I am learning so much as I continue to blog on three books, three different viewpoints on the same subject—homosexuality in the church. 

As I begin to post on an author who tries to bridge the gap between Christians who are accepting of same-sex pastors and same-sex marriages in the church to an author who does not accept either, I find that he uses a word that I have heard before.

I have a very close pastor friend who has always spoken against same-sex expression in the church and years ago, he said he knew the problem in a nutshell:  same-sex people want to be affirmed.   They want to be told that they are ok. 

In Chapter Two of Preston Sprinkle’s book People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue he uses the word “affirming and nonaffirming” regarding churches.  Some churches and Christians are affirming and some churches and Christians are nonaffirming. 

Sprinkle tries to understand both views regarding this issue, trying to be fair in his interpretation of Scripture.  He has done extensive study of the Bible regarding homosexual behavior in the church and has founded The Center for Faith, Sexuality, and Gender, a collaboration of Christian pastors, leaders and theologians who desire to be a trusted source of sound Biblical teaching and practical guidance on questions related to sexuality and gender.

In this blog, I have already commented on Kevin DeYoung’s view of same-sex marriage, that he thinks it is not a part of God’s plan for man and woman.*

Now Sprinkle takes parts of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 and opens those Scriptures up to possibilities.  “Nonaffirming” Christians see Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 as clear evidence that homosexual marriage was not meant to be.  God created man and woman in the Garden and they got married and had children.  This sets the acceptable pattern for marriage from creation to today; it must be man and woman.  Affirming Christians don’t see Genesis 1 this way.  Opposite-sex marriages in Genesis don’t necessarily rule out homosexual marriages.   Sprinkle goes on to say that same-sex marriage was not an option in the ancient world.  Homosexual activity did occur but not within a marriage context.   The bottom line on this issue is this:  is heterosexuality a necessity for marriage.

Let’s look at the idea of man and woman coming together to become one flesh.  Many just assume that means anatomical complementarity or two people of opposite sex having intercourse.  Sprinkle has studied the idea of “one flesh” extensively and concludes that the phrase means forming a new family.  A man leaves his father and mother and forms a new family unit (one flesh united).   Can sexual union be a part of that?  It can, but the primary emphasis of one flesh means “kinship bond”; therefore there is not an emphasis on male-female intercourse.   Becoming one flesh does not necessarily mean sexual union and it does not rule out same sex unions.  For nonaffirming Christians that statement is just not plausible.**

Genesis 2: 18 is a verse that gives further evidence for the creation of the first woman.  By today’s standards, to explain that God created woman for man to have someone to have sex with may be intolerable for many, but there had to be some plan for procreation.  Explaining that woman had to be created for man to leave his mother and his father may be a bit better, but Genesis 2:18 is really a problematic Scripture for many women today.  “It is not good for man to be alone.  I will make a helper suitable for him.” Helper implies an inferior role for women.   Sprinkle looks at God’s plan for the wild animals of the world.  He brought them to man to name them.  Man gave names to livestock and the birds of the sky.  But in Genesis 2: 21 “for Adam, no suitable helper was found.”  Adam needed a helper and no helper is suitable in the animal world.

At this point Sprinkle introduces the word kenegdo which is the Hebrew word for suitable [used in Genesis 2: 18 and 2: 20].   He breaks the word down as ke which means like or as, neged which means opposite.  It is a complicated word which explains how Eve qualifies for a perfect partner for Adam.  She is human which makes her like Adam, but she is female which makes her different.  This seems to support the need for heterosexuality and diminishes support for homosexuality.

Some interpret kenegdo as the difference of Adam and Eve may be due to a difference of Eve’s personality.  Regarding that,  Sprinkle writes “Quite frankly this is a stretch.”  The “difference” of Eve is due to her biological sex.

At this point, Sprinkle seems to be trying to open interpretation of the need for heterosexuality in marriage with his thoughts on “one flesh” but he seems to be limiting the interpretation of homosexuality in marriage with his thoughts on “suitable helper.” 

In the examination of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 he admits that sexual difference seems to be necessary for marriage, but in a rush to judgement, too many nonaffirming Christians make what he calls “hasty conclusions.” 

Are there other Scriptures where we can look for evidence that God prefers male and female marriage over same-sex marriage?   

Sprinkle will turn to references in the New Testament to examine the issue further.  The big question about this is the following: Is he going to have affirming conclusions about same-sex behavior or nonaffirming conclusions?  One must remember his is trying to “bridge the gap” between two extreme views.   How does one do that?  Is his position plausible?

We will see…

*see “Sticking Your Finger in Someone’s Ear” June 10, 2023 St. John Studies and “God’s Purpose for Marriage” June 17, 2023 St. John Studies.

**see “A Christian School Apologized After a Guest Speaker Wasn’t Anti-LGBTQ Enough” Friendly Atheist March 29, 2021. [The speaker was Preston Sprinkle].