In her second book, Nomad, Ms. Ali makes clear that she is now an atheist, believing that reason leads inexorably to this world view.  Yet she is not militantly so.  She believes the greatest threat to the world today is radical Islam, and she speaks regularly against it, arguing that it must be decisively defeated for the world to live freely and prosperously.  Unlike many western analysts, Ms. Ali rejects the notion that moderate Muslims will be able to eradicate it, no matter how hard they try, because radical Muslims believe that anyone who denies their understanding of Islam, even ones who practice some other version of it, cannot be true Muslims.  Therefore, the views of moderate Muslims are as misguided as those of pagans or infidels.  Likewise, though governments should rightly use power when necessary to eclipse the influence or advancement of militant Islam, power itself will not bring the movement to an end, only contain it.

What then does this converted atheist believe is the one antidote to radical Islam?  The Christian Church!  Listen to these quotations from Nomad:

“I would prefer, as a fourth option, to offer Muslims who cling to the idea of a creator and eternal life a religious leader like Jesus, who said, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to god the things that are God’s,’ rather than a warrior like Muhammad, who demanded that the pious seek to gain power by the sword.” (p. 250)

“To help ground these people in Western society, the West needs the Christian churches to get active again in propagating their faith.  It needs Christian schools, Christian volunteers, the Christian message.” (p. 250)

“The churches should do all in their power to win this battle for the souls of humans in search of a compassionate God, who now find that a fierce Allah is closer to hand.” (p. 251)

“A mosque is an island of gender apartheid….The contrast with the churches I have attended in America could not be more complete.  Men and women, children and adults, people of all races intermingle. Their attire is no different from what they might wear on the streets.  There are no ablutions.  The members of the congregation take their places on long wooden benches….The central message is one of love.” (p. 252)

“They [moderate churches] need to step up to the challenge of provided new Muslim immigrants with the concept of a God who is a symbol of love, tolerance, rationality and patriotism….” (p. 253)

“Some readers may still be skeptical that the clash of civilizations can be won through religious competition.  But I know it can work because I have seen it with my own eyes.” (p. 253)

Ever since personally discovering the transforming power of the gospel, I have believed that Church holds the key to overcoming the threat of Muslim extremism, as well as to reaching all who languish under the stifling legalism of works-based justification.  But never before have I heard of an atheist who knows the ins and outs of Islam and who has some basic understanding of Christianity who then openly concludes that of all the potential victors over radical Islam only the Church can win the day — but only if the Church takes serious her mission!

More on this in my next post.

2)  Halfway through, after attempting fruitlessly (see yesterday’s blog) to show how deeply missional the PCUSA is, the letter claims, “The PC(USA) simply has not turned its back on proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.”  Yet the very fact that the writers felt the need to make this declaration shows the sad state of our denomination.  Who in a healthy denomination would feel the need to defend their institution from the charge that the institution has turned its back on proclaiming Christ as Lord and Savior?  Why would such a charge ever be leveled at a church that is faithfully following Christ?  Only if the charges have some prima facie support would one even tackle the question.  How sad that the authors at least implicitly recognize there is enough evidence against our institutional faithfulness to feel they have to come to its defense.  Yet what they offer as a defense is worse than flimsy.

3)  This letter urges those in congregations contemplating departure to “…insist that your leaders re-expose you to the voices of fellow Presbyterians who are resolute in their intentions to stay.  Do not allow one-sided presentations to be all you consider as you seek to discern God’s call to you and your congregation.”  Yet earlier, the authors said, ”We know that those contemplating the possibility of leaving are bathing the decision in prayer, and are genuinely seeking to discern God’s will in this.”  Is God not capable of speaking clearly to those genuinely seeking His will, who are ”bathing” their questions in prayer?  What makes the Chicago eight assume that evangelical leaders are unfair and one-sided in their presentations to their flock of these profound issues?  Why were there no similar calls to the liberal wing of the church in its single-minded and blindly one-sided push to divide the PCUSA by ramrodding a change in ordination standards?  I am offended by the implication in this paragraph that those committed to staying in the PCUSA are truly following God’s will, and those contemplating leaving are in danger of missing it.

It would seem to me that if the Chicago eight were wholly committed to seeing God’s will followed, they would equally urge those congregations that are not presently considering leaving to call on their leaders to expose them to those in the church who are resolute in their intentions to leave, so that they are not limited by one-sided determinations to stay.  The implications from the words of this letter are clear: staying is right; leaving is wrong.

4)  We are further warned not to be tempted by greener grass elsewhere because: a) such grass has its own problems; b) our grass may be regenerating in ways we haven’t seen; c) the process of jumping the fence brings heretofore unknown perils.  Beware the law of unintended consequences, and remember to count the cost before taking action (after all, we are reminded, Jesus gave us this piece of wisdom).

It is certainly true that the grass isn’t always greener on the other side.  However, often enough it is, and that is why grazing animals seek to leave their over-grazed or otherwise unhealthy confines.  In point of fact, having served in the EPC denomination for 7 years before re-entering the PCUSA in response to God’s call, I can affirm that the grass really is greener for evangelicals in that fold than it is in the PCUSA.  It suffers from none of the problems that plague our desolate pastures.  Certainly there are issues being debated in the EPC, but none of them deals with keeping or jettisoning orthodoxy.  We are told that PCUSA grass may be regenerating in ways we have not noticed.  Of course, if this is true it’s a tautology.  If there is regeneration going on, we are unaware of it because we haven’t noticed it.  This letter, however, does nothing to instill any faith in the notion that PCUSA grass is getting greener anywhere.  The most likely explanation for our not noticing any significant regeneration is that nothing significant is happening.  Indeed, overtures to this coming GA make it clear that liberals are seeking to spray the remaining grass with Roundup.  As to the warning that seeking to jump the fence brings unforeseen perils, many of those leaving have indeed discovered this.  The perils relate almost wholly to our denominational machinery doing all in its power to penalize or inflict economic and ecclesiastical harm upon those leaving.  I’ve not heard of any congregations, who having left the PCUSA in the past are now saying, “We sure wish we had stayed.”  Perhaps there are some, but they must be in the tiny minority.  If the authors of this letter are really concerned about the perils facing those contemplating departure (I am thinking specifically of our GA moderator and vice-moderator), I can tell them how they, out of the deep love they profess, could quickly eradicate the bulk of the perils involved in leaping the fence:  TAKE DOWN THE FENCE.  Why not allow free and unhindered departures for those who believe God is calling them to go?  In our local churches we allow any member to move to another congregation without putting up barriers or demanding some payment before releasing him/her.  The attitude our larger leadership has had toward churches wishing to shift membership reminds me of repressive regimes that have built border walls not to keep out illegal immigrants but rather to keep in citizens seeking freedom or opportunity elsewhere.  All the feeble arguments to justify such draconian behavior fall far short of the law of love to which God calls us all, and sully the name of Christ.  Lastly, we are called to beware the law of unintended consequences.  This is a good reminder.  Would that all the proponents of homosexual ordination and a new form of government had been given this warning and heeded it!  We would not now be facing what brings such worry to the Chicago eight.  Yet perhaps the consequences our denomination is now reaping were not unexpected or even unintended by the liberal wing.  That is between them and God.  But as the Scriptures remind us, “We reap what we sow.”  The authors of this letter also quote Scripture, reminding us of Jesus’ words to count the cost.  Though they apparently do not realize it, this is exactly what many of us have been doing, leading to the painful conclusion that to remain in the denomination we have poured our hearts and labors into and thereby lose fellowship with Jesus through disobedience is too high a price to pay.

