St. John Studies

When Peter Gomes wrote The Good Book in 1996 some would say he did so to explain how he could be a gay man and also a Christian pastor.  During that time in our culture, the idea of homosexuality was not very accepted, with Christians largely condemning the practice of homosexuality. Today, times have changed.  Homosexual behavior is more openly discussed than ever before and some would say it is much more accepted.  Of course it remains a contentious issue within the church.  My original reason for beginning a three book discussion on the topic of homosexuality and Christianity was to learn as much as I could about the affirming position of Christians, the disconfirming position of Christians and the middle ground between the opposite views.  The issue has touched me personally, as my church has disaffiliated from the United Methodist congregation over the issue of homosexuality in the church.  To date 7,600 churches have disaffiliated, 25% of the churches within the United Methodist congregation.

Gomes actually does much more than just explain his sexual preference, he “defends” it.  His defense is built on the “hard texts” of the Bible.  In the first seven chapters of his book he focuses on Scripture and alcohol, Scripture and race, Scripture and anti-Semitism and Scripture and women.  To put is simply, he is making a case that the Bible does not always provide adequate guidance about issues that evolve over time within our culture.  In Chapter 8 [“The Bible and Homosexuality: The Last Prejudice”] he reaches the most compelling point within his book and like the previous issues, he expects the reader to agree with him that prejudice against homosexuals should be a thing of the past.  That is why in 1996 he refers to hatred against homosexuals as the “Last Prejudice.”

When Gomes refers to homosexuality within the church, he refers to it as “love that dare not speak its name.”  He also writes about compromise on this issue: “compromise or sweet reasonableness is thought to be capitulation to error, and therefore unacceptable” [145].  One must keep in mind that his comments came in the late 1990’s.  He also goes right to the heart of this issue because he feels that cultural acceptance of homosexuality is not the main problem; the Biblical basis for prejudice against homosexuality is the main problem.  That’s where people of religious conviction draw the line.

So what do we do with this problem?  Old Testament Scripture refers to homosexuality as an abomination, Sodom and Gomorroah was punished for the sin of homosexuality, Paul was opposed to homosexuality etc. 

In the late Twentieth Century many felt that AIDS was a terrible consequence of homosexual behavior, a punishment so to speak.  In 1991 a pastor out of Kansas named Fred Phelps captured national attention with his war on gay people, picketing funerals of homosexual men and women with signs like “GOD HATES FAGS”.  “Gay bashing” has long been a part of the cultural scene and it was popular in the 1990’s.  Gomes cites the case of Stephen Jones who died by being tossed from a bridge.  One has to merely go to a web browser and type in “list of violent crimes against homosexuals” to see an appalling list of additional acts. 

Gomes reponds to all this information with these words: “No credible case against homosexuality or homosexuals can be made from the Bible unless one chooses to read Scripture in a way that simply sustains the existing prejudice against homosexuality and homosexuals.  The combination of ignorance and prejudice under the guise of morality makes the religious community and its abuse of Scripture in this regard, itself morally culpable” 147].

Gomes turns to Scripture to parse out God’s words against homosexuals; “when the Bible speaks of homosexuality, does it mean what we mean when we speak of homosexuality?”  Does the Bible have much to say on this subject.  Gomes states “It has not.”  The subject is not mentioned in the Ten Commandments, nor in the summary of the Law.  No prophet mentions the topic.  Jesus does not mention it.  Homosexuality does not show up as a problem in the early churches.  It is almost as if Gomes is saying [to quote Shakespeare] that we are making “much ado about nothing.”  The Bible does not use the word homosexual.  Gomes says it was invented in the late nineteenth century by translators of earlier Biblical manuscripts.   No Hebrew, Greek, Syrian or Aramaic languages really has a word corresponding to “homosexual.” 

In other books I have discussed, both authors DeYoung and Sprinkle comment directly on Scripture dealing with homosexuality.  DeYoung finds ample support for his non-affirming position when he exegetes Genesis, Leviticus, Romans and Timothy.  His conclusion:  homosexuality is a grievous sin.  Sprinkle turns to those same passages and finds that there is room for some compromise between those who condemn homosexuality and those who do not.  He feels it  is better to err on the side of love than stand on hatred; Christians need to be careful as they examine their negative behavior toward homosexuals.  What messages are they sending the world? 

I find it interesting that the Bible Scriptures yield support for all three positions, but now we are focused on Peter Gomes’ position.  His view is the affirming view and in the next post, I will examine what he has to say on this issue. 

Like DeYoung and Sprinkle, he devotes several pages to “What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality,” almost a direct quote of Kevin’s DeYoung’s title for his book.*

We will see if his notion of homosexuality as the last prejudice is plausible or does homosexuality deserve DeYoung’s label, “grievous sin.”  Gomes wrote in 1996 but 7,600 United Methodist churches disaffiliated in 2023 and 2024.  With this as a backdrop, how can one say that this issue is resolved?  Are Gomes’ thoughts relevant today?  We will see…

*Kevin DeYoung, What does the Bible Teach about Homosexuality?

For anyone following this blog, there has been an absence lately. I have not posted since April 6, 2024, a post about the role of Christians in society today. In particular, that post entitled “Can We Be The Balm That Can Heal?” was a retread from 2016 about how Christians get involved in politics in a very negative way, adding fuel to the fire that unbelievers already feel about our faith. In essence we don’t act like Christians; we act in a hateful manner.

