TWO HOMOSEXUALS AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

TWO HOMOSEXUALS AND THE NEW

On January 25, 1997, the Fundamental Baptist Information Service published an article on Virginia Mollenkott, a literary consultant for the New International Version. Many had asked us for information on this woman because of her connection, however significant, with this popular modern version. Thus we gave a general overview of her life and writings as follows:

Mollenkott is a pro-abortion feminist who claims to be a ‘left-leaning’ Evangelical. In reality she denies the very God of the Bible and worships an idolatrous female god of her own imagination. She grew up in a Plymouth Brethren fellowship and moved in Fundamentalist circles during her early years. She studied at Bob Jones University and taught at Shelton College in the 1950s. She has moved miles from that position, though. Today she is an Episcopalian, serves as professor of English at William Patterson College in New Jersey, and moves in the most radical ecumenical feminist circles. In the 1970s, Virginia Mollenkott was a consultant for the New International Version translating committee. She worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed.

In 1978 she co-authored (with Letha Scanzoni) the book entitled Is the Homosexual My Neighbor?, in which she called for nondiscrimination toward homosexuality. The book argues that the Sodom account in Genesis does not teach the evil of homosexuality, but the evils of violent gang rape and inhospitality to strangers. The book also claims that ‘the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or 'condition' is never mentioned in the Bible’ (p. 71), and that Romans 1 does not ‘fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian’ (p. 62). This is the exact position taken by one of the actual translators of the NIV, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, in a report he assisted in producing for the Christian Reformed Church in 1973. More on this later.

In 1979 Mollenkott participated in the 9th General Conference of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches (a denomination composed largely of homosexuals). In a report which was published by the Christian Century, Sept. 26, 1979, Mollenkott stated, ‘This was the most grateful celebration of Christ I had ever attended...’

In the early 1980s Mollenkott was a member of the National Council of Churches' committee that produced an inclusive-language lectionary which addressed God in feminine terms. At a news conference at the NCC's governing board meeting on November 10, 1983, Mollenkott claimed there is some evidence that Jesus Christ was really a woman. She cited the research of biologist Edward Kessel, who argued that Jesus was "born in parthenogenesis; that parthenogenetic births are always female; that in some cases, therefore, he would be willing to refer to Jesus as 'she' -- up until the last minute of sex reversal, in which case Jesus remains chromosomally female throughout life, but functions as a normal male and looks like a normal male" (Christian Challenge, August 1984).

In October 1985, Mollenkott’s signature appeared on a statement supporting homosexuality which was published in the Sojourners magazine. The statement was also signed by James B. Nelson of the American Lutheran denomination, author of a book which promotes homosexual marriages and homosexual pastors.

In her plenary address before the July 1986, convention of the Evangelical Women's Caucus International (EWCI), in Fresno, California, Mollenkott warned against "heterosexism," the idea that everyone must be heterosexual.

In 1987 Mollenkott wrote an article claiming that refusal to ordain homosexual "clergywomen" is unscriptural discrimination. She wrote: "To ask lesbians and gay men to pretend they are like the majority is to deny them the self-identification and affirmation that is the natural legacy of every healthy adult. Forcing gay Christians into silence also denies them the opportunity to celebrate in gratitude to God for their authentic nature and for their life-enriching mutual relationship with a loving partner" (Christianity and Crisis, Nov. 9, 1987).

In 1988 Mollenkott published the book Women, Men, and the Bible (New York: Crossroad Publishing).

In the June 1991, issue of the Episcopal monthly entitled The Witness, she testified, "My lesbianism has always been a part of me. ... I tried to be heterosexual. I married myself off. But what I did ultimately realize was that God created me as I was, and that this is where life was meaningful."

In 1993 Mollenkott published a book entitled Sensuous Spirituality: Out from Fundamentalism (New York: Crossroad), in which she reflected on her rejection of fundamentalism, her lesbian "coming out," and her belief in a female God. Mollenkott concludes that "in a very physical sense we are all gay, we are all lesbian, we are all heterosexual, we are all bisexual--because we are all one" (p. 153). Her view of the kingdom of God on earth is a society in which "lesbian women, bisexual people, and gay men are going to be accepted as first-class citizens in the church and in society as a whole" (p. 153). She defines sin as "the absence of trust" (instead of disobedience to God’s law) and defines salvation as "being brought back into a trusting relationship by remembering Who We Are: God’s children, never actually separated from God’s love even though we had imagined we were" (p. 157). Her view of the new birth is as follows: "In the instant of remembering our true identity, we are at-oned, restored to a trusting relationship with God, with our Selves, with other people, and with the universe" (p. 157). Mollenkott claims that providing mutual sexual pleasure, whether it be homosexual or bisexual or whatever, is one of the most important things in life. "Learning to love ourselves and others (including mutual pleasuring) is the greatest contribution we can make to the creation of a just society. And I am confident that the day will come when most Christian churches will teach a creation-positive method of glorifying God and enjoying Her forever" (p. 158). Mollenkott turns sin and righteousness upside down by claiming that it is the "pleasure haters" (those who believe God made the sexual relationship for heterosexual marriage only) who are the "unjust" (p. 158). She claims that her lesbianism "is simply a good gift, as all sexuality is a good gift" (p. 162). She admits that when she first started voicing her lesbianism publicly she "felt slightly soiled, as if I needed a good shower," but later she recognized "that the soiled feeling was residual heterosexism" (p. 162). Mollenkott worships a [wo]man-made idol she identifies as "our tender Father and our demanding Mother and then again our loving Friend, faithful Companion, and cosmic Lover" (p. 166).

At the November 1993 Re-imagining conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, which was sponsored by the World Council of Churches, Mollenkott said: "[Jesus] is our elder brother, the trailblazer and constant companion for us--ultimately is among many brothers and sisters in an eternal, equally worthy sibling-hood. First born only in the sense that he was the first to show us that it is possible to live in oneness with the divine source while we are here on this planet. ... As an incest survivor, I can no longer worship in a theological context that depicts God as an abusive parent [referring to Christ's death on the cross] and Jesus as the obedient, trusting child." At the same conference, Mollenkott said she longed to see the creation of an interfaith "worship community" in which each member respected completely the religion of the others and Christians ceased to make missionary efforts to target members of other religions. She labeled soul-winning evangelism as "imperialistic attempts to make others such as I."