5) Lastly, these authors tell us confidently that the “season of change” we are experiencing now is simply “…the birthpangs of a new church as it is being reformed by the Holy Spirit.”  I am astounded by what appears to me to be brazen folly.  Our denomination, like other mainlines that have trodden this path before us, is being torn asunder as faithful Christians leave in droves, and these interpreters tell us these wrenching pains are merely birthpangs caused by the Holy Spirit’s reforming work.  To many of us, these convulsions are signs of death throes, not birth pangs, and they are due not to reformation caused by following the Spirit, but to conformation caused by following a bankrupt culture.  While liberals seem eager to wheel the PCUSA to the obstetrics ward to behold a new birth, we see lying in an ICU bed a beloved denomination whose life is ebbing away from decades of addiction to deadly practices.  Time will tell whose diagnosis is correct.  But the fact that the Holy Spirit has never led the Church to embrace moral and theological positions in opposition to the Word before should offer some clues.

We are told that “reformation is strengthened by reinvesting ourselves and all of our congregations….”  But my question is, “Reinvesting in what?  In a denomination that is deaf to the leading of the Spirit, and hellbent on pursuing the life of the flesh?  To what end?  If our leadership showed any degree of repentance and remorse for leading the PCUSA to the brink of destruction, and called on evangelicals to join in reversing direction to regain our biblical footing, I would be among the front lines of response — which I’m sure would be huge.  Sadly, however, our liberal leadership seems content in its error.  This letter is just one more sign of deluded hubris.

Lastly, the letter acknowledges that “…the Church of Jesus Christ is facing a complex, turbulent time,” but that these eight elders together “…share a genuine hope for the future of the PC(USA).”  I wish I could be so sanguine about our future.  But where the church ought to experience turbulence is on the border where her life and influence clashes with that of the world, not in the middle of her heartland where peace, unity and purity ought to reign.  The turbulence we see is in the core of our institution, and when the infection causing this distress has so deeply invaded our vital organs, there is not much cause for hope.  With no other positive evidence, the Chicago eight tell us they are confident their hopes are sure because they are based on the resurrection of Christ.  But I would remind them that a rebellious Israel was confident that God would protect her from captivity or worse, even when she refused the calls of prophets to repent.  She was wrong.  A denomination that thumbs its nose at God may speak confidently of Christ’s resurrection power, but if we retain any memory of our Scripture we should not be surprised when it reaches out its hand before slipping under the waves of oblivion only to discover that the nail-pierced hand of the Savior is not there to save it.

My prayer is that these eight will listen to their own words — Perception is not reality – and see what the vast majority of  Christians in this denomination and around the world see so clearly.  Should that happen, my hope for the PC(USA) will flicker to life.

Though the authors completely skirt the profound issues tearing about our denomination, they do acknowledge that we are undergoing “complex changes.” They want the disaffected to know that they love us, and want to continue to serve Christ together side by side — as long as we remain in this denomination.

I am grateful for these stated affections, but find it hard to receive love that is delivered with such a patronizing approach.  I’m sure the authors aren’t even aware of this, but the overarching message that “Your perceptions of what is going on in our denomination is not at all on target” discounts our years of experience, struggle and efforts to undo the damage done in the name of “progress” to a once great denomination.  They, of course, see the reality; we are awash in false perceptions.

This is seen even in the choice of words to describe how both sides of the debate have responded to the changes in ordination standards and in the revised Form of Government.  For those in favor of these, the departures from the past are a welcome change.  For those opposed, they feel like a betrayal.  Notice the subtle differentiation which discounts our position.  The changes are indeed a good thing, though they may feel to us right now like a betrayal.  But one day, these enlightened elders hope, our wounded feelings will pass as we too discover how wonderful these developments really are.

I would like to respond to the claim of the authors that with regard to the health of the PCUSA, “perception is not reality” — that if we only knew the facts, we would join them in tiptoeing through the tulips into a bright, new springtime of hope.  Here are some purported evidences to support their view of reality, and my counter observations:

1) “The PC(USA) is deeply missional.”  Why?  Because a) the 2010 GA reaffirmed the 2008 GA’s call to “Grow Christ’s Church Deep and Wide”; b) the 2012 GA will take up the vision to plant 1001 new worshiping communities in the next 10 years; c) there are now some evangelically-minded leaders at the GA offices level who have dreams of how to equip Presbyterians to turn things around; d) Tom Taylor (formerly an evangelical pastor, now president of the Presbyterian Foundation) “…often affirms, ‘Planting and growing congregations, proclaiming the gospel effectively, building up the church – these are at the core of who we are as Presbyterians.’”

This is slim evidence for such a bold claim — that our denomination is deeply missional!  As a Texan might say concerning a drugstore cowboy’s claim to be a successful rancher, “All hat and no cattle.”  The 2008 GA launched a glitzy campaign to grow the PCUSA deep and wide.  How successful was it?  The fact that the 2010 GA had to reaffirm this commitment should give us some clue.  The GA offices have come out with another plan, one based more on marketing hype than on substance, in my opinion, to create 1001 new “worshiping communities” in 10 years.  It’s a lofty goal, to be sure. But what constitutes a “new worshiping community”?  How long will they stay in existence?  What will make them “Presbyterian”?  What resources will be mustered for this effort?  What motivation in the present church is there to take up this challenge?