I did post on April 4, about Dr. Preston Sprinkle’s ideas on Jesus’ beliefs about homosexuality. Jesus did not really address this issue but Sprinkle believes that many affirming* Christians feel His lack of words bolster their position that homosexuality is ok within the church. Non-affirming Christians use Jesus’ silence for their position; He was a devout Jew and would have followed the hard line about homosexuality. Why would He talk about something that was obviously a grievous sin? That post was entitled “Neither Do I Condemn Thee.” Sprinkle tries to find common ground between the affirming Christians and non-affirming Christians.

It is now time to get back to the issue of homosexuality in the Christian church.

I have been away on a relaxing vacation. It is the first time I have gone away with no telephone and no computer. I got some very needed perspective.

It is good to be back.

Now it is time to return to the topic at hand, and the timing could not be any better. I am at Chapter 8 in Peter Gomes’ book. Gomes is the most affirming of the three authors that I have been discussing. I started with his book when I began this project on February 2, 2023. His chapter is entitled “The Bible and Homosexuality, the Last Prejudice.”

That sounds serious.

I venture to say that is his key discussion on the issue I am trying to discuss.

Remember (any reader who is following this blog), I will go from Gomes to DeYoung** to Sprinkle***, trying to find a balanced discussion of this topic.

But for now, we look at “The Last Prejudice.”

*an “affirming” position on this issue means that Christians have no problem with homosexuality in the church

**Kevin DeYoung, a “non-affirming” Christian author on homosexuality

***Dr. Preston Sprinkle, an author who tries to bridge the gap between the affirming and non-affirming position.

This post was first written on April 1, 2016. I have rewritten it to fit today because I feel like Christians need recognize that our actions do matter.

I am so blessed to have close friends and family members who are pastors. I am so blessed to have so many solid Christians in my life who are friends.  I am so blessed to be a member of a Christian church family.

Why is it that I wonder from time to time where my Christian friends and family members fit into the world of politics today? [ I know this idea does not seem to transition well from the first three sentences, sorry.]

“Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap Him [Jesus] in a statement. They came and said to Him, ‘Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?  Shall we pay or shall we not pay?’  But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.’   They brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’   And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s’” [from Mark 12].

“My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it” [from John 17].

These two scriptures are very popular and may mean different things to different people, but I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to say that Jesus is trying to relay the idea that what the government demands of man is much different than what God demands of man.

The Jews of Jesus’ day were longing for a Messiah (they still are).  In Jesus, they did not find what they were seeking.  They wanted a warrior to overcome Roman rule.  They wanted an activist who could take control of the political situation of the day and change it in their favor.  Instead, they got an advocate for peace and a model of servitude for common man, both Jew and Gentile.  When He responds to His questioners, he tells them to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesars’s”.  This is not a tax revolt statement.  It is more of a “pay your taxes” statement, but keep in mind that God’s Kingdom is above the Roman Empire.  God’s Kingdom is above all.  Remember, you believers are “not of this world.”

Politics?

I don’t know about you, but to me, the word has a distinctly “worldly” feel about it.

As Americans, we are told by many in other cultures that we should appreciate our vote, our ability to participate in government, our means of expression.  We should.

I don’t advocate that we just quit participating but I do advocate that we educate ourselves as much as we can about what is going on with a candidate and we need to reflect on what our support for a candidate really means. 

This may be a very inconsequential metaphor, but it is just like clicking “like” on someone else’s Facebook post.   Be very careful what you like.  Be very careful about who you like.  Your liking indicates something about you.  No one has to know how you voted, but thanks to “social media” today, so many Christians are expressing ideas about who they are supporting in an open manner.  Expressing our political views on social media is a choice [like voting] but some of the things I see on social media make me cringe.  I have a lot of contact with non-believers and I can tell you that they ridicule Christians who get carried away with politics and post hateful statements online.  I have heard like “Is that what Jesus teaches?”  “You wonder why I don’t go to church?  Now you know.”  “Why would I want to worship sitting next to those hypocrites?”  As Christians we wring our hands about how the power of the church is waning in society today and we don’t see ourselves as contributing to the problem.  Let me be bold.  Christians who are so caught up in politics that they make hateful statements are contributing to the problem.

Also keep in mind that politics can be all about “being used.” Adam Hamilton in his book Seeing Gray in a World of Black and White says: “Too often faith has been used by Christian leaders and politicians to further a particular political party or political agenda.”   For many political operatives, the Christian Evangelical group of voters is just a demographic group.  I don’t know how many times I have heard a pundit or a politician say that such and such candidate has “locked up” the Christian Evangelical vote.  I don’t want to think of myself as a voter in a block of voters, just voting like others in my demographic group.  I don’t want to be courted by a politician who wants my vote and that is all.  I vote and then find out that said politician really does not reflect my beliefs, knows nothing about God or His Word, and displays behaviors that are incompatible with my faith.