In 1994 Mollenkott published The Divine Feminine: The Biblical Imagery of God as Female (New York: Crossroad). This book is filled with such heretical statements as, "The pursuit of holy peace within and the pursuit of peace on earth are perhaps the best of all reasons for lifting up the biblical image of God as the One Mother of us all" (p. 19) and "…because God is womanlike--women are Godlike" (p. 78). Mollenkott suggests that "the Lord’s prayer might be addressed to ‘Our Father/Mother who is in Heaven’" (p. 116). (David W. Cloud, "Virginia Mollenkott," Fundamental Baptist Information Service, Jan. 25, 1997).

When we published the previous information, we hesitated to suggest that the New International Version is weak on homosexuality due to the influence of homosexuals. Having come into possession of more evidence, though, we no longer hesitate. The parallels between the translation of NIV passages dealing with homosexuality and the views of modern homosexual "Christians" are too striking to be incidental.

THERE WAS ANOTHER HOMOSEXUAL INVOLVED WITH THE PRODUCTION OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

Mollenkott aside, we have learned that there was another homosexual involved with the production of the New International Version. This one was directly involved with the translation. His name was Dr. Marten Woudstra, and he was Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee.

Consider the following report by Michael Penfold, Box 26, Bicester, Oxon, OX6 8PB, England, UK.

"James White's book The King James Only Controversy (Bethany House Publishers, 1995) includes a question and answer section. One of the questions reads, 'I've been told that there were homosexuals on the NIV translation committee. Is this true?' On pages 245-246 of his book James White gives the following answer. 'No, it is not [true]. But due to the consistent bearing of false witness by many KJV Only advocates, Dr. Kenneth Barker, Executive Director of the NIV Translation Centre, had to write a response to the accusation, which I quote below:

[Dr. Barker writes]: 'It has come to my attention that false rumours are circulating, in both oral and written form, that the NIV is soft on sodomy (that is, homosexual sins). The alleged reason for this is that some NIV translators and editors were homosexuals and lesbians. These charges have no basis in fact. Thus they are simply untrue. And those who make such false charges could be legitimately sued for libel, slander and defamation of character. Here are the facts. It is true that in the earliest stages of translation work on the NIV (in the late 1960s and early 1970s), Virginia Mollenkott was consulted briefly and only in a minor way on matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views. Those did not begin to surface until years later in some of her writings. If we had known in the sixties what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.'

"This is a very cleverly worded statement and one which we can allow Virginia Mollenkott to answer herself. In a letter to me [Michael J. Penfold] dated Dec. 18th 1996, in reply to my investigation into her true role on the NIV, Mollenkott wrote the following revealing letter:

"[Virginia Mollenkott writes] ‘I worked on the NIV during the entire time it was being translated and reviewed, although I was never free to attend the summer sessions even when I was invited to do so. Elisabeth Elliot and I were the Stylistic Consultants: our job was simply to make sure the translation would communicate clearly to modern American readers, and that the style was as smooth and understandable as possible. I was never removed, sacked, or made redundant from my work on the NIV; if I were, my name would not have appeared on the list sent out by the IBS. It was Dr. Edwin Palmer, who lived near my college, who invited me to work on the NIV. He had heard me speak and respected my integrity and my knowledge. So far as I know, nobody including Dr. Palmer suspected that I was lesbian while I was working on the NIV; it was information I kept private at that time. Dr. Palmer always sent me the batches of translating to review, and I always returned them (with my comments) to him. I have not kept track of which of my suggestions made it into the final version; I am a busy person, and it was a labour love in the scriptures. I do not think anything concerning homosexuality was in any of the batches I reviewed. I do not consider the NIV more gay-friendly than most modern translations, so I do not understand why anybody would want to bash the NIV because a closeted lesbian worked on it. I was not a translator; if I were I would have argued that the word/concept "homosexual" is too anachronistic to be utilised in translating an ancient text. But I was a stylist and nobody asked me. I no longer have any contact with the NIV-CBT, but I am often amused to remember that I frequently refused my $5 an hour stipend because I heard the project was running out of money. At the time I was naive about how many millions of dollars are made by a successful Bible translation! Please tell Kenneth Barker for me that although there is much controversy about homosexuality among Biblical scholars, to my knowledge nobody denies that the Bible condemns lying about other people. He should be ashamed of his attempt to rewrite history.

"’Somewhere in my files is the letter I got thanking me for my work on the NIV when the project was completed. I also have the slipcase version sent out to the whole NIV team in 1978 by Zondervan; and I have the tenth-anniversary edition sent out to the whole team in 1988 by the International Bible Society. Various other editions were also sent out gratis to the translation committee and stylists, but I have received nothing since 1988 that I can remember. Because I am idealistic and sincere, it never occurred to me that anyone would lie about my contributions, so I was not meticulous about keeping records. Thank you for anything you can do to set the record straight. You may utilise this letter to do so, and I'd appreciate you sending me a copy of anything you generate. Sincerely, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott.’

"Why could not Dr. Barker have told the truth in the first place? Taking Mollenkott's words at their face value, the NIV publicity machine has nothing to worry about. Does their anxiety to distance the NIV from homosexual associations reveal something more sinister?

"In the light of the following, I believe it does, as it has now come to light that THE CHAIRMAN OF THE NIV'S OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATION COMMITTEE, DR. MARTEN H. WOUDSTRA, WAS A HOMOSEXUAL. This is much more serious than Mollenkott's involvement. Here we have one of the leading scholars on the NIV CBT who is a homosexual. Obviously this fact compromises the whole project, especially as this fact was well known by his colleagues for many years. However, only now is this fact coming to the notice of the general public through articles like the one you are reading.