It’s true that because of significant unrest and refusal of the evangelical wing of the church to financially support the liberal agenda of the GA offices over the last decade, concessions have had to be made by the liberal leadership– the office staff has been downsized and restructured a number of times, bringing in leaders more responsive to evangelical concerns.  But after 30 years of liberals at the helm, with our denomination lying on the operating table in danger of bleeding out, is this not too little, too late?  The quotation from Tom Taylor (whom I like and respect personally), while nice-sounding, is in reality laughable.  What he says was once true of Presbyterians (close to a century and more ago), but it in no recognizable manner reflects the core of who we are as the PCUSA now or in recent memory.

Let’s look at some statistics to back up my realism: over the last decade, according to denominational statistics, the PCUSA has lost 20% of its official membership.  From the 6 years of 1999-2004, our average rate of loss was 1.5% of our total membership annually.  For the last 6 years (2005-2010), that rate has jumped to 2.6%.  That means over the last 6 years we have lost members at a 73% faster rate than over the 6 earlier years.  You may remember that in 2005, the Peace, Unity and Purity report, adopted by the 2006 GA, was made public.  To say that we have been “building up the church, growing congregations and proclaiming the gospel effectively” is to blind oneself to the data.  We have been trending from bad to worse.

As for planting new churches in the midst of closing or losing existing ones, here are the facts for the period from 1999-2010.  The PCUSA was made up of 11,216 congregations in 1999.  Over the last 12 years, we have established 248 new congregations, averaging a little over 20 per year.  In the past we used to receive at least some congregations from other denominations or from independent status that wished to transfer in.  In the last 6 years, that has dwindled down to an average of around 1 per year (these represent mostly Korean congregations wishing to affiliate with the “mother church.”)  Of course in the last 12 years we have also lost churches either to institutional death, merger or dismissal.  This number totals 1099, an average of roughly 91.6 per year.  We now stand (2010 figures) at 10560 congregations, a total net loss over the last 12 years of 656 churches.

So, how are we doing at growing the church deep and wide?  Pretty miserably, when we look at the facts.  If one were to compare our statistical trends to those of countries and their emigration rates vs. their immigration rates, I’m afraid we would mirror countries like Iran and North Korea (where people are straining to leave) more than the United States or England (where people are straining to get in).  Yet this letter tells us that we have always been missional, that this is at the core of our being as a denomination, and that great things are happening.  My response to the authors: your perception is not reality.

there are no golf courses
I can’t have sex anymore
my drinking buddies won’t be there
my drinking buddies will be there
they don’t serve pizza (or fill in your favorite food)
my beloved pet of 15 years isn’t there….

Most of these statements are really aspirational, I believe.  People are saying, “I can’t imagine a perfect existence without _____.”  But if they were assured that heaven will be better than any experience or relationship they’ve known to date, who’d be so foolish as to turn it down?

Last week I was at the gym working out, and in an attempt to ignore my body’s cries for relief I focused on the music blaring from the overhead speakers.  I’d never heard this song before, but the tune was catchy and the lyrics sounded vaguely religious, so I was intrigued.  Turns out the song title is “Heaven”, and it was released about 6 months ago by an up and coming band named O.A.R. (short for Of a Revolution).

The refrain that grabbed my attention was “I don’t want to go to heaven if I can’t get in.” What a revealing line!  Now in the interest of full disclosure, I must report that one of the band members ( guitarist Richard On) declared that this piece is not really about heaven (or religion) at all, but about one’s attitude in this life:  “The song comes from the belief that you are perfect the way you are and if anyone thinks differently, you probably don’t need them in your life” .

With respect, I would challenge the notion that such a perspective has nothing to do with religion or heaven.  Woven throughout “Heaven” is the theme of self-justification:

all i want is understanding to live my life the way that i planned it; wouldn’t change a thing…

cause I’m no criminal I’m not your enemy all i have is life and i don’t wanna go to heaven if i can’t get in…

everybody got a problem with the way i live i don’t wanna go to heaven if i can’t get in…

oh, I’m not your enemy i never met no criminal and in the end I’d do it again i don’t wanna go to heaven if i cant get in.

The main complaint seems summed up in this couplet:

everybody got a problem with the way i live
i don’t wanna go to heaven if i can’t get in.

Far from being non-religious, this song reveals the heart of our fallen, human nature.  We want to define life on our terms, to set our own standards for good and evil, to be free of any outside authority, living life the way we want to and calling it good because it’s the way we want to live.  If others get in our way, or point out our shortcomings and “make us feel judged,” well, to hell with them.  If they won’t embrace me on my terms, then I don’t want to be  around them.  Of course, the ultimate extension of this attitude is reflected in the words, “I don’t want to go to heaven if I can’t get in.”  I may be a crotchety old buzzard, a self-absorbed prig, a strutting peacock, a shameless orgiast, but if God won’t accept me as I am, then “Hasta la vista, baby — I’m headed for the freedom of hell!”

I find this attitude frightening — eerily reminiscent of the pose struck by the character Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost during the opening scene after Lucifer and his minions have been tossed out of heaven for their revolt against God.  As the Evil One seeks to rally his dark troops, he justifies their actions and revels in their newfound freedom, urging his compatriots with these memorable words: Tis better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven!

There is a world of difference between saying, “Let me be the person God created me to be” (i.e., “Don’t box me in to your expectations for my life”) and “I will be whatever I want to be, and no one, not even God, can overrule or pass judgment on my decisions.”  Humility bows willingly before divine correction; arrogance angrily shakes it off.  Humility looks with astonishment on those who would make demands on God’s hospitality, preferring instead to cling to God’s mercy; arrogance sets the terms under which the creature will deign to fellowship with the Creator.

Perhaps you think I’m making too much of a song.  Maybe I am.  But our theology (whether Christian or not) is often reflected in our music.  From the biblical Book of Psalms to the full range of hymns and spiritual songs in every era of the Church universal, people know that what we sing and listen to shapes and proclaims lyrically what we believe most deeply.

Instead of the message, “Welcome me as I am, and leave me to be whatever I wish,” I much prefer this redemptive song which highlights not just welcome but forgiveness and transformation through the mercy of God offered us in Jesus Christ:

Just as I am, thou wilt receive, wilt welcome, pardon, cleanse, relieve; because thy promise I believe, O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

O that God would raise up more talented musicians like those of O.A.R, but whose minds and hearts are saturated with biblical truth.  Music is such a powerful medium of communication, and the messages carried in song shape our thoughts and attitudes slowly but surely.