At the beginning of this post I commented on the many Christians I have in my life.  Guess what; I have many non-Christians among my family and friends and many of them won’t have anything to do with God because of their feelings of disgust about the church.  Often they are not fully aware of the position of the church.  They just think they know because of how hey see Christians behave.  There is a trite expression that many Christians forget: “You are the only Bible that non-believers will ever see.”  As Hamilton says, “Christianity has become a wedge that drives people from Christ, rather than drawing them to Him.”  Christian behavior is the real wedge.

I want to vote with my head and my heart. I want to vote for the candidate that reflects the best choice for me.  I want to vote for the candidate that reflects how I feel about my faith.

Is the perfect candidate out there?

Sadly no.

They all have flaws just as you and I have flaws.

You may have to make the slightly square peg fit into the round hole, finding a way to make it work.

It is important to do this because our vote does matter.  It matters because we have the right to vote.

It is important for Christians to be actively, intelligently informed about our government.  What we need to give to “Caesar” is our vote [and our taxes]  because we have a nation that allows participation and requires taxes. But also what we need to do in the world today [in my estimation] is never to forget that we are people of God, people who advocate peace and love for one another.  That is the message from the King of our Kingdom.

That is the message we should show to the world.

Our political activity should be positive rather than negative. We should discuss and act as citizens who want to offer “the balm that can heal” a divided country rather than citizens who want “to divide our nation” [Hamilton, XV].

I wonder from time to time where we all fit into the world of politics today?

We don’t seem to fit, but we need to do the best we can to be a positive force, to offer that balm.

Just go to your polling place, vote and try to be “the balm that can heal.”

Dr. Preston Sprinkle makes an effort to examine the topic of homosexuality and Christianity in an unbiased manner.*   In the previous post “People to be Loved” I commented on his thoughts about Christians who attribute actions to Jesus that Jesus may have never done.  Would Jesus affirm homosexual behaviors?  It is highly unlikely.  Why would a more conservative Jew “affirm” behavior that goes against Scriptural Law that He knew so well?  Christians who say that Jesus affirms homosexuality are probably very wrong when they argue that His silence means acceptance. Silence on the subject of homosexuality does not mean anything other than His words and actions focused on other ideas.

But let’s turn the tables.  Is Sprinkle saying that Jesus was bound by Scripture in Leviticus that speaks against homosexuality [Lev. 18:22 and 20:13]?   The “hardline stance” against homosexuality found in the Old Testament may seem to be proof that the “non-affirming” crowd has scored a victory. Indeed when a more conservative Jesus does not address this topic, maybe non-affirming Christians are justified in their negative feelings about homosexuals.

Sprinkle will not accept that idea either.

How can he feel that way?

First of all, just because the church in the Twenty-first Century is locked in a debate about the acceptance or non-acceptance of homosexuality does not mean that this was a relevant discussion in the First Century.  Maybe there were more pressing matters to address in Jesus’ short time on earth.  Also Jesus rarely spoke of His relationship with Jewish law, saying  “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Laws or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them” [Matthew 5: 17].  In my reading, He was less concerned about changing Jewish laws than the misinterpretation of those laws by the Pharisees.  His concern was not so much with the Law or politics of the day; He wanted to show the world how to deal with people, people who needed to be loved and accepted for who they were.

Sprinkle points to His acceptance of the “less than desirable”.   In Matthew 8 Jesus meets a centurion.  These Roman military leaders represented one of the most oppressive empires known to man.  Yet when Jesus encountered this man, He found that he needed healing for his servant.  Jesus perceived the need and felt the good in this man’s heart so instead of responding with negativity, He responded with love.  He healed the servant and found that the centurion had great faith.  This shocked the Jewish community because centurions were labelled the most sinful humans on earth.  What is Jesus doing?  He is teaching His followers that love is a very powerful force in this world.

Matthew the tax collector is another example.  When Jesus saw him sitting in the tax collectors booth, He went up to him and said two simple words “follow Me.”  Matthew got up and followed Jesus.  It is not a small thing that Jesus has done here.  Religious Jews hated tax collectors, thinking them worse than thieves and murderers; Sprinkle states that they were “on par with dung collectors”.  The Jewish community considered them turncoats as they sold out to the Roman Empire so the Empire could fill their coffers with Jewish taxes.  To make matters worse, tax collectors were well-known as people who led lavish life-styles and excessively immoral lives.  In essence, “they were thought to be past the point of repentance….a modern day parallel might be a pimp, who is also a drug dealer, who runs a porn studio on the side, and funnels his profits to support terrorism around the world” [Sprinkle, 76-77].  What would you say if you encountered someone like that? 

Jesus says “Follow Me.”

Again what is Jesus trying to say to His contemporary community?  He is not supporting tax collecting.  I would imagine that Jesus would not want Matthew to continue collecting taxes and Jesus gives Matthew something else to do—be His Disciple.  How does He convince Matthew to change—by accepting him, by loving him, by going against the accepted norm which was “Jews must hate tax collectors”. 

Jesus, time and again, confounded the religious people of His day by befriending terrible sinners. 

Why? 

He is saying to all of us that this is what we are called to do.  Reach out to those who need our help.  Their needs are great and we must show them our love.