"Dr. Woudstra, who died in the early 1990s, was a long-time friend of Evangelicals Concerned Inc. This organisation was founded in 1976 by New York psychologist, Dr. Ralph Blair, as a nation-wide task force and fellowship for gay and lesbian 'evangelical Christians' and their friends. ECI's address is 311 East 72nd Street, New York, NY 10021. They can be found on the internet at http://www.korpi.com/ECWE/

"It was during a series of research phone calls to Dr. Blair that I first confirmed the fact of Dr. Woudstra's homosexuality. Blair and Dr. Woudstra were friends. Dr. Woudstra had been on the mailing list of Evangelicals Concerned from its inception, and although he had no formal ties with ECI, on one of his many trips to New York he called in and had tea with Dr. Blair. Dr Blair told me that Dr. Woudstra shared the viewpoint of ECI that lifelong 'loving monogamous relationships' between gay men or women were acceptable to God. He believed that there was nothing in the Old Testament (his special area of technical expertise) that corresponded to 'homosexual orientation'. The 'sodomy' of the OT simply involved temple rites and gang rape (Gen 19). Notice the similarity between this view and that of Virginia Mollenkott. Dr. Blair clearly stated to me on the phone on 23rd September 1997 that Dr. Woudstra, a lifelong bachelor, was a homosexual. He intimated that other members of the NIV translation committee were also quietly supportive of ECI, but he was not able to tell me who they were (for obvious reasons). He later called them 'bigger' names than Dr. Woudstra.

"As to Dr. Marten Woudstra theologically, he was once the OT Professor at Calvin Seminary, the college of the Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Calvinistic). Over 70% of this denomination's churches now use the NIV. Dr. Woudstra was considered very 'conservative' within Calvin Seminary. He wrote the Joshua Commentary in the New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans) which was also contributed to by such illustrious 'evangelical' names as F.F. Bruce.

"In 1973 the Christian Reformed Church published their official position relative to homosexuality. There is currently discussion, debate and disagreement over the issue of homosexuality within the CRC as in the wider Reformed denominations. For instance, the CRC's sister denomination, the Reformed Church of the Netherlands, took the position in 1979 of actually approving homosexual behaviour within certain bounds. This is a more liberal position than the CRC has ever yet taken. Is it not incredible to think how far the CRC has travelled over the years when one considers some of the former teachers, professors and presidents Calvin Seminary has had, such as Harry Bultema, Herman Hoeksema, H.J. Kuiper, Louis Berkof and William Hendrikson, to name a few.

"In 1970, the CRC Synod appointed a six man committee to study homosexuality. Its report was adopted by the same Synod in 1973. One of the six, Clarence Boomsma, was four times moderator of the CRC and pastor of two CRC churches. In fact Boomsma held the record for the longest pastorate in the CRC; 35 years in the CRC church in Grand Rapids, near the Calvin Seminary.

"I called Clarence Boomsma on the phone in October 1997, and had a long talk about Dr. Woudstra since he had know him for many years and had been his friend. HE TOLD ME THAT DR. WOUDSTRA ASSISTED THEM IN WRITING THE REPORT ON HOMOSEXUALITY. I have a copy of the complete report in my office. It takes a compromised 'middle line' between the Biblical anti-homosexuality absolute, and the Reformed Church of the Netherlands liberal acceptance of homosexual behaviour within certain bounds.

"Let me quote a few lines from the report (Report 42, Art. 53, 1973):

"‘In fact, its [homosexuality] origin is so unclear as to be finally a mystery’ (page 613)

"‘As the cause of homosexuality is uncertain, so is the possibility of correcting it’ (page 614)

"‘Responsibility and the possibility of personal guilt for the homosexual arises at the point where he must decide what he will do with his sexuality. It is here that the Christian homosexual must ask what God's will is for him in the same way as the Christian heterosexual must ask what he must do in obedience to God with his sex drive’ (page 616)

"[Note here the clever but wrong comparison being drawn. For a man to desire sexual relations with a woman is not wrong within the marriage relationship. However, for a man to desire sexual relations with another man is always wrong in all circumstances].

"‘From this story [Genesis 19, Sodom & Gomorrah] read as an isolated incident we cannot conclude however that homosexualism is here condemned’ (page 617).

"[Note that this report took the position that a person may be a homosexual by birth (homosexualism) due to the fallen and irregular nature of humanity, but should not practice homosexual acts (homosexuality)!]

"‘In how far the prohibition of homosexualism [in Lev 18:21 & 20:13] is binding on us is therefore a question that remains’ (page 619).

"‘It has been suggested that the use of these words [malakoi and arsenokoitai in I Cor 6:9-10] stresses the activity rather than the condition of homosexuality’ (page 619)

"[Note this vital belief of Dr. Woudstra. This is the reasoning behind the very clever translation in the NIV in I Cor 6 'homosexual offenders'. Thus the NIV here allows a person to be a homosexual, as long as they don't offend.]

"The report refers constantly to the 'Christian homosexual', and urges that he 'deserves the same acceptance, recognition, compassion and help that is given to any person (page 626). Since the report urges a fully functional place in the church for 'Christian homosexuals' is it any wonder that, according the Boomsma, the CRC has currently (1997) one openly 'celibate' homosexual minister who has 'come out'. All through the report one is struck with the similarities it bears to the views of Virginia Mollenkott. Even the title of her book 'Is The Homosexual My Neighbour' finds an echo on page 631 of the CRC's Homosexuality Committee's 1973 report where paragraph 2 begins 'Love for the homosexual neighbour...'

"The 1973 report advised homosexual ministers to seek pastoral and psychological help to cope with their desires, but stopped short of condoning homosexual practice. Boomsma felt that although the CRC should understand and 'sympathise' (page 630) with the struggle homosexuals faced, for which they may bear minimal responsibility (page 631), it could not make an exception and allow such people to engage in 'homosexual activity' that is wrong. This is still the view of the CRC in general.

"Taking the scriptural principle of two witnesses, I will now add the comments of Clarence Boomsma regarding the sexuality of his friend Dr. Woudstra, the Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee. Boomsma made the following statement to me on the phone on 25th October 1997; I wrote it down verbatim: 'It is generally believed among us [Christian Reformed Church and Calvin Seminary] that Dr. Woudstra was a homosexual.’

"I asked Boomsma if Dr. Woudstra was an 'active' homosexual. Although he knew Dr. Woudstra's views on homosexuality very well and holds in his possession a written dissertation by Dr. Woudstra on the subject, he did not feel free to comment on its contents. However, he did tell me about a '[homosexual] incident' in Dr. Woudstra's career in which his professorship was at stake. Woudstra survived and was not fired by the Seminary.

