The theme of sexual immorality is clearly found in sections a, c, and d. Commentators have puzzled over how section b (Paul’s rebuke of brothers suing each other in the secular courts) fits in the surrounding context. Some have suggested that the lawsuits had to do with sexual offenses, perhaps related directly to the incest case of the previous chapter. But this is unlikely, given that Paul thinks those bringing the lawsuits should simply accept being wronged (6:7), counsel he would be unlikely to give if the lawsuits concerned sexual offenses. How, then, does this section on lawsuits fit in? Garland argues that in these two chapters Paul cites three appalling moral failures—the church’s toleration of an egregious case of incest; brothers taking each other to court; and Christians visiting prostitutes—to puncture the Corinthians’ pride in their supposed wisdom and spiritual superiority.[7]
Lexical Semantics of Select Items in the Vice List (1 Cor 6:9–10)
We have looked briefly at the context. We now turn to examine select items in the vice list. The vice list contains ten sins, but most of them (idolaters, adulterers, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, swindlers) are not very controversial and not directly relevant for this article. However, the lexical semantics of three of the sin words—πόρνοι, μαλακοί, and ἀρσενοκοῖται—demands particular attention if we are to answer the theological question motivating this article.

πόρνοι | “the sexually immoral”

πόρνος, ὁ:  one who practices sexual immorality, fornicator[8]
It is believed that the words in the πορν- group were derived from the verb πέρνημι, which means “to sell, to traffic,” and which was particularly used in reference to slaves, both male and female, who were often sold to be used for sex.[9] In extra-biblical Greek, this word-group had a narrow application:  a πόρνη was a female prostitute, πορνεύω was the verb for prostituting oneself, the abstract noun πορνεία denoted the practice of prostitution, a πορνεῖον was a brothel, πορνογενής meant to be born of a prostitute, and so on.[10]
In the Septuagint, πορν- terms were used to render the Hebrew verb זָנָה (“have illicit intercourse”) and its cognates, זוֹנָה (“prostitute”),  תַזְנוּת (“prostitution, promiscuity”), זְנוּנִים (“prostitution”), and זְנוּת (“prostitution”). In addition to the use of such terms to refer to sexual immorality and prostitution, the terms were applied metaphorically to Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness, which the prophets deemed a whoring after gods other than Israel’s true spiritual husband, YHWH. Kyle Harper makes an important observation about how this metaphorical application influenced the gender dynamics of the term:
The metaphorical sense of זנה as idolatry would decisively influence the development of Greek πορνεία. The metaphorical meaning allowed spiritual fornication to be used with acts of male commission. This semantic extension reversed the gender dynamics that are inherent in the primary sense of זנה. In Hosea we first see men committing fornication, albeit of the religious variety (Hos 4:18; cf. Num 25:1; Jer 13:27; Ezek 43:7-9). In Second Temple Judaism, this reversal would feed back into the sexual sense of the term, so that sexual fornication became an act that men could commit.[11]
As a rule, the LXX used πορν- words to render the Hebrew זנה words. Although in extra-biblical Greek, πορν- referred to prostitution and therefore as primarily a female sin, in the LXX and in subsequent Greek-speaking Hellenistic Jewish literature the πορν- word-group underwent semantic expansion to cover all forms of sexual immorality (although πόρνη retained its original meaning, “prostitute”).[12] There are different kinds of πορνεία. This is supported by two locutions in the nearby context of our passage: “sexual immorality of such a kind (τοιαύτη πορνεία)” (1 Cor 5:1), implying that there are other kinds; and “because of sexual immoralities (διὰ τὰς πορνείας)” (1 Cor 7:2), which implies either multiple instances or multiple kinds of sexual immorality. In Greek-speaking Hellenistic Judaism, πορνεία is any sex outside of marriage. The term πορνεία was not restricted to heterosexual activity between two unmarried people (what we would call “fornication” today), although it certainly included it.[13] Any sexual encounter or relationship that does not occur within the holy bond of marriage can be called πορνεία, including incest (T. Reuben 1:6),[14] adultery (Sirach 23:22–23; T. Reuben 4:8; T. Joseph 3:8; cf. Matt 5:32; 19:9),[15] and same-sex relations (T. Benj. 9:1).
Focusing on Paul’s usage in 1 Corinthians 6:9, πόρνοι means those who engage in sexual immorality. It is indisputable that πορνεία in Paul does not mean “prostitution” but sexual immorality, specifically incest (5:1). A few verses later (5:9–11), Paul uses the cognate word πόρνος three times: “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with πόρνοι—not at all meaning the πόρνοι of this world.” Paul’s usage of πόρνος is consistent with its meaning in all of its occurrences in the NT, where it uniformly means “sexually immoral person.”[16]The main lexica of New Testament Greek gloss πόρνος as “one who practices or engages in sexual immorality.”[17] This is reflected in several modern English versions, which render πόρνοι in 1 Corinthians 6:9 as “the sexually immoral” (NIV, ESV) or “sexually immoral people” (CSB).
Words based on the πορν- stem (πόρνος, πορνεία, and πορνεύω) have undergone semantic expansion in Greek-speaking Hellenistic Judaism from their narrow extra-biblical usage in secular Greek, where the words had to do with prostitution, to a much broader meaning, sexual immorality in general.[18]  The term πορνεία means any illicit sex, that is, sex outside of marriage, and embraces a number of specific types of immorality.[19]