This past Super Bowl was a perfect case in point.  The Christian advertising group “He Gets Us” produced and aired a commercial about foot washing.  There is no act that can depict caring and loving for others more than washing another’s feet.  It is humbling to do this and it is humbling to receive it.  This ad portrayed unusual people paired together in foot washing.  The pro-life protestor washing a young woman’s feet outside the family planning clinic [presumably she was a client in the clinic], the Hispanic policeman washing the black man’s feet in an alley, the dislocated migrant woman holding her baby having her feet washed by the white woman from a suburb [she has been bussed there from the southern border].  The ad seemed to be telling us that we need to reach out to others in love, acceptance and service, the very message that Jesus sought to preach with His actions at His last Passover meal with His disciples.  Maybe some Christians got the message, but many did not.  They were angered by the ad [all you have to do is check out the criticism on your computer].  I read these views and I see words like “blasphemy,” “right-wingers upset,” “controversy ignited,” and “conservative Christian outrage.”  Dare I say it, but are there Pharisees alive and well in the Gentile community?

Maybe…

Let me end with this point which brings us back to the debate of whether Jesus would affirm or disaffirm homosexual behaviors in people today.  We have no record of His stance on homosexuality, but we do have a record that He felt compassion for sinners.  He told the story of the prodigal son who was embraced  and loved by his father.  He refused to condemn the woman caught in adultery, telling her to “sin no more.”  He washed the prostitute’s feet and did not mention her sin.

Did Jesus affirm sinners?  He did not.  Did He love them despite their failings?  Yes He did.

This is where the “non-affirming” Christian is missing Jesus’ message.  Too many Christians just condemn and hate [yes that is a harsh word] the LGBTQ community. 

What do non-believers think about this?

I venture to say that Christians who cannot love others [different from themselves] are sending out a strong message that they cannot act out the faith that Jesus portrayed for all of us.  You may not like homosexual behavior but you don’t have to hate homosexuals.  Christians are seen as “judgmental” and “hypocritical” because of this stance.  Recent statistics summarizing the feelings of young non-Christians report that ninety-one percent say the first thing they think about Christians is they are “anti-homosexual.”

Non-affirming Christians don’t know what Jesus would do today if He encountered members of the LGBTQ community.    

Let me be clear; Preston Sprinkle is not calling on the church to give up its convictions.  We can’t ignore Scripture that labels homosexuality a sin.  But Sprinkle is calling on the church to “change its posture.”  Christ did not limit His love to the “desirables.”  He reached out to the sinner and the righteous alike.  When He encountered those who sinned, He gave them love; He gave them compassion.  The way to repentance was not hate; it was love. 

I love the way Sprinkle ends his Chapter Six so much I will use his words.  “He [Jesus] stands in solidarity with the woman caught in adultery, taking on her shame and sin, and declaring: ‘Neither do I condemn you.’”

Do believers often fall short of the glory of God?

Are they able to truly say “Neither do I condemn thee” to the LGBTQ community?

Some can, but You know the answer to that question for many…

*This is my opinion only.  I have read criticism of Dr. Sprinkle from very conservative Christians, that he “leans too far to the left.”

The phrase “What would Jesus do?” [often abbreviated as WWJD] was very popular in the 1990s as a personal motto for believers of Jesus Christ.  People used the phrase as a reminder of the belief that they should act in a manner demonstrating Jesus. This motto became even more popular from the “WWJD” on wristbands that became standard attire among Christian youth groups.

I begin this post like this to highlight that Christians like to climb into the mind of Jesus from time to time.  They like to imagine they know what Jesus would do even though they have little evidence that He did anything of the sort in His lifetime. 

Here is a case in point.

Christians who like to affirm the homosexual community’s role in the church like to attribute words to Jesus that He may have never said and actions that He may have never done.  Author Preston Sprinkle has dedicated his ministry to bridging the gap between those who affirm homosexuals in the church and those who do not affirm homosexuality [in general].  Chapter Five in his book People to Be Loved tackles the subject of WWJD regarding homosexuality very directly.  He starts his chapter with these words”  “This could be a very short chapter for one reason:  Jesus never directly addresses the question of whether two men or two women could fall in love, get married and have sex” [69].  Yet people love to “spin” Jesus’ silence into affirmation.  Non-affirming people tend to say that since Jesus condemned fornication, He also denounced same-sex relations.

The best Sprinkle can say about this topic is “I actually do believe that Jesus’ words and actions should profoundly shape how we approach our topic” [69].  But Sprinkle likens this argument between Christian groups to a fighting match between two parents.  A child hearing his parents yelling just wants them to “stop it!” 

First of all, what would Jesus say to the “affirming” crowd? Let’s begin with what Sprinkle says.  First of all Sprinkle feels that affirming writers are “ripping” Jesus out of his Jewish context.  It is a fact that Judaism condemned same-sex behavior five hundred years before Jesus’ time on earth and for five hundred years after His death.  You cannot find a Jewish leader, thinker, writer or rabbi who sanctions same-sex erotic behavior.

Why did Jesus not come out and condemn same-sex behavior?  We just don’t know.  No one has access to Jesus’ mind or can get a glimpse of His mind by reading His words.  Can one argue from His silence that He would have stood against same sex relations?   Sprinkle won’t go that far and maybe as readers of God’s word, we should not go that far.  For people who say that His silence is an affirming act, I would say that this is highly unlikely.  He was a devout Jew and it is not impossible, but it is highly unlikely. 