"Boomsma also spoke of Dr. Woudstra's frequent trips to New York 'which like all large cities has a large homosexual population'. On his return Woudstra would tell Boomsma how much he enjoyed the 'plays' in New York. I asked were these 'gay plays'. Boomsma would only say that New York has a large gay culture and is dotted with gay bars, and it was his impression that his friend, Dr. Woudstra, took part in this side of New York's social scene.

"I submit this research as I feel it has a direct bearing on how the NIV treats homosexuality. By removing the word sodomy and sodomite from the Old Testament, the language is changed and new ideas are introduced. By speaking of homosexual 'offenders' in I Corinthians ch. 6, the NIV allows for people to be homosexual as long as they don't 'offend' by being 'active'; and this is the position of the Christian Reformed Church, Calvin Seminary, Evangelicals Concerned, and who knows, quite a few other members of the NIV Translation Committee other than the late Dr. Woudstra. The fact that Leviticus denounces homosexuality in total does not worry them as such ethical condemnations do not apply today! ''A corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit'' (Matthew 7:17)."

Michael Penfold, November 1997
P.O.Box 26, Bicester, Oxon. OX6 8PB, England UK.
[email protected]"

SODOMY IN THE NIV COMPARED WITH THE VIEWS OF "EVANGELICAL" HOMOSEXUALS

THE FOLLOWING IS A COMPARISON OF HOW THE CONCEPT OF SODOMY AND HOMOSEXUALITY IS TREATED IN THE KING JAMES VERSION AND THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION. The NIV translation allows for the false view that homosexuality as a natural condition is not condemned in the Bible, that the Bible only condemns the misuse of homosexuality. It is much easier to support this strange view from the NIV than it is from the KJV.

The following study is expanded from one which was originally put together by Carl Graham entitled Sodomy and the NIV (first published 1991; revised 1996, Twogistates Publishers, 500 Wheeler Dr., Angier, NC 27501) after he researched the connection between the NIV's rendering of passages touching on homosexuality and the presence of a homosexual on the translation review team. It is amazing to see many direct parallels between Mollenkott's views about homosexuality and the translation of the New International Version. Graham’s study has been enlarged by Michael Penfold with the addition of sections of the 1973 Christian Reformed Church report on homosexuality and by additional comments by me (David Cloud). As noted earlier, Dr. Woudstra, Chairman of the NIV Old Testament Committee, helped the six-man committee write this report. Thus the 1973 report can be taken as the views of at least one prominent member of the NIV CBT.

After Graham published his booklet, he was threatened with a lawsuit by the publishers of the NIV, the International Bible Society. He was accused of slandering the members of the NIV, and they insisted that he withdraw the booklet immediately or face a possible lawsuit. Graham hired an attorney, who asssured him that he was on firm legal grounds. After receiving communication from Graham's lawyer, the IBC apologized to Graham for the threatening letter and dropped the matter.

Graham wrote his report without the knowledge that a homosexual man headed up the Old Testament New International Version translation team. Graham saw the amazing connection between Mollenkott’s views and the rendering of various NIV passages, and he assumed this connection was caused by some direct input by Mollenkott. It appears now that this was not the case. Mollenkott probably had nothing to do with the translation of these various passages. At least that is what she has testified. There can be no doubt, though, that Dr. Woudstra had a direct role in the translation and that his views were precisely aligned with the views promoted by Mollenkott and other "Christian" homosexuals today.

Some people still believe two and two equals four. The connection between the NIV’s rendering of passages touching on homosexuality and the views of modern "Christian" homosexuals is no accident. It is apparent that there must have been other members of the NIV committee who were like-minded with these modern "evangelical" sodomites. Michael Penfold's research has confirmed this, but the names of other NIV translators who were sympathetic with homosexual Christianity will possibly not be brought to light until the judgment seat of Christ.

THE SIN OF HOMOSEXUALITY CAN BE CONDEMNED OUT OF THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, BUT IT IS NOT AS PLAIN AS IT IS IN THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. We have seen repeatedly that this is one of the devil’s tactics. He does not necessarily completely change or remove a doctrine; he merely tampers with it. In a fierce warfare, the difference between winning and losing often depends upon very small details. To clandestinely dull a warrior’s sword is tantamount to open sedition.

The sad fact which must be faced is this: IN SCHOLARLY EVANGELICAL CIRCLES, THE IDEA THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS SOMEHOW COMPATIBLE WITH CHRISTIANITY IS GAINING A WIDENING SYMPATHY. The book by Virginia Mollenkott and Letha Scanzoni, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor (Harper & Row, 1978), received favorable reviews in Christianity Today, The Christian Century, The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, and The Christian Ministry. Joe Dallas, author of A Strong Delusion: Confronting the 'Gay Christian' Movement (Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon, 1996), made the following conclusion: "ENDORSEMENTS FROM SUCH RESPECTED CHRISTIAN PUBLICATIONS WAS PROOF THAT THE GAY CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT WAS GAINING MOMENTUM AND CREDIBILITY."

We now list the verses relative to sodomy from the NIV and KJB, together with the comments, where pertinent, of Dr. Mollenkott and the CRC Committee, which was assisted by Dr. Woudstra. The comments of Dr. Mollenkott are from her book, Is The Homosexual My Neighbor? (abbreviated as ITHMN):]

GENESIS 19:5 - THE SIN OF SODOM

KJB - "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, where are the men which came into thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

NIV - "They called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out so that we can have sex with them.’"

CRC REPORT: "From this story, read as an isolated incident, we cannot conclude however that homosexualism is here condemned. The evil that the men of Sodom were planning with Lot's guests was sexual assault and violence. ... From this account therefore it does not follow that homosexualism under other circumstances is wrong. ...We may not conclude from this account that it was only because of the sexual depravity in Sodom and Gomorrah that these cities were destroyed" (CRC 1973 Report on Homosexuality, No 42, Art. 53, assisted by Woudstra, p. 617).

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, page 57 ". . . the Sodom story seems to be focusing on two specific evils: (1) violent gang rape and (2) inhospitality to the stranger."

[NOTE FROM BRO. CLOUD: The Bible plainly states that the sin for which God judged Sodom was connected with gross and strange immorality. 2 Peter 2:7 refers to Sodom's "filthy conversation." The same Greek word is translated "wantonness" in Rom. 13:13 and 2 Pet. 2:18. Jude 7 refers to Sodom’s fornication and "going after strange flesh." God did not send fire upon Sodom for its inhospitality. In Gen 18:20 God speaks of the great sin of Sodom before the angels had even visited the city.]