μαλακοί and ἀρσενοκοῖται | “men who have sex with men”

μαλακός: pertaining to being passive in a same-sex relationship
ἀρσενοκοίτης, ὁ: a male who engages in sexual activity with a person of his own sex[20]
These two words have understandably been the subject of much debate. Revisionists have put forward several alternative interpretations, arguing that the terms denote any number of things other than same-sex practice, such as “masturbation,” “male prostitution,” “economic exploitation using sex,” or “non-mutual, abusive pederasty.” All these revisionist theories have been refuted by scholars like David F. Wright and Robert Gagnon.[21] The most authoritative lexicon, BDAG, supports taking the terms as straightforward references to same-sex activity and gives no support to revisionist readings.
The adjective μαλακός has a semantic range that begins with non-sexual meanings such as “soft” in the literal sense (e.g., soft clothing, soft pillows, soft skin). Extending beyond the literal usage, the term can also mean “effeminate,” and then even beyond that “passive in same-sex relations.” In this last case, it refers to a man who by dress and makeup seeks to present as a female for the purpose of functioning as the passive partner in same-sex relations. In extra-biblical Greek, the term and its cognates refer specifically to the passive partner in a male-male sexual relationship.[22] That is clearly what Paul intends here.
Read More
Related Posts:

The blasphemy of most contemporary unbelievers is pathetic. And it is pathetic precisely because it is ignorant: it does not understand what it attacks, and sets up a caricature to beat to pieces. For example, in the early 90s the rock band Nirvana covered a parody of “I’ll Be a Sunbeam” called “Jesus Doesn’t Want Me for a Sunbeam.” The lyrics are not substantive, as only 28 of the 182 words are unique. By contrast, 58 of “I’ll Be a Sunbeam’s” 113 words are unique. Which is to say that the parody is more simplistic by far than a song meant for 4 year-olds.
But to our point here, it fails, both as a parody of “I’ll Be a Sunbeam,” and as a satire of our faith. Its chorus is “don’t expect me to cry/don’t expect me to lie/don’t expect me to die for thee.” “I’ll Be a Sunbeam” doesn’t mention any of those things – it speaks of being “loving,/and kind to all I see” and being “pleasant and happy” – and a satire, to be effective, needs to savage a target with the target’s own terms.
But musical theory aside, it fails at its irreverence and mainly shows the ignorance of its performers. Jesus doesn’t expect one to lie for him, but forbids it utterly (Lev. 19:11). The fullness of his kingdom will banish weeping forever, and he pronounces blessing to those that weep now (Lk. 6:21). Only the third line has any bearing to anything Jesus actually taught, and to it we might rejoin that while Jesus expects a willingness to die in all his disciples (Lk. 14:26), he actually permits martyrdom to befall only a small minority of them.
In any event, Jesus’ burden is far lighter and better (Matt. 11:28) than that of the drugs which ruled the lives of many in the rock scene of which Nirvana was a part. The performance was dedicated to Joaquin Phoenix’s brother River, who had sadly died of an overdose shortly before at the grand age of 23. (Tragically, Nirvana leadman Kurt Cobain was himself struggling with addiction at the time of the performance, and would flee a recovery program and commit suicide less than five months later.)
Such blasphemy is, again, pathetic, and well might we scoff at it.

