Kevin DeYoung did not write What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality  to please the general American population.  This month of June is “pride month” when the world’s LGBTQ+ communities come together to celebrate the freedom to be themselves.   The level of support for accepting gay and lesbian people in America has hit a new peak of 62%.  Support for gay marriage is at an all-time high of 70%.  As anyone who has been reading this blog knows, the United Methodist Church has been dealing with UM Churches that are disaffiliating over this issue.  DeYoung is defending traditional marriage in chapter one of his book and he knows that his book is not “mainstream,” that many readers will never pick it up and if they do, they will react with frustration and hatred because he is not supporting the homosexual lifestyle.

So far he has presented three reasons that the “traditional” approach to marriage should be upheld.  I discussed number one on May 27, 2023 when I summarized the idea that women were made to be men’s companions, men’s helpers and second in line in God’s human creation process.  This does not mean that woman is “less than” as much as a woman complements man in God’s divine plan for life.  On June 10^th, I got very direct about male and female physical makeup regarding sexual intimacy; a man and a woman fit together, not so for same sex intimacy.  On June 17, the topic was procreation and DeYoung believes God intended that male and female sex is all about having a family, which is not possible for same sex couples without turning to surrogacy.   

We are now ready for reason four and five regarding traditional marriage.  DeYoung points to the support Jesus gives for traditional marriage in Genesis.  Lastly, the “redemptive-historical significance” of marriage as a divine symbol only works if the married couple is a complementary pair.

Divorce is a major debate in the Jewish faith, and Jesus was asked what he believed about the permissibility of divorce as a sexual sin, essentially if it destroys the marriage covenant.  DeYoung writes that Jesus’ position supports the Shammi school of thought on this issue.  I am not familiar with this “school” of Jewish thought, but it is ultra conservative regarding the interpretation of Jewish Law.  Jesus reminds His audience that in Genesis, God made “them” male and female.   One must go back to the “beginning” to see that God created marriage as a lifelong union between man and woman. 

What Jesus is preaching is really monogamy, that it only makes sense in a traditional marriage between two people of opposite sex.  DeYoung is quick to point out that he is not arguing that polygamy is acceptable for same-sex relationships, because he is aware that traditional marriage advocates have been attacked on that front.  He is open-minded enough to state “If marriage is simply the formation of a kinship bond between those who are committed wholly to one another, there is no reason why multiple persons or groups or people cannot commit themselves wholly to one another.”  However, if we are to follow God’s Divine plan [God making the woman from the man and also for the man] the complementarity of His plan makes sense in traditional marriage.  Same sex marriage does not fill the need for complementary opposite sex relations.

For the fifth reason we look at the symbolic nature of marriage as a divine symbol.  “God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  And not only that, but within this cosmic pairing, we find other ‘couples’: the sun and the moon, morning and evening, day and night, the sea and dry land, plants and animals, and finally, at the apex of creation, the man and his wife” [DeYoung, 32].  In each pairing, each part belongs to the other, but neither is interchangeable.  “Marriage is to be a symbol of this divine design: two differentiated entities uniquely fitted for one another” [32].

DeYoung argues from the beginning in Genesis to the end of the Bible in Revelation, we see the concept of marriage illustrated by two parts belonging to the other but neither interchangeable.   This is what I call “big picture” conceptualization or what others call metanarrative.  If God had wanted interchangeable partners for marriage He would have given us that conceptualization in the creation narrative.  “Homosexuality simply does not fit with the created order of Genesis 1 and 2.  And with these two chapters as the foundation upon which the rest of the redemptive-historical story is built, we’ll see that homosexual behavior does not fit the rest of the Bible either. 

As I opened this post, I referred to the increasing acceptance of the LGBTQ+ way of life.  I also referred to the idea that same sex marriage is being accepted at record levels by Americans.   Yet I am discussing Kevin DeYoung’s five reasons that traditional marriage should be upheld and DeYoung has already said that homosexuality is a mortal sin. 

I am not an “expert” on this topic.   I am also not a person who reads DeYoung’s book with frustration and anger because he is attacking a lifestyle I wholeheartedly support.   I have an open mind on this issue, preferring to have an opinion that I will not express unless I am pressed. 

I am just trying to learn.

I have attended a contentious church meeting where three groups of people defended their support of gay clergy in the church and their support of same sex marriage in the church.  The three trains of thought were not adequate.  “I have lots of gay friends and they should be allowed to minister and perform same-sex marriages.  I have gay family members and they should be allowed to minister and perform same sex marriages”.  Lastly, the support centered on discrimination, that “LGBTQ+ people are being discriminated against by the attitude that they cannot become ministers and cannot perform same sex marriages”.  The man who stated this compared homosexual people to slaves before the American Civil War.  I am not sure that ancestors of slaves today would agree with that comparison.

As we consider Kevin DeYoung’s five reasons for upholding traditional marriage, I have to admit that there is some significant support that he is providing, much better than friends, family and discrimination regrets.  I have already looked at the first three chapters of Peter Gomes book entitled The Good Book and now we have introduced Kevin DeYoung’s book which does not support LGBTQ+ living and same-sex marriage. 

Next, we turn to Preston Sprinkle’s book People to Be Loved for a different point of view.