When one turns to other sex acts, Jesus does not comment on those either.  Jesus never mentions incest.  He does not mention rape.  He never mentions bestiality.  People who argue from silence think that He would have probably frowned upon such acts.  And given the nature of these sex acts, they could be right.

Today  however people are caught in an endless debate about the meaning of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13.  Debate about homosexuality is very much part of our culture.  But just because we debate those verses today, would they have been debated in Jesus’ day?  It is doubtful.   Affirming Christians point to the fact that Jesus questioned some laws during His ministry, but He did not intend to totally discard laws.  Matthew 5: 17 says “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”  His problem was less with the Law and more with the Pharisaical interpretation of the Law.  For those who think that Jesus advocated an open acceptance of standards outside the law, they are just wrong.  He did want us to be released from the Law’s condemnation.  That’s why He fulfilled the sacrificial system of the Jewish Law through His own death and resurrection and while He was alive, He was a devout Jew but not afraid to correct Pharisaical misinterpretation.  Sprinkle describes Him as a “Jew through and through.  He loved and cherished His Father’s Law.”

Now what does Jesus say about The Law regarding sexuality in general? In Jesus’ day there were two schools of Judaism, the school of Hillel and the school of Shammai.  The school of Hillel was known for being more lenient and the school of Shammai more rigorous.  Jesus tended to adopt a Shammai perspective on sexuality.  Regarding divorce, He agreed that divorce is never acceptable [except when a wife commits adultery].   The school of Hillel was more lenient.  Regarding adultery, Jesus was very strict: “anyone who looks at a women lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” [from Matthew 5: 28].   As one examines His words, Jesus was consistently more strict regarding sexuality than lenient.  Sprinkle does not want to put words in Jesus’ mouth but what seems more likely?  Would Jesus affirm same-sex behavior or not affirm it?  Probably He would not affirm it.  Attempts at accepting same-sex behavior in the church today are probably recreating a twenty-first century Jesus who never existed. 

Now before we go too far and making Jesus “another Pharisee,” He probably did not shy away from condemning sexual sin but He was also not afraid to preach of the value of repentance and grace when sexual sin occurred.  He had high ethical standards and He cared about obedience to the Law, but “Not a man-made legalistic obedience cooked up by twentieth-century American fundamentalism, but that counterintuitive, life giving obedience to our gracious Creator” [74].

That man-made legalism can be very much akin to a Pharisaical perspective and that is not what Jesus advocated.  It is very true when Sprinkle says that Jesus was more interested in laying down love for sinners than laying down the law . 

This is the part of this endless ongoing argument that drives me crazy.  Yes, it is a “bridge too far” to say that Jesus is affirming same-sex behavior by being silent on the subject.  But it is also a horrible irritation to see Christians using hateful words towards people who practice same sex behaviors.  These are people who deserve our love, not our hate.  Jesus would offer them His love I believe and He would be disappointed to see His believers today who cannot do that.  Again Sprinkle it trying to bridge a gap between two positions that do not try hard enough to understand each other. 

Remember his book in entitled People to be Loved.

This idea of love is where Jesus challenges those who condemn.

Certainly no Christian who knows the Bible can challenge the fact that Jesus intended all of us to love one another.

Like all people, people who just happen to engage in same sex behavior are people to be loved.

Let Us Not Lose Sight…

In Kevin DeYoung’s argument on particular words used in the New Testament for homosexual behavior, he makes the case that the Apostle Paul is condemning homosexuality.  He concludes “it is not a blessing not to be celebrated and solemnized but a sin to repented of, forsaken, and forgiven.”

He focuses on the meaning of language.  With his precise discussion of the Greek words, malakoi  and arsenokoita,  he feels he has undercut the argument for making homosexual marriage and homosexual leadership in the church acceptable.  Efforts to make same-sex relations acceptable are merely efforts to take language out of context, twist the meanings of words or apply today’s perspective to ancient language.

In short, Bible revisionists are incorrect.

See the March 6^th post entitled “Paul’s Two New Words from Old Scriptures [March 6, 2024 in St. John Studies].

What about Jesus Christ?

Did Jesus state his condemnation for homosexuals?

Did Jesus perform actions that would make one assume He would accept them?

These questions are not what Kevin DeYoung has discussed.  They are concerns that Dr. Preston Sprinkle has in his book People To Be Loved:  Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. 

Let us not lose sight.  The next couple of posts will look at homosexuality in the church from an angle that is different from Kevin DeYoung’s.  It is different from Peter Gomes’.

Dr. Sprinkle is trying to find a way to negotiate middle-ground between the two extremes of Peter Gomes and Kevin DeYoung. I look forward to writing them; it is my hope that any reader that comes across this blog will get something positive out of reading them.

David Carter

To function in life, we have to use things that we take for granted.  We have to breathe, so we take in oxygen in order to live.  We have to hydrate ourselves because our bodies need water, so we drink in order to live.  I could go on and on and on, listing all the things we do every day in order to live, things that (for the most part) we really don’t notice.  I am now using keystrokes on a laptop to create words on a screen that will eventually find their way on my blog called St. John Studies.  I have deposited words on this blog since 2014, to date 1069 blog posts.  Maybe my words have worked to communicate some of my ideas into understandable thought.  Words work like that.  We put them on a page for people to read, people who are not in our presence.  We are not there to explain them.  The words represent us.