LEVITICUS 20:13 - SODOMY

KJB - "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death: their blood shall be upon them."

NIV - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them has done what is detestable. They must be put to death: their blood will be on their own heads."

CRC REPORT: "The difficulty that confronts us with these texts [Lev 18:22, 20:13] is the question in what distinguishable respects they are normative for us ... the problem ... is ... to determine what is binding for us ... it may be questioned whether homosexualism in non-cultic (e.g. moral) contexts is condemned by these passages ... we ... hold that 18:21 forbids homosexualism and the same is true of 20:13. On the other hand we must recognize the temporary character of much of Old Testament legislation ... IN HOW FAR THE PROHIBITION OF HOMOSEXUALISM IS BINDING ON US IS THEREFORE A QUESTION THAT REMAINS ... we cannot simply apply the Old Testament prohibition without considering whether our knowledge of homosexuality [modern 'scientific' research] may not modify to some degree our moral judgment about homosexual practices of such persons" (emphasis added) (CRC 1973 Report on Homosexuality, No 42, Art. 53, assisted by Woudstra, pp. 617-619).

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, pages 110 through 121 - "Dr. Mollenkott argues that this is part of the ceremonial laws, and as such, is to be disregarded by the Christian. She places this act on the same level as wearing clothes of two different materials."

DEUTERONOMY 23:17 - SODOMITE

KJB - "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel."

NIV - "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute."

CRC REPORT: "Deuteronomy 23:17...forbids male prostitution. All scholars agree that the Old Testament condemns homosexualism, although they are not all agreed on the rationale for such condemnation, and on what ethical force it has for all forms of homosexualism as we know it today" (CRC 1973 Report on Homosexuality, No 42, Art. 53, assisted by Woudstra, p. 619).

JUDGES 19:22 - SODOMY

KJB - "Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him."

NIV - "While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, ‘Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.’"

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, page 57 - "Violence--forcing sexual activity upon another--is the real point to this story."

I KINGS 14:24 - SODOMITES

KJB - "And there were sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the Lord cast out before the children of Israel."

NIV - "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."

CRC REPORT: "There are other Old Testament passages that bear on the subject of homosexualism ... I Kings 24:24; 15:12; 22:40 ... which relates the attempts of the kings of Judah to abolish male cultic prostitution and the like" (CRC 1973 Report on Homosexuality, No 42, Art. 53, assisted by Woudstra, p. 619).

[NOTE FROM BRO. CLOUD: The rendering "male temple prostitutes" is an interpretation, as is the rendering "sodomite." According to Strong’s, the Hebrew term is "qadesh, kaw-dashe'; from H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry." In the Authorized Version this Hebrew word is translated "sodomite" and "unclean." The term "sodomite" was brought over from the Geneva Bible, because the translators understood the sin described in these passages is connected with the moral perversion of old Sodom. Many older Bible dictionaries connect sodomy with homosexuality in general. Eadie (1872) defines Sodomite as "not dwellers in Sodom, but practisers of unnatural lust--the sin of Sodom. This sin was consecrated in many Eastern kingdoms." The People’s Bible Encyclopedia by Charles Randall Barnes (1903) says: "The sodomites were not inhabitants of Sodom, nor their descendants, but men consecrated to the unnatural vice of Sodom (Gen. 19:5; comp. Rom. 1:27) as a religious rite." Note that Barnes connects the sin of sodomy with the homosexuality described in Romans 1:27. Hastings (1898) says: "The term ‘Sodomite’ is used in Scripture to describe offences against the laws of nature which were FREQUENTLY connected with idolatrous practices" (emphasis ours). Note that Hastings did not claim that the offences against the laws of nature were restricted solely to idolatrous temple worship. The term "sodomy" in these passages doubtless did refer, at least in part, to homosexuality connected with immoral pagan religions. The problem with the NIV translation is that it LIMITS this sin to that particular connection rather than allowing the larger meaning of homosexuality in general. It also creates the confusion that the practice of sodomy in the Old Testament and the sin of Sodom itself was limited to male prostitution.]

I KINGS 15:12 - SODOMITES

KJB - "And he took away the sodomites out of the land and removed all the idols that his fathers had made."

NIV - "He expelled all the shrine prostitutes from the land and got rid of the idols his fathers had made."

I KINGS 22:46 - SODOMITES

KJB - "And the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father Asa, he took out of the land."

NIV - "He rid the land of the rest of the shrine prostitutes who remained there even after the reign of his father Asa."

II KINGS 23:7 - SODOMITES

KJB - "And he brake down the houses of the sodomites, that were by the house of the Lord, where the women wove hangings for the grove."

NIV - "He also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes, which were in the temple of the Lord and where women did weaving for Asherah."

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, page 59 & 60 - "Most scholars agree that in the fertility religions of Israel's neighbors, male cult prostitutes were employed for homosexual acts. The people who loved and served the God of Israel were strictly forbidden to have anything to do with such idolatry, and the Jewish men were commanded to never serve as temple prostitutes."

LUKE 10:12 - JUDGMENT UPON SODOM

KJB - "But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom than for that city."

NIV - "I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for you."

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, page 59. "Jesus refers to Sodom, not in the context of sexual acts, but in the context of inhospitality." And on page 71, she expands this thought with "the idea of a life long homosexual orientation or 'condition' is never mentioned in the Bible."

ROMANS 1:26 & 27 - HOMOSEXUALITY

KJB - "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections; for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And like wise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in lust one toward another; man with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet."

NIV - "Because of this, God gave him over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

CRC REPORT: "We conclude that the New Testament passages which make reference to homosexual behaviour are in harmony with the judgment of Old Testament: homosexual acts are sinful. But again, we need to ask whether the judgment of Paul applies to those who are homosexuals as we have defined them, i.e. those who are constitutionally homosexual [born that way] in their sexual orientation. Does the exchange from the natural to the unnatural which Paul deems dishonourable apply to such persons? ... The male homosexual does not exchange his passion for a woman for passion for a man, nor gives up the natural attraction for a woman, for he does not have such passions, such are not 'natural' to him" (CRC 1973 Report on Homosexuality, No 42, Art. 53, assisted by Woudstra, p. 621).