The early church was radically different from the pagan world around it. Having a community which is strong and markedly distinct from the world he believes…will be “attractive to people in a world where there’s so much darkness and pain and suffering.”

Aaron Renn, whose new book Life in the Negative World was reviewed in an earlier article discussed the need for a re-orientation of the Evangelical world from a strategy of relevance and transformation of society “to being a counterculture” at the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology on Apr. 27. He proposed to do this using Tim Keller’s revision of H. Richard Niebuhr’s “Christ and Culture” model (1950), which Keller provided in his 2012 book Center Church (which concerned church planting). Keller’s revision suggested four approaches of relating the church to the world: “relevance,” “transformation,” “counterculture,” and “two kingdoms.” The two kingdoms approach, distinguishing between a Christian’s duty to the church and to the state, is most identified with Lutheranism, and did not characterize Evangelicalism to a great degree in the twentieth century. It is relevance and transformation that have been the principal Evangelical approaches to American society in the contemporary world.
Relating the Gospel to the Wider World
Relevance, Renn said, “seeks to bring the Kingdom of God, the message of the church, to the affairs of men in their daily life.” Keller found mainline Protestantism to be a relevance strategy, but the seeker sensitive movement also focused on relevance. A megachurch sermon might be concerned with social media use, taking a passage of Scripture or a Biblical principle and applying it to social media. Renn believes that the strategy of cultural engagement (noted in the earlier article on Renn’s book and developed in fair measure by Keller himself) is also basically a relevance strategy. Transformationalism on the other hand seeks to expand the Kingdom of God in the world and thereby transform it into a godly civilization. Renn calls it a “de-facto postmillennial sensibility.” Keller considered the “culture war” or “Religious Right” strategy to be transformationalist. Involvement in politics would be used “to transform the laws and the culture of society to align with God’s law.” He conceded, however, that the cultural engagement strategy sometimes “had some transformationalist aspirations.” These strategies have characterized Evangelicalism in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries.
In contrast to these outwardly focused strategies, the Christian counterculture strategy focuses on separation from the world. This strategy is characteristic of Anabaptists, with the Amish as the most extreme example. But monastic life is another example. This writer would add that early twentieth century Protestant fundamentalism had countercultural aspects, especially in its doctrines of separatism. The fundamentalist rejection of vice is another separatist characteristic, discussed by Renn below.
While Renn said he does not believe Evangelicalism should become a “strict counterculture,” it nevertheless needs to “adjust the balance” in the direction of counterculture. This is the reasonable move for a religious group that has become a “moral minority.” He observed that minorities “always have to self-consciously steward the strength and identity of their own community,” and gave early twentieth century Catholicism as an example. Roman Catholicism faced much hostility before the middle of the twentieth century, and public institutions, including especially public schools, where the King James Bible was read, were pervaded by Protestantism. Parish schools, Catholic universities, fraternal societies, and other “infrastructure” was established to sustain Catholic life. While to some extent Protestant fundamentalists created a subculture at the same time, the overculture of elite universities, government, and business remained “basically Protestant.” Liberals and conservatives might disagree on particular Christian doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ, but they were agreed on Christian morality.
The Alienation of Mainstream Culture
In this regard, Renn observed that a patriarch of contemporary conservatism, William F. Buckley, caused a scandal in 1950 with his publication of God and Man at Yale, which criticized the university for having abandoning Christianity without acknowledging this. He was attacked as a Catholic who didn’t understand the Protestant institution that he had attended.
At this point in the twenty-first century however, Protestants, and certainly Evangelicals, have lost the nation’s cultural institutions, and are left with “big gap.” On the other hand, Catholics have maintained their institutions (although dissent from Catholic teaching varies since Vatican II), and Catholic intellectual life is maintained in fair measure by lay intellectuals. Evangelical Protestants by contrast take their leading ideas in response to the wider society from pastors and theologians, and today in some measure from Catholic thinkers. But Renn believes that the Evangelical mind continues to be a scandal, without the nourishment that institutions in a strong counterculture would give it.
Read More
Related Posts: