On June 27, 2024, I posted my final evaluation of Peter Gomes’ effort to affirm the role of the same-sex person in the Christian church.  That post was entitled “Does He Make a Good Argument.”  I have reached the end of Kevin DeYoung’s book “What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?”  If Gomes affirms same-sex participation in the church, then one could say that DeYoung definitely disconfirms their participation.  They are at opposite extremes of the spectrum on the issue of same-sex relationships.

The time has come to evaluate DeYoung’s argument.  As I have read his final pages, studied his final pages and thought about them quite a lot, I have to admit that I am surprised at the stance that DeYoung takes.  His views are very firm.  I thought they would be more “pastoral,” that he would find some way to soften his ideas to include an outreach to those he has condemned.  He has not done that.  Very early in his book he makes it very clear that “same-sex intimacy is a sin” [17].  At the end of his book his argument is even stronger: “faithfulness means…homosexual behavior is a sin….I believe the Bible places homosexual behavior—no matter the level of commitment or mutual affection—in the category of sexual immorality” [129].

To evaluate his closing argument, I will write two posts [Part 1 and Part 2], the first one will focus on his closing thoughts on this subject, what DeYoung calls “Walking with God and Walking with Each Other in Truth and Grace.”  The second will be my feelings about his stance and how he lives up to his role as a pastor.

In discussing issues like same-sex relationships, it is inevitable that the church is drawn into this subject.  In my church [The United Methodist Church*] the basic concerns are who will lead the church and who can be married within the church.  Can a “gay” person perform the duties of pastor, district superintendent, bishop etc. and their sexual orientation would not be an issue?  Is it all right for a same sex couple to celebrate the ordained sacrament of marriage within the church?

It is safe to say that DeYoung thinks that a person who prefers same-sex relationships cannot lead a church and same-sex individuals cannot participate in the sacrament of marriage.  To support his conclusions he writes of the moral logic of monogamy, the integrity of Christian sexual ethics, the authority of the Bible and the grand narrative of Scripture.

What does he mean by “the moral logic of monogamy?”  He means that monogamy makes the best sense for society.  It is preferable to have one man married to one woman.  DeYoung comments that if three people love each other, why not have three people married?  If the number is thirteen, why not allow that also?  What about a brother who loves his sister, two sisters, a mother and her son or even a father and his son?  Now he is not saying that revisionist, “liberal,” affirming theologians are arguing for these marital arrangements but if consensual same-sex individuals are declared “acceptable” by the church, then we have “opened a Pandora’s box of marital permutations”.  In much of the literature I have reviewed on this topic, I have encountered the idea that because Jesus never really addressed the idea of homosexuality as a sin that must make it ok.  He also never spoke against incest or polygamy.  For affirming Christians this is called “argument by silence”.  The problem with argument by silence is just because Jesus did not directly address homosexuality does not mean He approved of it.  Maybe He saw no need to address this kind of sexuality [as a Jew, it was “obviously” a sin].  But I also I find a flaw in DeYoung’s argument.  His Pandora’s box statement is the slippery slope fallacy, that if one thing is allowed the problem will get worse and worse.  That is not always the case.

Let’s move on to the idea that Christian ethics is at stake.  DeYoung holds the Bible up as a Book which calls Christians to personal holiness.  He fears that affirming same-sex relationships within the church will lead to “liberalized” ideas about other sexual practices.  This goes beyond the idea of monogamy.  Will “liberal” ideas about same-sex practices spill over to premarital sex, marital infidelity and unbiblical divorce?  His fears are founded on the idea that relaxing standards in one aspect of sexual behavior will have a negative impact on other practices and holiness in general.  Again, this is the slippery slope argument, the idea that if one domino falls, then the rest will follow.  My response is maybe…