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, page 62 - "The key thought here seems to be lust, 'unnaturalness,' and, in verse 28, a desire to avoid the acknowledgment of God. But although the censure fits idolatrous people with whom Paul was concerned here, it does not seem to fit the case of a sincere homosexual Christian. Such a person loves Jesus Christ and wants above all to acknowledge God in all of life, yet for some unknown reason feels drawn to someone of the same sex, for the sake of love rather than lust. Is it fair to describe that person as lustful or desirous of forgetting God's existence?"

I CORINTHIANS 6:9 - REJECTION OF HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR

KJB - "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…"

NIV - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolators nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..."

CRC REPORT: "It has been suggested that the use of these words stresses the activity rather than the condition of homosexuality" (CRC 1973 Report on Homosexuality, No 42, Art. 53, assisted by Woudstra, p. 619).

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, page 67 - "Interpretation of these passages depends on two Greek words used in I Cor. 6:9 which have presented a problem for translators in the King James Version, they translated 'effeminate' and 'abusers of themselves with mankind.' In the Revised Standard Version of 1952, they were combined and rendered simply 'homosexuals,' which implied that all persons whose erotic interests were oriented to the same sex were by the very fact excluded from membership in the kingdom of God. But the original intent seems to have been to single out specific kinds of same-sex practices which were deplorable."

[NOTE FROM BRO. CLOUD: We see that the New International Version replaces the "effeminate" of the KJV with "male prostitutes." The word "effeminate" in the KJV is from the Greek word "malakos," which Strong defines as "soft, i.e. fine (clothing)." The Greek word appears three times in the New Testament, and in the Authorized Version it is translated "effeminate" one time (1 Cor. 6:9) and "soft" two times (Matt. 11:8; Lk. 7:25). The New International Version translators had no authority to translate this word as "male prostitutes." They have replaced the New Testament term "effeminate," which aptly describes male homosexuality in general, with the term "male prostitutes," thus diluting and perverting the meaning of the passage.]

JUDE 7 - STRANGE FLESH

KJB - "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

NIV - "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."

MOLLENKOTT, ITHMN, page 59 - "The 'unnatural lust' thus could, in the context, and in view of the apocryphal texts to which Jude made allusion, refer to a desire for sexual contact between human and heavenly beings."

IT WOULD NOT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT ALL THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN PRODUCING THE NIV FAVORED HOMOSEXUALITY AS AN ALTERNATE LIFESTYLE, BUT IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THOSE WHO WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL WORDING WERE AT LEAST SYMPATHETIC TO DR. MOLLENKOTT'S and DR. WOUDSTRA’S CAUSE. One only has to look at the treatment of sodomy in the NIV to reach this conclusion.

BUT I THOUGHT EVANGELICALS WERE STRONG BIBLE BELIEVERS!

Those who do not understand the history and present condition of Evangelicalism, might be confused by these facts. The New International Version was translated by those who claimed to be "evangelical." Does that not guarantee that it is sound? By no means. At the mid-point of this century, Evangelicalism, which had previously described a zealous Protestantism (never more than that), took a different turn. Described as a "New Evangelicalism," many well-known Christian leaders such as Harold Ockenga, Carl Henry, Harold Lindsell, and Billy Graham, and many schools (Wheaton, Fuller, etc.) and publications (Christianity Today, etc.) denounced biblical separation and biblical absolutism and determined to practice infiltration and dialogue and inclusivism. They thought the old Fundamentalists were too negative, and they determined to approach theology and the ministry in a more positive manner. They also allowed for some rethinking or reexamination of certain points of the old Evangelical theology. They did not desire to be so boxed in. Ockenga described this new evangelicalism in an address he gave in 1948. "While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, this address repudiated its ecclesiology and its social theory. THE RINGING CALL FOR A REPUDIATION OF SEPARATISM and the summons to social involvement received a hearty response from many evangelicals" (emphasis added) (Ockenga, Foreword to The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell, p. 11). The Bible warns that a little leaven leavens the whole lump, and since the 1950s, Evangelicalism has been on a downhill slide.

The result of this new thinking has been dramatic. It is God who has commanded that His people separate from error and from those who teach and practice it; it is God who has commanded that His people "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to the saints." And when these and other aspects of old-time Evangelicalism were rejected, the power and blessing of God was removed just as it was from Samson of old when he broke his Nazarite vow.

The following testimonies about the character of Evangelicalism today were not made by Fundamentalists; they were made by key Evangelical leaders, including some of the very founders of New Evangelicalism.

"A GROWING VANGUARD OF YOUNG GRADUATES OF EVANGELICAL COLLEGES WHO HOLD DOCTORATES FROM NON-EVANGELICAL DIVINITY CENTERS NOW QUESTION OR DISOWN INERRANCY and the doctrine is held less consistently by evangelical faculties. ... Some retain the term and reassure supportive constituencies but nonetheless stretch the term's meaning" (Carl F.H. Henry, first editor of Christianity Today, chairman for the 1966 World Congress on Evangelism, "Conflict Over Biblical Inerrancy," Christianity Today, May 7, 1976)

"MORE AND MORE ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS HISTORICALLY COMMITTED TO AN INFALLIBLE SCRIPTURE HAVE BEEN EMBRACING AND PROPAGATING THE VIEW THAT THE BIBLE HAS ERRORS IN IT. This movement away from the historic standpoint has been most noticeable among those often labeled neo-evangelicals. This change of position with respect to the infallibility of the Bible is widespread and has occurred in evangelical denominations, Christian colleges, theological seminaries, publishing houses, and learned societies" (Harold Lindsell, former vice-president and professor Fuller Theological Seminary and Editor Emeritus of Christianity Today, The Battle for the Bible, 1976, p. 20).