Like breathing and water, we sometimes take them for granted.

Kevin DeYoung does not take all words for granted.  In fact, he devotes a whole chapter to words—two words.  The words in question are malakoi and arsenokoitai, Koine Greek words that are at the center of a discussion of the acceptance or rejection of homosexuality in the Bible.

DeYoung admits the difficulty of writing this chapter: “That makes this a daunting chapter, both for you to read and for me to write.”  Why does he do this?  He is boiling this extremely complicated and controversial topic down to the essentials—words.  He admits they are debatable words.  I would agree, they are.  Revisionist Biblical scholars are debating the meaning of the words today as culture changes and homosexuality becomes more mainstream.  Why should the church not accept homosexual members, perform homosexual marriages and allow homosexual pastors and other ordained leaders?  Would Jesus not do that?  Conservative Biblical scholars take the opposite position.  The Bible does not allow this.  The Bible condemns homosexual activity so how can we allow homosexuality to be accepted in the church?

DeYoung is one of those conservative Biblical scholars and his Chapter 5 entitled “A New Word From an Old Place”* addresses this issue from the point of view of two words, two debatable words.

First Corinthians 6: 9-10** says “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality [oute malakoi oute arsenokoitai] nor thieves, not the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God”

First Timothy 1: 8-11 says “Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality [arsenokoitai] enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”

Now revisionist Biblical scholars take these Scriptures to mean something other than men having sex with men.  Despite the use of the words malokoi and arsenokoitai and their more literal meaning, they prefer to define the words as pederasty and prostitution.  Others claim the words refer to any man who wants to be feminine or someone who prefers to be controlled by his passions.  In essence they argue that their interpretations tone down the idea of homosexuality and its consequent condemnation. 

Without getting too deep into the idea of the use of Greek language [I am not an expert] DeYoung states that most English translations “say the same thing.”  If nine teams of Biblical scholars translating nine different translations feel that those two words refer to homosexual behavior, others should not spend a lot of time arguing that they mean something else.  Also DeYoung refers to semantics, the idea that one word can mean various things to various people.  He uses as an example the word “fast.”  One can run fast, one can start a fast or a golfer can play fast.  Words can be used differently by different authors writing in different places and living in different centuries. We all know that words can change meaning as time passes.   To cut down on that type of confusion, the scholar can look at a word within its context.  DeYoung states “context is king.”  What do the words around a word mean? What argument is the author trying to make?  How does the author use the word elsewhere in the author’s writing? 

DeYoung really gets into an analysis of arsenokoitai and malakoi.  When one turns to the history of the words, there is no use before Paul’s use of the words in First  Corinthians and First Timothy.  Arsen means bed and  koite means bed and could be literally translated “bedders of men.”  “Most likely, Paul coined the term from the prohibitions against homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18 and 20” [DeYoung, 63].  In Leviticus it says “you shall not lie with a male as with a woman” and “whoever shall lie with a male as with a woman”(has done something detetestable) [18:22 and 20: 13].  Paul knew the Old Testament Scriptures better than any other writings.  One does not have to be an expert in Greek to see how he gets his word [meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gynaikos and hos an koimethe meta arsenos koiten gynaikos.  He uses those words on purpose.  He could have used less shocking words paiderastes [men having sex with boys] but he used language pinpointing sex involving a man with a man which is forbidden in Mosaic law.  He was trying to make a point.  DeYoung is making the case that the Apostle Paul is condemning homosexual behavior.  He continues with a discussion of other possibilities: the idea of a long-term male to male relationship being acceptable, the idea that some men desire effeminate behavior and the idea that some men prefer fine clothing and female-style hair dressing.  Those may have been concepts that were real in Paul’s time but there is little support that Paul intended to put those on his list of vices that were sexual sins.  Instead in First Corinthians and First Timothy, Paul was referring of immoral sexual intimacy between men.

Certainly Paul is not alive today to explain himself, but his words are here as his representative thought.  Are we 100% percent sure of his meaning?  To be truthful, we cannot claim to be 100% sure.  DeYoung is stating that in our culture today it is hard to hear but “Paul is saying what the rest of the Bible supports and most of church history has assumed:  homosexual activity is not a blessing to be celebrated and solemnized but a sin to be repented of, forsaken and forgiven” [67].

*from his book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?

**from the English Standard Version of the Bible.  DeYoung states that all modern English versions of the Bible link the “two words” to homosexual behavior.  The King James Version uses euphemisms [abusers of themselves with mankind]  instead of direct links to homosexuality but the KJV is four hundred years old.

It is very problematic to make general statements about large groups of people; those generalizations are almost impossible to prove.  Some say general statements amount to opinion and opinion is worth little compared to facts.  So when I write that in our world we have many Christians who are listening to false prophets I am writing my opinion, but I believe that many Christians have fallen prey to very weak conclusions based on information from questionable sources.  I know it is hard to prove that. 

Yet, I know those people exist.