“Heaven” has a catchy tune.  But it has deadly lyrics.  Someone needs to tell O.A.R. that when they stand before the One with nail-pierced hands and thorn-scarred brow and say, “I don’t want to go to heaven if I can’t get in,” the host of heaven will roar with encouragement, “You can get in!  Just not on your terms.  Accept the gift that will make you fit for heaven!”

O Lamb of God, I come, I come….

I use Google reader to subscribe to the news link on the Presbyterian Church (USA) website — it’s a way to stay in touch with what our denominational leadership considers important enough matters to draw the world’s attention to.  Every so often, I fall a few days behind and have to scroll through a number of stories to catch up.

For example, earlier this month I missed checking from December 6-8.  Ten different “news” stories awaited me.  Reading through them, I was struck afresh with an all too familiar, all too sad epiphany.  The PCUSA has lost its way — it’s hard to find any serious emphasis on the person and work of Jesus Christ, on the message of eternal salvation, on the urgency of evangelism.  Instead, we seem to have devolved to a social action movement with a veneer of quasi-religious platitudes.  Let me summarize the ten stories important enough to be highlighted on our denominational website:

1) Special needs kids in Havana, Cuba get special ed care — Presbyterians are there in a tangential way to help; 2) Mission Crossroads magazine now has its content available online so you can follow how we advance the causes of justice, peace, and “witness”; 3) “More Than Consultation — Collaboration” tells of leaders across the church discussing refugee resettlement issues; 4) an international cluster bomb accord has been derailed after failing to meet humanitarian concerns — our denomination apparently had a small role in lobbying with others to this end; 5) atheists have now launched a campaign to rally unbelievers to their cause (I’m not sure why this was included, unless we wish to take some credit for producing more unbelievers for the atheists to rally); 6) “Our first Christmas together” looks at the ups and downs of various “firsts” for neophytes in parish ministry; 7) a California church is lauded for winning an “energy Oscar” in response to its “green” efforts; 8 ) faith groups in Kenya seek ways to strengthen their HIV/AIDS prevention strategies; 9) religious groups spend nearly $400 million on DC political advocacy efforts; and 10) the sale of the property of a Native American congregation will financially benefit future Native American Presbyterian ministries.

Many of these stories reflect good things happening – I don’t dispute that.  For me the issue is that these kinds of things are being done while the main calling of the church of Jesus Christ is being neglected, or worse, consciously avoided.

Where are the stories of the power of the Holy Spirit being poured out on Presbyterians proclaiming the gospel with thousands responding in a single day?  Where are the accounts of healings in Jesus’ name that bring many into the Kingdom?  Why do we not hear of congregational sacrifice where members sell property and possessions to take care of the influx of the poor into the church?  Where are the stories of fellowships sending pioneers out to neighboring cities, states, countries, to reach the unchurched?  Where is the passion to exalt Jesus Christ as Savior of the world and Lord of creation?  Where are the accounts of our leaders gathering those wise in the ways of God and tested in Spirit-directed battle to strategize on how to win to Christ our lost generations?

As I scrolled through the “news stories” on the denominational website, I couldn’t help comparing them in my mind to the stories told of the church in the Book of Acts.  Ah, someone will say, Acts covers a period of some thirty years. These ten stories are being reported over three days.  True, and valid, to some extent.  The response would be more trenchant, however, if we ever saw significant reporting of Acts-like activities in our midst today.  The problem isn’t so much with what we are accomplishing.  It’s with what we’re missing.  We as a denomination are accomplishing so little of eternal import.  We have our eyes on the wrong target.  Our passions are misdirected.  We enshrine justice, equality, and goodness as ultimate pursuits, and render Jesus one of many means to accomplish these ends.  As a result, we have no gospel for the world, except that of our own fleshly-inspired efforts to succeed in building the utopia that our Enlightenment saints and their deistic offspring never could pull off.  It’s no wonder the PCUSA has no heart for evangelism.  You can’t preach convincingly when you believe no gospel; and you can’t have a gospel when Jesus Christ is no longer the center of your being and doing.

I understand from recent conversations and online reports that many liberal Presbyterian leaders feel shocked to see so many evangelicals and moderates fleeing to other denominations in response to this year’s pyrrhic victory of the theological left.  I’m shocked as well — not that so many are leaving, but that the liberal leadership could be so willfully blind as to think that those faithful to the gospel would do nothing but go down with the ship.

Not all of us have left yet, however.  Some of us remain hopeful that though the church seems to have been taken from us, and is now thoroughly moribund, Jesus is in the resurrection business.  As Mary Magdalene discovered, her work was not to tend to a misplaced corpse but to bow in wonder, joy and love before her risen Lord.  May that same risen Lord free us from the task of tending to a dead denomination, and fill us with wonder, joy and love by restoring to fullness of life a once great gospel movement!

From one perspective, Islam’s rationale for this is understandable.  If God has really revealed the true religion and you have accepted it as true, then to later turn your back on it (and God) is the ultimate insult.  What would be an appropriate penalty for a human servant that has slapped the face of its Divine master?  Death would be too good, but execution is the most extreme penalty available to earthly rulers, and so it is enjoined by Shariah law.

In contemporary news we are seeing the intended application of this view of “religious freedom” in the case of Yusef Nadarkhani, the 34 year old Iranian pastor who has been under government arrest since 2009.  He was originally charged with apostasy against Islam, having been born to a Muslim father but converting to the Christian faith at age 19.  Nadarkhani’s claim was that he was never a practicing Muslim, so he could not have apostatized.  The lower court looked into this claim, and seemed to substantiate it, but refused to release him, in part because in his successful work as a pastor Rev. Nadarkhani had seen numerous Muslims become followers of Jesus under his ministry.  When the case began to receive international attention and disapprobation, the Iranian authorities attempted to change the story, arguing that the pastor had never been charged with apostasy, but rather with rape, extortion and sedition (as a Zionist spy), all of which carry the death penalty.  This turned out to be patently false, as the original written allegations by the government openly cited apostasy and nothing else, and no evidence was produced to support the later charges.  The lower court’s original conviction of Nadarkhani as an apostate was appealed to higher courts, until it finally reached the Supreme Court, which remanded the case to the lower court with the clarification that should the “guilty” party recant his Christian faith, the death penalty would be annulled.  It also ordered that his religious beliefs prior to his conversion to Christianity be investigated, and any appropriate actions taken.

As a result, the lower court again convicted Nadarkhani of apostasy, arguing per Shariah law that since he was born of a Muslim father, he was by law a Muslim, and to now declare himself a Christian was to repudiate Islam.  The pastor has been given the opportunity to recant.  Should he publicly refuse to do this three times, he will be found guilty beyond remedy.  Presently, government officials have visited him with anti-Christian Islamic propaganda, demanding that he read it and respond to them formally.  Their hope is, presumably, that in reading this he will see the light and turn to Islam.  Failing that, their hope is that he will incriminate himself by how he disputes the propaganda, thereby sealing their case of apostasy against him.

Freedom of religion in the Islamic world bears little resemblance to its counterpart in the USA.  To make this case, let me share just one recent case filled with sad irony.  Early this year Abdul Awkal, a Muslim inmate in OH, filed a lawsuit claiming that the state government was obstructing his First Amendment guarantees in the practice of Islam.  At issue was the fact that the prison was not serving him halal meals prepared according to Islamic law, even though it served kosher meals to Jewish prisoners.  The prison meal policy with regard to Muslim prisoners states: “The diet will be free of all pork and products containing or derived from pork. The institution will provide nutritionally adequate meat and non-meat alternatives.”  A prison imam stated his opinion that this is sufficient.  But Abdul Awkal is not satisfied.  Nor is he willing to settle for kosher meals, though Islamic law declares such food to be acceptable.  He wants halal meals, even though they would cost the state significantly more to prepare.  The reason?  He is on death row for the murders of his estranged wife and brother-in-law, neither of which is in doubt, and he wants to help his case before the divine bench by becoming as observant a Muslim as possible before his execution.  Using our government’s First Amendment protection of freedom of religion, Abdul Awkal has successfully forced a change in Ohio’s prison meal system, even though according to his religion the request he has made is not a religious requirement.  Ohio prisons now have banned all pork products from their menus for any prisoners.  This may have settled Mr. Abdul Awkal’s lawsuit (though that is not certain), but it has raised the specter of lawsuits from pork producers and processors in the state.

All this because we take the freedom of religion so seriously.   As a country we bend over backward to avoid impeding the rights of individuals to practice their faith, without questioning the validity of their beliefs as long as they don’t break established law.

Mr. Abdul Awkal seeks the full protection of the law to change governmental behavior to accommodate his wishes, even though his religion does not require such extremes.  And he seems to have succeeded in this quest. On the other hand, what in our country is guaranteed as a freedom of religion is considered a capital crime in Iran.  Mr. Nadarkhani was arrested and tried for becoming a Christian and for pastoring others who have determined they wish to be Christians.  He has no recourse to any protections from the government.  All the power rests in the hands of the courts, which are committed by Islamic law to forcing him to recant or to executing him for refusing.  This is undisguised religious tyranny, and it is inherent in the history and practice of the Islamic empire.

Why?  There are so many reasons, but at the back of them is the theological motif of Allah as a god of unmatched power, who accomplishes his will by any means necessary, including both the threat and the use of power.  Islam’s spread by the sword was not an aberration but a fulfillment of Muhammad’s vision of a god who would conquer the world and bring everything into submission under his sovereign will — hence the name “Islam.”

We may and should cry out for justice for Yusef Nardarkhani in the hopes that worldwide abhorrence of the Iranian government’s behavior will shame its leaders into releasing an innocent man.  But we must not be under the illusion that should this happen those leaders will have recognized that they were in the wrong.  They will only have been engaging in the practice of realpolitik, attempting to curry favor publicly while cutting their losses with Nadarkhani and continuing to practice in the cloak of darkness what they “know” to be God’s will with regard to apostates.

Also praiseworthy was the radically profound teaching from Scripture presented by Ken Bailey — for me, it was the highlight of a tightly-packed two days.  I wish we had had more opportunity for wisely chosen, biblical input in pursuit of divine guidance.

I’m grateful as well for the carefully crafted structures to involve all participants in small group discussions, which resulted in some new insights and some promising friendships.

And of course, running into old friends and fellow evangelicals proved to be a spiritual oasis in a denomination which for me appears increasingly as a desert.

I am grateful for all these blessings — indeed the emotional and spiritual enthusiasm I experienced along with many others was so powerful that I fear it may have short-circuited our critical faculties.  While the experience of being together in worship and fellowship was so exquisite and profound, I wonder if our assessments of the options offered by the Fellowship may be inordinately colored by those positive emotions.

At this point, I am not enamored with the “tiered” approach offered by the Fellowship for four reasons:

1) Although there has been much talk of seeking the mind of Christ, I found little evidence that we were gathered in Minneapolis for that reason.  Instead, our admittedly limited time was crammed with the best of human plans, all geared to offer as much help as possible to people and churches in a wide variety of settings.  The watchwords of the meeting were “context” and “situation.”  The four major tiers were presented as options among which we could choose depending on what was best for us in our context.  By the standards of wordly reason and human logic this made good sense.  We, however, are Christians who claim that our desire is to walk according to the will of our Master.  Not once was the question addressed: “What does Jesus Christ will us to do as an evangelical community in response to the direction of the PCUSA?”  It seems to me that since the mind of Christ is not divided, He must have one intention for us.  Yet we were not willing to wrestle with that question.  Instead, we were given a number of options sanctioned by our unofficial leaders, and told that we could rightly choose among them depending on “what worked best for us in our context.”  Wouldn’t the more biblical approach be to decide what Christ is calling us together to do, and then figure out from our own individual contexts what it is going to take for us to get where he is calling us to go?  I fear we have been listening more in this process to the Zeitgeist of American entrepreneurial individualism than to the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

2) The Fellowship leadership has offered these options as if they are achievable goals.  Yet much is outside our control as far as denominational approval of alternate structures.  If such approval is given, whether to form overlay presbyteries or parallel ordaining and installing structures within presbyteries or even to recognize a “New Reformed Body” so that churches so wishing could be transfered out of the PCUSA into it, all of this will take time.  And time is precisely what those most aggrieved with the present realities of this denomination feel they do not have.  Given the lack of graciousness in the actions of many presbyteries to date, I wonder why we should believe that future decisions from those bodies and upcoming General Assemblies would approve Fellowship-inspired structures that could undermine or derail the present trajectories of the liberal wing of the church.  Despite what the Fellowship is presently saying, even after a New Reformed Body is constitutionally created in January no PCUSA congregation would be able to transfer out of the PCUSA into the NRB, if I read my polity correctly.  That New Reformed Body (NRB) would first have to be recognized officially by the PCUSA, something which could only be done by a legally convened GA.  Since the denomination is not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to call a special meeting of the last GA, the earliest this could be taken up would be next summer at the 2012 GA in Pittsburgh.  My guess is the most likely outcome would be to refer the motion to a task force for a report and decision at the 2014 GA.  Since churches can only be dismissed to other recognized Reformed bodies (I’m assuming this is still the case in our new Form of Government), the NRB would remain essentially an empty warehouse at least till then.  No PCUSA churches could be dismissed to it — to the EPC, CRC, RCA, etc., yes; to the NRB, no.  Who among the disenfranchised is going to wait around so long to sunder ties with a denomination they have lost faith in?

3) The Fellowship movement has put the cart before the horse ecclesiologically.  According to our Reformed understanding, it is a serious sin to bring division into the body of Christ.  It is wrong to create one more denomination unless one can argue persuasively that the body to which we presently belong has become apostate.  Yet at the August Gathering, the Fellowship leaders almost tripped over themselves to get to the microphone first to declare that “Louisville is not the problem”, that “we have established good friendships with members of Covenant Network,” that ”we are not here to denigrate the denomination….”  If we are not willing to declare the PCUSA apostate, then we have no business planning a new denomination, no matter how many friendly ties we say we want to maintain with the PCUSA.  Either we remain and seek to reform, because the PCUSA is still part of the true church, or we shake the dust off our feet and leave, because it has become apostate.  But we cannot affirm the legitimacy of the PCUSA and affirm the rightness of a decision to create a new denomination at the same time.

4) It seems to me that all of the tiered options end up “damning the PCUSA with faint praise.”  In the process we demonstrate that we are not all that committed to the unity of the body.  In option 1, we argue that since the stench of the larger denomination has not yet invaded the relatively evangelical presbytery to which we happen to belong, we are content to stay and minister in our own little sandbox.  Who cares about the health of the whole body as long as things still work fine in the little finger of which we are a part?  In option 2, we argue that if we evangelical churches can band together regionally to form our own presbyteries so that we can sweep clean the stench from our geographical region, then again we can pretend that all is well, even as the rest of the body to which we are attached continues to rot away.  In option 3 we look for an intervention which will give us some say in how our little body part will function, while sharing that function with an alien mind which will sometimes have it do the opposite of what we want.  In option 4, we say the whole body is basically okay, but we would rather be grafted on to a new body.  We’re awfully sorry that the old body will have to do without its big toe on one foot, but we would like to start fresh on a new foot.  The problem with each of these tiers is that we demonstrate that we really do not love our denomination enough to fight for its return to health — we are only concerned with preserving our contentment or agenda as long as we can.  What kind of ecclesiology is that?  We are not being honest with the rest of the church.  Either we are committed to the whole denomination, or we are not.  If we are not, we must ask why, and if the reasons are not good enough we must deal with our sinfulness before the Lord in not committing our full support to His church.  But let’s end the game-playing of saying we have no axe to grind with the denomination while at the same time sharpening our axes to sever ties.

My biggest disappointment with the Gathering’s tiers is that there was no consideration of the possibility that Jesus’ purpose for us might be that we band together and use the formidable resources He has given us to reclaim the denomination for its original biblical and Christ-centered mandate.  I’ve made no secret of my conclusion that the PCUSA as an institution is presently apostate.  Departure to a faithful wing of the true church is a legitimate option. But staying to wrest the denomination back from those who are tearing it from its moorings is also a faithful option, and the one which I believe Jesus calls us to follow.

I wish the Gathering had been called to debate and decide this fundamental issue, and that as an evangelical body we had fused our minds and hearts around one unified purpose, convinced that this was Jesus’ command for us with regard to the PCUSA.  If the consensus was to pick up and leave en masse, I would have joined obediently.  If the consensus was to stay and reclaim, I would have joined with joyful obedience.  But instead we got tiers — tiers so we could pursue whatever “works best in our own context.”

I’m consoled by the truth that the Lord Jesus remains head of His church, and that in the end all will be well.  There will be no more tiers in heaven.  Till then, let’s continue to pray and engage in the daily battle.

Durant became well-known in the second half of the 20th C. as a popular historian, having written a comprehensive work, The Story of Civilization.  By the time he began writing this series, he had left his early Roman Catholic roots and journeyed through a variety of religious, philosophical and political landscapes.  In the conclusion to his preface for volume 6 — The Reformation — he writes of his own deepest beliefs:

Less than any other man have I excuse for prejudice, and I feel for all faiths
the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust in reason is
a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness groping for the
sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest urchin in the
streets.

No one would claim for Will Durant that he had an axe to grind against the Christian faith, nor that he would describe himself as a Christian in any meaningful sense.  So it fascinates me that he was able to capture the heart of the mission of Jesus as reflected in the Gospels so much more accurately than many in the church today.  Here’s the quotation in question, found in Caesar and Christ, vol 3 of The Story of Civilization (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944), p. 566:

He [Jesus] is not concerned to attack existing economic or political institutions….The revolution he sought ws a far deeper one, without which reforms could not only be superficial and transitory.  If he could cleanse the human heart of selfish desire, cruelty, and lust, uptopia would come of itself, and all those institutions that rise out of human greed and violence, and the consequent need for law, would disappear.  Since this would be the profoundest of all revolutions, beside which all others would be mere coup’s d’etat of class ousting class and exploiting in its turn, Christ was in this spiritual sense the greatest revolutionist in history.

While liberals in the church clamor for justice-love and rail against political and economic movements as the enemy that must be eradicated, Jesus speaks of the wholesale transformation of the human heart as his goal, with its consequent reordering of human society as the new community of the Spirit grows and expands.  For liberals, the agency of transformation is governmental regulation or the subversion of unjust government — they want the Kingdom of God, but feel it will come only as they exercise the tools of human social engineering to bring it about.  They like the phrasing of the Lord’s Prayer, Thy Kingdom come…on earth as it is in heaven, but they have forgotten that this is a prayer to God.  Our Father is missing from their vision of how the Kingdom will come.