"Most people outside the evangelical community itself are totally unaware of the profound changes that have occurred within evangelicalism during the last several years--in the movement's understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, in its social concerns, cultural attitudes and ecumenical posture, and in the nature of its emerging leadership. ... evangelical theologians have begun looking at the Bible with a scrutiny reflecting THEIR WIDESPREAD ACCEPTANCE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HISTORICAL AND LITERARY CRITICISM ... The position--affirming that Scripture is inerrant or infallible in its teaching on matters of faith and conduct but not necessarily in all its assertions concerning history and the cosmos--IS GRADUALLY BECOMING ASCENDANT AMONG THE MOST HIGHLY RESPECTED EVANGELICAL THEOLOGIANS. ... these new trends ... indicate that evangelical theology is becoming more centrist, more open to biblical criticism and more accepting of science and broad cultural analysis. ONE MIGHT EVEN SUGGEST THAT THE NEW GENERATION OF EVANGELICALS IS CLOSER TO BONHOEFFER, BARTH AND BRUNNER THAN TO HODGE AND WARFIELD ON THE INSPIRATION AND AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE" (Richard Quebedeaux, author of The Young Evangelicals and The Worldly Evangelicals, "The Evangelicals: New Trends and Tensions," Christianity and Crisis, Sept. 20, 1976, pp. 197-202).

"A SURPRISING ARRAY OF EQUALLY DEDICATED EVANGELICALS IS FORMING TO INSIST THAT ACCEPTANCE OF HISTORIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF IN AN INERRANT BOOK. ... What has made it a new ball game today is the emergence of a new type of evangelical. These persons accept the cardinal doctrines of Christianity in their full and literal meaning but agree that the higher critics have a point: there are errors in Scripture, and some of its precepts must be recognized as being culturally and historically conditioned" (G. Aiken Taylor, "Is God as Good as His Word?" Christianity Today, Feb. 4, 1977).

"I must regretfully conclude that the term evangelical has been so debased that it has lost its usefulness. ... Forty years ago the term evangelical represented those who were theologically orthodox and who held to biblical inerrancy as one of the distinctives. ... WITHIN A DECADE OR SO NEOEVANGELICALISM, THAT STARTED SO WELL AND PROMISED SO MUCH, WAS BEING ASSAULTED FROM WITHIN BY INCREASING SKEPTICISM WITH REGARD TO BIBLICAL INFALLIBILITY OR INERRANCY" (Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance, 1979, p. 319)

"WITHIN EVANGELICALISM THERE ARE A GROWING NUMBER WHO ARE MODIFYING THEIR VIEWS ON THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE SO THAT THE FULL AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE IS COMPLETELY UNDERCUT. But is happening in very subtle ways. Like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views on biblical authority often seem at first glance not to be very far from what evangelicals, until just recently, have always believed. But also, like the snow lying side-by-side on the ridge, the new views when followed consistently end up a thousand miles apart. What may seem like a minor difference at first, in the end makes all the difference in the world ... compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian theologically and how we live in the full spectrum of human life" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 44).

"Accommodation, accommodation. How the mindset of accommodation grows and expands. The last sixty years have given birth to a moral disaster, and what have we done? Sadly we must say that the evangelical world has been part of the disaster. More than this, the evangelical response itself has been a disaster. Where is the clear voice speaking to the crucial issues of the day with distinctively biblical, Christian answers? With tears we must say that largely it is not there and that A LARGE SEGMENT OF THE EVANGELICAL WORLD HAS BECOME SEDUCED BY THE WORLD SPIRIT OF THIS PRESENT AGE" (Francis Schaeffer, The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1983, p. 141).

"My main concern is with those who profess to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and yet by, what I can only call, surreptitious and devious means, deny it. This is, surprisingly enough, a position that is taken widely in the evangelical world. ALMOST ALL OF THE LITERATURE WHICH IS PRODUCED IN THE EVANGELICAL WORLD TODAY FALLS INTO THIS CATEGORY. In the October 1985 issue of Christianity Today, a symposium on Bible criticism was featured. The articles were written by scholars from several evangelical seminaries. NOT ONE OF THE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT SYMPOSIUM IN CHRISTIANITY TODAY WAS PREPARED TO REJECT HIGHER CRITICISM. All came to its defense. It became evident that all the scholars from the leading seminaries in this country held to a form of higher criticism. These men claim to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. At the same time they adopt higher critical methods in the explanation of the Scriptures. This has become so common in evangelical circles that it is almost impossible to find an evangelical professor in the theological schools of our land and abroad who still holds uncompromisingly to the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the Scriptures. The insidious danger is that higher criticism is promoted by those who claim to believe in infallible inspiration" (Herman Hanko, Professor of Church History and New Testament, Protestant Reformed Seminary, The Battle for the Bible, 1993, pp. 2,3).

"At one extreme are those who have recoiled into Anglo-Catholicism in reaction to pietistic subjectivism; at the other are those who have taken their stand on the verities of old-time Fundamentalism as a way of rejecting evangelical softness. BUT IN BETWEEN THESE FAR SHORES LIE THE CHOPPY WATERS THAT MOST EVANGELICALS NOW PLY WITH THEIR BOATS, AND HERE THE WINDS OF MODERNITY BLOW WITH DISCONCERTING FORCE, FRAGMENTING WHAT IT MEANS TO BE EVANGELICAL. THIS IS BECAUSE EVANGELICALS HAVE ALLOWED THEIR CONFESSIONAL CENTER TO DISSSIPATE. ... Fundamentalism always had an air of embattlement about it, of being an island in a sea of unremitting hostility. Evangelicalism has reacted against this sense of psychological isolation. It has lowered the barricades. It is open to the world. The great sin of Fundamentalism is to compromise; the great sin in evangelicalism is to be narrow" (David F. Wells, Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, No Place for the Truth or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology?, 1994, pp. 128,129).

"Although most of today's professing evangelicals would acknowledge that theology, in some sense of the word, does matter, a recent survey in Christianity Today revealed that this is more lip service than anything else. According to this survey ... theology, in any sense of the word, is really not all that important to the very people to whom it should matter most: those in the pew and in the pulpit. BOTH GROUPS LISTED THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS LAST IN TERMS OF PASTORAL PRIORITIES. ... WE ARE SADLY EXPERIENCING, ON A RATHER LARGE SCALE, A SUBJECTIVISM THAT BETRAYS ITS WEAKENED HOLD ON THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH and reality of Christianity by its neglect or even renunciation of its distinctive objective character. ... Men ... really wish to have a creedless Christianity. 'Creeds,' they shout, 'are divisive things; away with them!' ... Where does this leave us? An undogmatic Christianity is no Christianity at all" (Gary L.W. Johnson, "Does Theology Still Matter?" The Coming Evangelical Crisis, Moody Press, 1996, pp. 58,66,67).