I have a Christian friend who believes that the Christian faith is the God-ordained faith of America and if America would only cling to its Christian roots, our country will dominate the world.  (This idea ignores the diversity of America, the fact that we are a country with diverse faiths).  I have another Christian friend who believes that the Bible says that we are destined to be rich.  If we believe in God, He will bless us with material wealth and if we are poor, it is because we don’t believe in God enough (where in the Bible does it say that?). A third friend feels that God is working through political candidates, that men and women of a particular political party have been sent to earth to straighten out the world and members of another party are the people of Satan.  When questioned about questionable behaviors that some of their candidates have exhibited, my friend just gives them a “pass.”  They are God-ordained.  They don’t live according to the same standards the rest of us live by. (Where does the Bible say that “some” are free to sin because they are special?).

Where do people get this stuff?  Facebook, Tik Tok, YouTube preachers, the dark web?

It seems that people are turning to strange places to get a foundation of their belief systems.  They have forgotten the words of the Apostle John who says “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world” [1 John 4]. 

Let’s get particular and ask the question above again.  Where should people be going to get the foundation for their beliefs?

The Bible.

That is a simple answer, one that is also problematic.  How many of us read the “real language” of the Bible?  The vast majority of Christians have not read Koine Greek, so we depend on others to help us understand the language of the New Testament.  As Protestants we have a rich heritage of freedom to read the Biblical text (the Catholic Church has the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church, especially as exercised by bishops or the Pope).  But we protested about that “top down” control of Scriptural meaning.  Protestants depend on our translations of Scripture and our ability to understand First Century ideas from our current experience, culture and prior understanding of words and ideas.  I have had debates with Christians who resent any scholarly interpretation of Scripture.  They feel that  a scholar ideas are taking the Bible away from common man.  The Bible is not an obscure book.  It is “clear as a bell.”

It is sometimes not as “clear as a bell.”

What many Christians don’t realize or just don’t want to admit is when one picks up a Bible, they are already involved in interpretation of Scripture.  Any English translation of God’s word is a translation from the original language used by Old Testament and New Testament writers.  Some translations are regarded as better than others [e.g. the New International Version is more highly regarded than the Passion Translation].  The NIV is the result of serious scholarly consideration that tries to translate words, idioms and grammatical constructions from the original language to precise equivalents in English.  The Passion Translation is a paraphrase, which is helpful but not very accurate.  The intent is to eliminate distance between the Biblical writers and today’s world by using today’s language.  The Passion Translation does not try to be precise in translating  English equivalents.

What is the big deal?

Depending on how one reads God’s word, there is a lot of potential for bad interpretation in this world.  From the Biblical text that one reads to pastors who interpret the text for church members, people are looking for answers and too often the quest for foundational answers is not very thorough. 

Some rely on their idea that the “Bible is God’s word” belief.  God wrote the Bible [through Godly men] so the Bible has of course eternal relevance.  It speaks to all humankind in every age and every culture.  I had a friend tell me one time “my God means what He says and says what He means.  I believe every word in my King James Bible.”  My response was tepid.  I did not want to anger my friend who did not realize that the King James Version of the Bible is a literal translation using 1611 English based on accumulated mistakes of over a thousand years of manuscript copying.  In its time it served a major purpose, but we have more accurate translations today.  So I let it go.  I just figured anyone who is taking the time to read a Bible is better than the person who never opens one at all.

What is the answer to all this concern about good Biblical foundational knowledge.  Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart** give guidance for all Bible readers when they say the Bible is the word of God spoken over a one thousand five hundred year period.  Not only does that make understanding difficult, but those times are far removed from 2024.  What did those words of the Bible mean to the people who wrote them?  What did those Godly writers think about God?  How did they understand themselves? 

Fee and Stuart encourage Protestant Bible readers to make an effort to not only understand the historical context of the Bible but also to examine the literary context.  They  pose historical questions like what was going on in Israel at the time of the writing?  What was going on in the church at that time?  What caused the author to write the Scripture in the first place?  Literary context is all about meanings of words.  What do Biblical words mean when we examine them relative to preceding words and succeeding words?  Let’s not get too “grammatical”, but here is an example.  For every pronoun, there is an antecedent.  We have to trace the pronoun back to its antecedent to get the most correct meaning.

In conclusion, we live in a world where we are confronted by too much information.  Our minds are flooded daily with facts and opinions from so many sources.  It is increasingly hard to parse all of this information and determine what is worthwhile and what is worthless.  Too many Christians let others lead them to conclusions about Scripture,  television preachers who need donations, politicians who just need a solid evangelical voting bloc or just someone who desires power over others [false prophets].  Fee and Stuart discuss the Bible as the most important book that anyone will ever read but they have this caveat: “the Biblical text cannot mean what it never meant.”

Many have lost the desire to search for the truth because of the distraction of the massive flow of information and maybe because it is just too mentally taxing.  We want quick answers to foundational questions.  Pastor John Ortberg may be one of the best to address this problem when he uses the following words about Abraham Lincoln : “Abraham Lincoln had little to read but he read it well.  Today we have largely traded wisdom for information, depth for breadth.  We want microwave maturity.”  Biblical wisdom does not occur at microwave speed.  Foundational beliefs do no sprout up overnight.  Certainly impressionable, immature, lazy Christians are prone to accept any message that sounds good are in danger of building their belief systems on “shifting sand.”  But the Christian who takes the time to read Scripture, explore Scripture, meditate on Scripture is building their house on rock.  When the rains come, the floods come and the winds blow that house will not fall.  Microwave Christians who do not take the time to grow a solid faith are like the foolish man who builds his house on the sand.  The rains come, the floods come and the winds blow.  Their house falls…***

*I had intended to dedicate this post to Kevin DeYoung’s analysis of key Greek words related to the condemnation of homosexuality, but I was “inspired” to write these thoughts instead.  Please forgive.