Evangelicals, on the other hand, have been quick to champion the need for a personal relationship with Christ, but slow to grasp that such a relationship must transform our hearts and through them the world.  We have often privatized our faith, making it about “me and Jesus”, what God can do for me.  Instead of a gospel that makes us whole, we have opted for a gospel of palliative care — if God will just keep me comfortable, pain-free and blessed in this life until I die, then I’ll be transformed in heaven in an instant.  No pain, all gain!  We have focused on Our Father,…give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our debts…and lead us not into temptation., conveniently forgetting that a disciple of Jesus is one who longs that the will of God be done on earth (even by us) as it is always done in heaven.  That means both the transformation of the human heart, and through that the increasing transformation of the world.

The key to the achievement of Christ’s vision is obedience to the Great Commission — to go out and make disciples of all nations.  Not to make converts to a social gospel, nor to a palliative gospel, but to make disciples — those willing to surrender their very lives to the infusion of the Holy Spirit who puts an end to our old lives and equips and empowers us to live Kingdom-affirming lives.

Why is it that Will Durant could see Jesus’ vision so clearly, but we in various camps of the church remain so blind?  Perhaps my hermeneutics professor was right after all.  God help us not to baptize our own visions of His will, but to surrender and embrace His.

Finally, in one rather long passage, Luther ties together Genesis 19 and Romans 1 so as to apply them to the condition of the world of his day in an attempt to answer the question, “Which would be worse, to be ruled by the Papacy or by the Ottoman Empire?”  This section opens with Luther’s assessment of the residents of biblical Sodom struck blind by the angels, and claims that their physical blindness is mirrored by the pope’s and Ottomans’ (= Turks’) moral blindness in that they lightly regard heterosexual marriage but engage energetically in sodomy as if it were a blessed thing.  Luther concludes that all things considered, being ruled by the Muslim empire would be a slightly worse reality than
continuing under the control of Rome!

“God visits them with the same plague, too, and smites them with blindness so that it happens to them as St. Paul says in Romans 1 [:28] about the shameful vice of the dumb sins, that God gives them up to a perverse mind because they pervert the word of God. Both the pope and the Turk are so blind and senseless that they commit the dumb sins shamelessly, as an honorable and praiseworthy thing. Since they think lightly of marriage, it serves them right that there are dog-marriages (and would to God they were dog-marriages), indeed, also “Italian marriages” and “Florentine brides” among them; and they think these things good. I hear one horrible thing after another about what an open and
glorious Sodom Turkey is, and everybody who has looked around a little in Rome and Italy knows very well how God revenges and punishes the forbidden marriage, so that Sodom and Gommorah [sic], which God overwhelmed in days of old with fire and brimstone [Gen. 19:24], must seem a mere jest and prelude compared with these abominations. On this one account, therefore, I would very much regret the rule of the Turk; indeed, his rule would be intolerable in Germany” (Luther’s Works, 46:198).

There is no doubt that on this topic Luther spends most of his energy targeting the abuses of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.  This serves as one of his justifications for rejecting the authority of Rome, indeed even for his conclusion that the God of the pope and his priests is not the God of the Bible.  We have seen some of this focus in the quotations above, but here are a final few that drive the point home:

“If the papacy still had the sanctity and austerity of life that it had at the time of fathers like Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, when the clergy did not yet have an evil reputation for simony, extravagance, pleasures, wealth, adultery, sodomy, and countless other sins but lived in accordance with the canons and decrees of the fathers, outwardly religious and holy, and even practiced celibacy—what, I ask you, would we have been able to do against the papacy?” (Luther’s Works, 26:458)

“You must let yourselves be styled and judged before God and the world as procurers and harlot keepers. We shall depict for you in addition your Roman sodomy, Italian marriage, Venetian and Turkish brides, and Florentine bridegroom, so that you shall see and comprehend that our marriage has taken honest vengeance on your honorless chastity. The fact that perhaps some of you are not guilty of all such wrongs is none of our
concern. The protector, defender, comrade, and accomplice should be considered the same as those who are themselves guilty, because they do not punish, ban, and shun such vices, as the gospel and your own law teach, but help these evildoers, back them, and join them in raging against us. By such support they make themselves partakers of all such outrages and are therefore no better than the guilty” (Luther’s Works, 34:48).

In light of all these statements, we can now return to our original question: Does Luther intend to send the message in translating “arsenokoitai” as Knabenschänder that he does not really believe Paul means to proscribe all homosexual activity but only pederasty?  The answer to this must be, “Hardly.”  Luther is clear in all of his statements regarding homosexuality that he sees this sexual inclination as a perversion of God’s created order.  As such, any practice of it as opposed to God’s will.  In fact, the practice is so vile, to his way of thinking, that it is better not mentioned in innocent company.  Why then does Luther use Knabe rather than Mann? As I hypothesized earlier, it is possible that he linked Knabenschänder specifically with the charge of “Italian marriages” among the Roman Catholic clergy, a reference perhaps particularly to pederasty.  If so, his use of “Knabenschänder” would plant the aberrant clergy whom Luther despised squarely in the center of the list of sins which disqualify one from the Kingdom of heaven.  But this is only a guess.

Another possible explanation is that “Knabenschänder” was a colloquial term of his day which accurately translated the Greek “arsenokoitai”, but which has been lost to us in subsequent history.  This is strengthened by the fact that in the Leviticus texts Luther sets up the contrast between Knabe and Weib.  Since Weib clearly means woman or wife, it is likely that Knabe has a range of meaning including “male or man” in Luther’s usage.  In our own English language, we use the terms “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” to refer to dating relationships even of persons far beyond the age of “boy” or “girl.”  Take for instance this recent story online statement: “Halle Berry celebrated her 45th birthday with loved ones in Malibu Sunday. Halle had both her boyfriend, Olivier Martinez, and her daughter, Nahla, along….”  Martinez is also 45.  If we can use “boy” in this sense in English, certainly it is possible that “Knabe” may have been used that way in the Middle High German of Luther’s day.  But again, this is only a guess.

We cannot know for sure what Luther’s intention was with his translation of “arsenokoitai” into German.  We do know for sure, however, what Luther’s view of homosexuality was, informed by specific biblical texts and his overall grasp of a biblical world view.  Were he in our midst today, it would be safe to say based on his writings that he would be leading the charge against the normalization of homosexual behavior in any form, especially in the context of the church community.