"... evangelicalism in the 1990s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. ... THE THEOLOGICAL UNITY THAT ONCE MARKED THE MOVEMENT HAS GIVEN WAY TO A THEOLOGICAL PLURALISM THAT WAS PRECISELY WHAT MANY OF THE FOUNDERS OF MODERN EVANGELICALISM HAD REJECTED IN MAINLINE PROTESTANTISM. ... Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a greater crisis yet threatens" (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., "Evangelical What's in a Name?," The Coming Evangelical Crisis, 1996, pp. 32,33,36).

These are sad testimonies. It is strange to note that these men (Hanko excepted), though they see the apostate confusion which has arisen in modern Evangelicalism, do not clearly see that this is the product of the rejection of biblical separation and absolutism. These leaders (Hanko excepted) continue to reject and misrepresent Bible-believing Fundamentalism. This present Evangelical generation is polluted with the Modernism and Ecumenism and Romanism and Humanism and Psychology and Worldliness from which it has refused to separate. God is not mocked. A "little leaven leaventh the whole lump" and "evil communications corrupt good manners." A man, church, denomination, or movement cannot reject biblical separation and a zealous defense of the whole counsel of God without paying the consequence of apostasy.

Friends, "evangelical scholars" today cannot be trusted to be firm Bible believers.

SODOMY AND THE BIBLE

The sodomite of the Old Testament refers to male prostitution and homosexual moral perversion practiced in connection with idolatry (De. 23:17; 1 Ki. 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Ki. 23:7). The same Hebrew word is translated "unclean" (Job 36:14). The term is connected with the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah and has come to be identified with homosexuality and moral perversion in general. The 1828 Webster dictionary defined "sodomy" as "a crime against nature." The Webster's Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary of 1983 defines sodomy as "any sexual intercourse regarded as abnormal, as between persons of the same sex, especially males, or between a person and an animal." The term is descriptive of the moral perversion of the city of Sodom (Ge. 19; Jude 7).

THE NIV TRANSLATION OF SODOMY: Some modern translations, such as the New International Version, replace the word "sodomite" with "male temple prostitutes." This rendering is an interpretation as is the rendering "sodomite." According to Strong’s, the Hebrew term is "qadesh, kaw-dashe'; from H6942; a (quasi) sacred person, i.e. (techn.) a (male) devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry." In the Authorized Version this Hebrew word is translated "sodomite" and "unclean." The term "sodomite" was brought over from the Geneva Bible, because the translators understood the sin described in these passages is connected with the moral perversion of old Sodom. Many older Bible dictionaries connect sodomy with homosexuality in general. Eadie (1872) defines Sodomite as "not dwellers in Sodom, but practisers of unnatural lust--the sin of Sodom. This sin was consecrated in many Eastern kingdoms." The People’s Bible Encyclopedia by Charles Randall Barnes (1903) says: "The sodomites were not inhabitants of Sodom, nor their descendants, but men consecrated to the unnatural vice of Sodom (Gen. 19:5; comp. Rom. 1:27) as a religious rite." Note that Barnes connects the sin of sodomy with the homosexuality described in Romans 1:27. Hastings (1898) says: "The term ‘Sodomite’ is used in Scripture to describe offences against the laws of nature which were FREQUENTLY connected with idolatrous practices" (emphasis ours). Note that Hastings did not claim that the offences against the laws of nature were restricted solely to idolatrous temple worship. The term "sodomy" in these passages doubtless did refer, at least in part, to homosexuality connected with immoral pagan religions. The problem with the NIV translation is that it LIMITS this sin to that particular connection rather than allowing the larger meaning of homosexuality in general. It also creates the confusion that the practice of sodomy in the Old Testament and the sin of Sodom itself was limited to male prostitution.

OTHER BIBLE TERMS FOR SODOMY. Some contend that the Bible only condemns prostitution and forced immorality, and that sodomy, or homosexuality, in general, is not addressed in the Word of God. That this is not true is evident by the terminology used in the following passages of Scripture. The language the Holy Spirit uses in the N.T. to describe same-sex relations proves that God considers this a great wickedness, whether or not it is done with consent--"uncleanness" (Ro. 1:24); "dishonour their own bodies between themselves" (Ro. 1:24); "vile affections" (Ro. 1:26); "that which is against nature" (Ro. 1:26); "that which is unseemly" (Ro. 1:27); "reprobate mind" (Ro. 1:28); "effeminate" (1 Co. 6:9); "abusers of themselves with mankind" (1 Co. 6:9); "inordinate affection" (Col. 3:5); "them that defile themselves with mankind" (1 Ti. 1:10); "filthy conversation" (2 Pe. 2:7); "going after strange flesh" (Jude 7). Under the Mosaic law homosexuality required the death penalty (Le. 18:22-29; 20:13). The terminology used in the passages in Leviticus describe and condemn homosexuality in general--man lying with man, and woman lying with woman.

WHAT DOES GOD THINK OF SODOMY? (1) It is an abomination (Le. 18:22). (2) It bore the death penalty in the O.T. dispensation (Le. 20:13; Ro. 1:32). (3) It defiles the land (Le. 18:25). (4) It is the product of a morally reprobate mind (Ro. 1:26-28). (5) It is worthy of the judgment of eternal fire (Jude 7). (6) It can be forgiven and cleansed in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of God (1 Co. 6:9-11).

IS SODOMY A GREATER SIN? While it is true that there are many sins other than homosexuality and all sin is wicked before God, and while it is true that any sin can be forgiven through the blood of Jesus Christ, the Bible does not say that all sin is the same in its effect in this world. God did not pour out fire and brimstone upon Sodom because of its jealousy or covetousness or lack of hospitality. It was judged specifically because of its homosexuality (Jude 7). Though all moral sins are evil in God's eye, homosexuality is especially corrupt because it is a sin against nature itself. It destroys the very fabric of society, which is the family as defined biblically--a man and a woman united in holy matrimony rearing children to fear God and to be productive citizens. Homosexuality is to "change the natural use into that which is against nature" (Ro. 1:26).