**from their book How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth.

***Of course from Matthew 7: 24-27.

“The church should define the culture, not the culture should define the church.”  I can’t tell you where I picked up that quote, but I throw it into my Sunday school lessons from time to time, just to stimulate conversation.  It may sound to some like a clarion call for conservative Christianity, but I am not sure.  Is the church being defined by today’s culture?  Is that a bad thing?  Is that a good thing? 

Some may say that the church needs to strive to be relevant, which seems to support the idea that culture needs to define the church.  Why cling to a First Century point of view, with all its outdated ideas?  Others say that those ideas are not outdated.  They are God’s ideas expressed in His Holy Book.  They are timeless.  They are truth for all ages. 

What is the solution to the problem?  We can’t ignore passages that don’t seem current, like First Corinthians 14: 34-35 and First Timothy 2: 11.  If you aren’t familiar with those, these are the Scriptures that call women to be silent in the church.  First Timothy says that women should not have anyone under them [as a teacher or preacher].  It is wrong for women to have authority over men.  [Is this saying that women are not as important as men?]  It seems the big question is this attitude disrespectful toward women?  If we view the Scripture from a 2024 perspective, the answer would be yes.  But in the First Century the prevailing, accepted normal attitude was to discount the role of women in church.  To have any other view was not socially appropriate.

As I wrote previously [a January 27^th post entitled “The Bible and Women”] one of the best pastors I have ever had in my life was a woman.  I look around in churches: the women are leaders in ministry, education and administration.  Some churches would have to close their doors if women decided to leave. 

Yet what are we to do with First Corinthians and First Timothy?  The doxology uses the words “Praise Him all creatures here below” and closes with “Father Son and Holy Ghost.”  Even today, when a congregation sings songs like “Rise Up, O Men of God” how does a female feel like an equal participant?

Peter Gomes was confronted with this issue in his congregation* as he welcomed a Roman Catholic woman from Boston College to come to speak.  She presented her ideas and abruptly led a walkout in protest of the church’s anti-feminist point of view.  This plunged him into the issue of the role of women in the contemporary church and what the Scripture says about women, in essence the relationship between Scriptural tradition and unique contemporary cultural experience. 

Without going too far afield, Gomes brings up the issue that any generation that has read the words of the Old Testament and the words of the First Century in the New Testament has struggled to understand the context.  A twenty-first century spin on the Bible is bound to happen as readers read and visualize with contemporary minds.  Did that happen in the Eighteenth Century?  It did.  Did that happen in the Sixteenth Century?  It did.  Will a man read the Bible differently than a woman?  I would imagine that to be the case.  My wife leans toward feminism and she is galled by some patriarchal language that she encounters in Scripture.** But yet it is there.

Gomes comments:  “The roles of men and women in agrarian first-century society were prescribed by the circumstances of that society, where, with very rare exceptions, women were subordinate to men” [139].  That’s putting it lightly.

Did that influence Scripture?  Of course it did.

The foundation of this problem to put it simply resides in what a person believes about the authority of Scripture.  If all Scripture is authoritative, the stance of the Southern Baptist Association is correct: women should not be allowed to take leadership positions in church and men should never be subordinate to women.    

Are there those who look at Scripture as less authoritative?  Of course defenders of women write that the idea that women must take a submissive role is not binding.  First Century men were taught to be disrespectful to women and that is not relevant anymore.  Malcolm Tolbert writes “one of the most fundamental mistakes in the reading of Scripture, particularly of the New Testament, is to assume that the structures and the systems it describes are as sacred and authoritative as the principles it affirms.  Not only is that wrong, it is idolatrous, even blasphemous, to use the Word of God to affirm and maintain human privilege”  [Tolbert in Gomes, 143]

That is the very argument that Gomes has stated to attack the idea that chattel slavery was correct in the eyes of Southern Christian plantation owners.  He also argued that this same approach fueled discrimination and persecution against Jews as Christians singled them out as killers of Jesus and deserving of punishment. 

The battle for a prevailing contemporary viewpoint is ongoing as people continue to grapple with what to do with the stated male dominance of the Bible.  For now, Gomes does not actually side with one view or the other, even saying that he understands this issue but “for my part, I have been more willing to edit out offending passages in hymns than I have been to edit out offending passages in Scripture” 135].

For now, there is no definitive answer for this issue and he ends his chapter on “Women and the Bible” with the words “The most significant battle for the Bible since the debates over slavery [the battle about women] women have lead the way, and one would like to think that Lydia, Phoebe and Priscilla would be pleased” [143].  When we return to Gomes, he will have a chapter where he will weigh in on a problem that he feels he must address: the Bible and homosexuality. 

My guess is that he will not sit on the sidelines on that topic; we will know where he stands. 

Will his argument be effective?

We will see.

*Gomes was pastor to Harvard’s Memorial Church, admittedly more “liberal” than some congregations.

**Yes, she reads every post that I write so I am not trying to speak for her.