Here’s how the pro-gay argument goes.  In four key biblical passages dealing with homosexual behavior (Lev. 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9; 1 Tim 1:10), Luther renders the original Hebrew or Greek texts with the German word “Knabe” (translated in modern German as “boy”).  In the two Leviticus texts, his translation says that one should not lie/sleep with a Knabe as with a Weib (= woman/wife).  In the two Pauline texts, Luther apparently coins
a new word (Knabenschänder, which literally translates as “those who defile boys”) to translate the also uniquely biblical Greek term “arsenokoitai” (literally “those who bed with males”) Hence their claim is that Luther understood these prohibitions/sins to apply specifically to pederasty (adult-child male-male sex), not generically to adult consensual homosexuality, and so Luther would not oppose the ordination of or marriage covenant for
practicing homosexuals.  It certainly is curious that Luther would use such a specific German term to translate a more generic Greek word.  On the face of it, one might be
led to conclude that indeed Luther was concerned more with defining pederasty as evil than with condemning all homosexual practice.  Even more curious is the fact that the
earlier German Zürcherbibel (Zurich Bible), published in 1531 (14 years before Luther’s translation became public), does not use Luther’s word in either of the Pauline texts but rather the more literally accurate phrase “mit Männern schlafen” (to sleep with men, i.e., males).  No one would accuse Luther of being ignorant of the full meaning of the biblical Greek term “arsenokoitai”, so why would he translate it with a German word seeming to mean only pederasty, rather than the more generic term indicating homosexual behavior of any kind?

If this were all we knew of Luther’s views on homosexuality, one might easily draw the conclusion that indeed Luther’s problem with same-sex relationships dealt only with
non-consensual or power-inequality sexual encounters (in this case due to age), not with committed partnerships among equals whether hetero- or homoerotic.  However, such is not the case.  In Luther’s other writings, especially dealing with Genesis 19 (Lot and the angels in Sodom) and Romans 1, Luther’s views on homosexuality itself are very clear.

In his work, Table Talk, Luther shares his understanding that male-female sexual attraction is part of God’s created/intended order, whereas male-male or female-female attraction is unnatural – that is, a perversion of God’s intention for human beings: “The longing of a man for a woman is God’s creation – that is to say, when nature’s sound, not when it’s corrupted as it is among Italians and Turks” (Luther’s Works, 54:161).  The reference here to Italians is a slam against the practice of sodomy apparently rampant among the Roman Catholic clergy, who of course were unmarried by vow.  The reference to Turks reveals Luther’s view that among Muslims the practice of sodomy was also widespread.

This understanding of homosexual inclination and behavior as a perversion of God’s original created order is seen even more clearly in his exposition of Gen 19:

“The heinous conduct of the people of Sodom is extraordinary, inasmuch as they
departed from the natural passion and longing of the male for the female, which
is implanted into nature by God, and desired what is altogether contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversity? Undoubtedly from Satan, who after people have once turned away from the fear of God, so powerfully suppresses nature that he blots out the natural desire and stirs up a desire that is contrary to nature.” (Luther’s Works, 3:254-5)

Again in Table Talk we find a conversation between Luther and Melanchthon about “Italian marriages” as the two were travelling by cart to Torgau. Luther said:

“These exceed by far all the lewdness and adulteries of the Germans.  The latter are nevertheless sins, but the former uncleannesses are satanic.  God protect us from this devil!  By God’s grace none of the native tongues of Germany was at all acquainted with this heinous offense” (Luther’s Works, 54:278).

Some scholars believe that “Italian marriages” was Luther’s codename for not simply for homosexual behavior, but specifically for pederasty, an evil he believed was not widely known in Germany (as native Germans had developed no word for it) until it was “imported” by the Catholic priests from Italy.  If this is so, his use of the word Knabenschänder to translate “arsenokoitai” might be a pointed reference to the sexual abuses particularly of the Roman Catholic clergy.

With regard to his exposition of the visit of the angels to Lot in Sodom (Gen 19), Luther writes:

“I for my part do not enjoy dealing with this passage, because so far the ears of the Germans are innocent of and uncontaminated by this monstrous depravity; for even though disgrace, like other sins, has crept in through an ungodly soldier and a lewd merchant, still the rest of the people are unaware of what is being done in secret. The Carthusian monks deserve to be hated because they were the first to bring this terrible pollution into Germany from the monasteries of Italy” (Luther’s Works, 3:251-252).

For Luther, homosexual behavior was an “unspeakable” sin.  Hence, he does not deal with it much in his voluminous writings.  But in his lectures on Scripture, when he comes across pertinent texts, he does not hesitate to speak clearly.  Concerning 2 Peter 2:7, “And if He rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the licentiousness of the wicked,”  Luther declares:

“Was it not a great abomination that they not only whored and committed adultery but also committed such an unspeakable sin openly and brazenly, and did not spare even
the angels who came to Lot? And both young and old in all corners of the city were addicted to this sin” (Luther’s Works, 30:179).

Likewise with Romans 1:24-27, Luther writes concerning sexual sins against one’s own body and by extension those committed with the bodies of others:

“To uncleanness to the dishonoring of their own bodies among themselves. From the apostle this vice gets the name uncleanness and effeminacy. Thus we read in 1 Cor. 6:9: “Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, … nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor homosexuals, etc., will inherit the kingdom of God”; and in Eph. 5:3: “All uncleanness, or
covetousness, must not even be named among you, as is fitting among saints”; and in 2 Cor. 12:21: “They have not repented of the uncleanness, immorality, and licentiousness which they have practiced.” He also calls this a dishonor, or shame; for as the nobility of the body (at least in this respect) consists in chastity and continence, or at least in the proper use of the body, so its shame is in its unnatural misuse. As it adds to the splendor of a golden vessel when it is used for exquisite wine, but it contributes to its inelegance when
it is used as a container for dirt and refuse, so also our body (in this respect) is ordained either for an honorable marriage or for an even more honorable chastity. But it is dishonored in the most shameful way when it not only violates marriage and chastity but also soils itself with that disgrace which is even worse.

“The uncleanness, or effeminacy, is every intentional and individual pollution that can be brought about in various ways…. I have called it “individual,” for when it becomes heterosexual or homosexual intercourse, it has a different name” (Luther’s Works, 25:165).

Of particular interest in this passage is the fact that Luther links this Romans 1 text on general homosexual behavior with the list of sins in 1 Cor 6:9.  This strengthens our claim that Luther does not see “arsenokoitai” as pederasty but as generic homosexual activity.

Tomorrow, we’ll consider three final passages from Luther’s writings and offer some suggestions and conclusions concerning the translations in question, on the basis of Luther’s own thoughts.