One might say that the seminal chapter of Peter Gomes’ The Good Book is Chapter Eight which he entitles “The Bible and Homosexuality: The Last Prejudice.”  In Chapter 8 he recounts the story of the circumstances of his announcement to the world of his sexual preference.  He explains his feelings about the parts of The Bible that non-affirming Christians use against homosexuals.  He makes a  defense of homosexuality by explaining the context of the First Century and how the world at that time felt about same-sex relationships.  He delves into the reasons that Christians have a history of not supporting homosexuality and then focuses on the homosexual sex act and wonders why (in modern times) sexual pleasure must be limited to heterosexual partners. 

Now we come to Kevin DeYoung’s book* against homosexuality in the church.  He entitles his response to the defense of homosexuality “Answering Objections.”  In seven very short chapters he attacks the reasons for accepting homosexuality in the church today.

A common argument for affirming homosexuals in the church is the idea that “The Bible Hardly Ever Mentions Homosexuality” [Chapter 6].  If this is the case, then why is everyone making such a big deal about homosexuals in the church?  One can turn to Gomes and see what the fuss is all about when he writes that “silence on this subject speaks volumes.”  Anyone following this blog knows that when Kevin DeYoung entitles Chapter 6 of his book “The Bible Hardly Ever Mentions Homosexuality,” he is not going to accept the idea that silence speaks volumes.  DeYoung does not agree with Gomes at all; silence is not an adequate defense for accepting homosexuality.

The Bible is a very big book and DeYoung is willing to admit that the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality is not in the center of it.  There are 1,189 chapters in the Bible and more than 30,000 verses but there are only a dozen or so that deal explicitly with homosexuality.  What are we saying here?  Are we making “much ado about nothing?”  Are denominations splitting up over just a few scriptures?  Are homosexuals being denied marital rights and leadership in churches over a dozen or so Scriptures?  DeYoung goes even further: “does this mean that the traditional view of marriage is based on nothing more than just a few fragments?

DeYoung goes right to the heart of the question: “Why do Christians insist on talking about it [homosexuality] so much?”

He has some reasons.

First it is being talked about so much because some Christians are trying to “revise” the Bible regarding this topic.  Fifty years ago abortion was not a hot issue.  Euthanasia was not worth discussing. But the culture has changed on these topics and they are ethical issues that we find ourselves dealing with today.  In a like manner, same-sex marriage is an important topic today because “revisionists” are trying to bring about change and “traditionalists” do not want change to sacred Scriptures. Revisionists are “responding” to the culture and traditionalists are holding fast to the Scriptures (not culture).

Secondly, the reason that homosexuality was not discussed in the Bible is that it was not a controversial sin among Jews and Christians in the First Century.  But does that make it an acceptable sin?  Just because it was not deemed acceptable, and not worthy of discussion does not make it ok.  DeYoung uses bestiality as an example.  The church does not comment on that topic or incest or child abuse etc. but counting the number of verses dedicated to homosexuality is not a good way to justify the seriousness of the sin.

DeYoung does admit that the Bible is not totally silent on this topic.  Gomes, DeYoung and Sprinkle** have all elaborated on the relevant passages in both the Old and New Testament.  The Bible may not have numerous chapters on this topic but the negative view that is expressed about homosexuality is very clear [“even many revisionist scholars acknowledge that the Bible is uniformly negative toward same-sex activity”].

Sexual immorality is mentioned as a serious concern in Scripture. “Sexual sin is never considered adiaphora (a matter of indifference), an agree-to-disagree issue like food laws and holy days.”  If one lumps homosexuality into the category of sexual sin (and many do), the Bible states that sexual sin characterizes those who will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 

In Gomes and also Sprinkle’s books, the idea that Jesus never addresses homosexuality directly is seen as a defense of same-sex intimacy.  However DeYoung writes that Jesus did reaffirm the creation account of marriage in Matthew and Mark and He condemned the sin of porneia (Mark 7: 21) a broad word encompassing every kind of sexual sin.  Porneia is a word that is used in Greek literature to refer to a variety of illicit sexual practices including homosexuality.  “Jesus did not have to give a special sermon on homosexuality because all of His listeners understood that same-sex behavior was prohibited” [DeYoung, 75]. 

So what are revisionists of Scripture wanting?  DeYoung writes that they want a third way.  They want churches and denominations to come to an “agree to disagree” compromise.  “They want a moratorium on making definitive pronouncements until we’ve had the chance to mull things over a good deal longer” [76].  DeYoung calls this approach “death by dialogue.”  The historical, traditional, conservative position may be affirmed initially but there will always be additional discussion, a symposium, and endless Bible studies until the revisionist position wins the day.  The moratorium will never be lifted until the hotly debated topic is discussed to death.  DeYoung says that “agree to disagree” sounds like an acceptable middle-of-the road position but he feels it is really a subtle way of telling conservative Christians that homosexuality is not a big deal and we are wrong to make it a big deal. 

DeYoung is adamant when he writes that homosexuality is a big deal.  He is willing to admit that it is not the only sin in the world and it may not be the most critical sin but it cannot be brushed aside.  He is very serious when he writes, “When we tolerate the doctrine which affirms homosexual behavior, we are tolerating a doctrine which leads people further from God.”    Teaching that affirms homosexual behavior is not God’s will for His people.  DeYoung feels we cannot be silent in the face of Scripture that does not affirm homosexuality and dialoging of this subject looking for some middle ground called “agree to disagree” is not the answer. 

According to DeYoung, the Bible may say little about homosexuality but it does address the issue and it addresses it in a negative manner.  To ignore this and bend to the ways of today’s culture is not acceptable.  “This is not the mission Jesus gave His disciples when He told them to teach the nations everything He commanded” (77).

Unlike Gomes, DeYoung feels there is no middle ground, no agree-to-disagree area.  “The Bible says more than enough about homosexual practice for us to say something too.  Silence in the face of such clarity is not prudence, and hesitation in light of such frequency is not patience.”

DeYoung’s position: “homosexual activity is not God’s will for His people.”

* Kevin DeYoung,  What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?

**Preston Sprinkle, People to be Loved