One Word and a Movie: Homosexuality in the New Testament

There is a current argument about the word homosexual being added to the English translations of the Bible. It's even going to be a movie. The two-pronged argument goes something like this ...

• The Greek word now translated into English (and other languages) as homosexual actually means something like "boy molester" and so the Bible is condemning pederasty, not consensual adult same-sex relations. 
• The choice of the word homosexual was made by homophobic Christians to specifically target homosexual adults. Specifically, the New American Standard Version in 1946 first used the word homosexual in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10.

My Take, for What It's Worth

Here are some thoughts about the first part of this question:

1. Pederasty was well known in the ancient world, as was adult homosexuality. The acceptance of which varied from time and location. Different times and different places all had different folks with different attitudes about sexuality. It's similar to today. So pinning down what "the ancient world" thought about any specific issue is problematic.
2. The New Testament grew out of Judaism. Judaism was and is varied. But two constants stand out from the Hebrew Bible: God's people are to be unique, and they show their uniqueness through dietary and sexual purity (among other things). Pork is a no-go, it's what the pagans eat. Sexual variation is a no-go, it's what the pagans do. (Both food and sex were often parts of pagan worship). Eat kosher and keep it in your pants.
3. To think that Paul, an educated Jew in Second Temple Israel, would have embraced same-sex relationships is hard to believe. Remember that for the issue of eating non-kosher foods, Peter had a special revelation from God saying it's fine to eat what is served. There is no such revelation about sexuality; the Jewish take on sexuality is not challenged in the New Testament.
4. Regardless of how a particular word is translated, the New Testament is not "accepting and affirming" in any way that most queers and allies would like it to be.

Here are some thoughts about the second part of the question:

1. The conservative American church over the past 100 years or so has become more vociferous in its cries against homosexuality and the "gay agenda." But this rising cacophony parallels our rising cultural acceptance of homosexuality. The conservative American church was always homophobic, it just didn't have to talk about queer folk because the queers were well closeted. Thinking that the pre-NASV church was cool with gays (as long as no kids are involved) is farcical. Basically reading a huge shift by the adoption of the word homosexual misses the point: Gay bashing is timeless in our culture. 
2. Language changes. Just because older and new translations have different words, does not necessitate bigotry or foul play. It is hard to think that the earliest translators of the New Testament into post-Elisabeathan English would have seen their choice of boy-man language as condemning that practice but condoning man-man intercourse. There may be specific instances of word choices forwarding one's agenda, but that is not necessarily the case. 
3. The issue here is about one Greek work (arsenokoitai). But this word only appears in two places in Paul. If you really want to know what Paul thinks about gay and lesbian relations, check out Romans 1:18-27 (truncated):
   

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men.... For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.

This is from the American Standard Version, published before the New American Standard Version which made the change to the word homosexual. It illustrates simply that Paul is not a friend of the gays. 

Overall thoughts

It strains credibility to think that Paul was soft on sexual variation of any kind. Given what he writes about gay actions, how could we imaging Paul strongly condemning boy-man sex, but as soon as the boy reaches the age of majority, anything goes?

It also strains credibility to think that the choice of the word homosexual in the 1946 translation signals a change to the American Christian perspective of homosexuality. It merely accentuates the homophobia that was already there. Is the issue an important one? Yes. But it only illustrates anti-gay sentiment in the church, it did not create it. And if we change the word back to something akin to pederasty, it changes nothing overall.

An Alternative

As a gay man with deep roots in American Christian life, here's my take: The New Testament is not queer-friendly. Remember, at the end of the book, gays are specifically thrown into hell. As far as the New Testament is concerned, homosexuality is an expression of what is broken with the world.

So ... Why are you wanting your sexual mores defined by the New Testament in the first place? Why are you wanting to have your text and eat it too? (Hidden reference to Ezekiel and Revelation for you faithful folk.) 

Gays who want to embrace the New Testament have these options as I see it:

1. Live a celibate life, or marry a member of the opposite sex and remain faithful to that person. 
2. Carve out the anti-gay texts in some way. Maybe like this: "Paul was right on about love in 1 Corinthians 13, but way off about homosexuality in 1 Corinthians 6." Granted, we all pick and choose at times which texts we emphasize, but this kind of carving out of texts is antithetical to how religious texts generally work. Religions almost always demand adherence, not picking and choosing.
3. Be Jesus-focused. Since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, maybe we can emphasize his teachings (therefore required) and downplay Paul's application of Jesus' teachings (and therefore optional). I'm sympathetic toward this one. I mean, what Christian is going to say, "You talk about Jesus too much." In this sense, Paul's texts are letters (which they were!) to specific people in specific times. If he were to write a letter to us today, maybe he would be inclusive and accepting because the world is not the same as in his time. But TBH, that's a big maybe. 
4. Soften the anti-gay texts. This is what the current debate about the NRSV tries to do. Paul was ok with gay as long as all are consenting adults. Remember, the current debate is only about one word in two texts. Other texts with different words still condemn homosexuality. 

As a former Christian, I find great inspiration from the Bible and the rich faith I inherited. But I no longer see the biblical texts as demanding my devotion. Rather, they are deeply meaningful—an inspiration and motivation. Sexuality, however, comes from within who we are as people, not from Bronze Age dictates and 2000 year old sermons. 

More Resources

For a pastoral investigation and summary of the situation, check here.

For a scholarly discussion, see Mark Smith's discussion of ancient bisexuality and the rejoinders here and here. You will need academic access to these articles, perhaps through your library.