The authority of the Bible is at stake is a bit more complex.  DeYoung begins this argument with the idea that traditional and revisionist Christians like to cite their “conversion” stories as support for why they are right.  The traditionalist likes to say that homosexuals can find their way to Christian living and heterosexual behavior by “seeing the light.”  God will set them free from same-sex sin.    Revisionist Christians accept homosexuality because they feel that the Bible is oppressive and maybe those Biblical texts just do not mean what they once meant.  DeYoung says that personal experience citations are of course acceptable but are they powerful enough to attack the authority of the Bible?  Since he is a traditionalist, DeYoung says that they are not, especially the arguments from the affirming Christians.  He cites scholars who rely on their sexual orientation as evidence that their view is ok.  Since we have these feelings of attraction for the same-sex and there are so many of us, God must have created us this way for a reason.  DeYoung calls that liberal theology that tries to reconfigure God’s word to match the culture.  This movement which began in the late eighteenth century is based on the idea that the Bible is not inerrant on the issue of same-sex behavior.  Forget Genesis and Leviticus, forget Sodom and Gomorrah, forget Paul’s comments in the New Testament; individual authority is more important.  Cultural values are more important.  This may be DeYoung’s strongest argument.  Do Christians accept the power of personal experience and the changing tide of cultural values or do they cling to their Bibles?  DeYoung makes it very clear.  He is standing with Scripture. 

DeYoung’s final point that he tries to make is that affirming same-sex orientation violates the grand narrative of Scripture.  For DeYoung, the “grand narrative” is the story of the Bible: God sends His Holy Son to earth as a Sacrifice for unholy humans so that the power of the Holy Spirit can be felt in believers’ lives.  Those believers can enjoy God on this earth as He helps them live lives dedicated to His righteousness.  At the end of their lives, there is a place where their spirits can go; they have a physical death but their spiritual lives continue on in heaven. DeYoung writes, “Is this the story celebrated and sermonized in open and affirming churches?”  DeYoung calls for a Biblical story centered on the cross and he doubts that this story is being preached in a traditional sense.  “What if we flesh out the story and include the hard bits about the exclusivity of Christ and the eternality of hell? What if part of the story is believing that every jot and tittle in the Storybook is completely true?  What if the story summons us to faith and repentance?  What if the story centers on the cross, not supremely as an example of love, but as Love’s objective accomplishment in the pouring out of divine wrath upon a sin-bearing substitute?” [134].

What is DeYoung calling for?  One-hundred percent orthodoxy when it comes to adherence to Scripture.  He says that acceptance of same-sex behavior is “cherry picking” Scripture.  “I believe in the virgin birth, the miracles of Jesus, the resurrection, the second coming etc. but that stuff about homosexuality is not really relevant is it?”  DeYoung feels that the Scripture denouncing homosexuality as a sin is just that: it is Scripture denouncing homosexuality as sin.  Can a Christian who accepts homosexuality really believe in the Apostles Creed?  DeYoung writes “Maybe…for a time…loosely.”  DeYoung calls for a firm faith, a faith that is based on Scriptural values, not cultural values.

We are at the end of DeYoung’s argument and it is time to return to the beginning: does DeYoung make a good one?  The best I can say is maybe.  I was not impressed with his ideas that due to the acceptance of same-sex behavior in the church, things will get worse.  It is hard to predict the future and forecasting doom and gloom is very much akin to a scare tactic.  Christianity may suffer or it may not.  Will it suffer in God’s view?  Will it suffer in the view of the world?  Those predictions are very different.  This is reflected in this quote from DeYoung: “What will it profit a man if he gains a round of societal applause and loses his soul?” [134].  The gain may be increasing numbers of church members due to acceptance of same-sex behavior.  The loss may be a straying away of God’s standards which will be experienced in church member’s beliefs and standards of Christian behavior.

The attack on liberalism was expected because DeYoung is anything but a liberal.  His feelings about personal experience are very real.  Many people in my life affirm same-sex behavior because they know excellent people who just happen to be gay.  I have never been impressed with argument by personal experience.  It is weak and based too much on an individual’s exposure to diverse people and it is “feelings” based.  Good argument is factual, evidence-based, rational, logical and making hard decisions on feelings and personal experience does not seem adequate.  When my church had open discussions about disaffiliating from the United Methodist Church, I was proud that our discussions were open and there was a serious attempt to get as many church members to the meeting as possible.  I was not proud that the comments were very emotional and full of feelings and based on individual personal experience.  I wish that we had thought to flash relevant Scriptures on same-sex behavior on the big worship screens at the front of the church.

I wish someone had stood up in the meeting and said, “Ok, what do we do about these words?”

Then the most important question, “Does God make a good argument?”

*My church has become a Global Methodist Church, breaking from the more “liberal” United Methodist Church.