One of the most complex projects I have done since I began blogging in December 2014 is the project I have just completed.  I have commented on three books at one time.  To add to the complexity, the topic covered by those books is quite controversial within the United Methodist Church and American culture as a whole: the role of homosexuality in the Christian church.  I have approached this project with an inquiring mind, trying as much as possible not to let my personal feelings intrude.  I have tried to learn about the issue, present material I think is important and not steer the reader in any particular direction.  I have tried to use non-offensive language; I know that some terms are regarded inappropriate by the LGBTQ community and other terms are much preferred.  My objective was to comment on what experts had to say on the subject.  I was highly motivated to tackle this project because the idea of Christians who want sex with their own gender has divided my church; some Christians go so far as to believe that these people cannot even be Christian.  My particular focus was the following:  is there a role for a gay person to play in the church?   How does a Christian church minister to the person who prefers same-sex intimate relationships?  How does a Christian do what Jesus asks all of us to do: love gay people as we love all people?

I have turned to three authors: one who represents affirming ideas, Peter Gomes in his book The Good Book; non-affirming ideas, Kevin DeYoung in his book What Does the Bible Teach about Homosexuality; and ideas that attempt to bridge the extremes, Preston Sprinkle’s book People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue. 

I began this effort on February 2, 2023 with an intro to Rev. Peter Gomes.  Since that post, I have written twenty-four times on Gomes’s affirming ideas, twenty times on DeYoung’s non-affirming ideas and twenty times on Preston Sprinkle’s attempt to find middle ground between the two extremes.*  In the middle of this project, my church left the United Methodist Church and joined the Global Methodist Church.**  The United Methodist Church affirms gay members and the Global Methodist Church does not affirm gay Christians who want to lead in the church [Bishop, Superintendent or Pastor].  The Global Methodist Church does not allow consecrated gay marriage to occur in the church.  I commented on this pivotal moment in a post entitled “The Shrinking Center,” April 8, 2023.

I feel it is important to be open about my beliefs and attitudes that were in place when this project began.  I joined the United Methodist Church in 1998 and it has always been a wonderful church for me.  I have been a heterosexual all my life, married to the same woman for forty-nine years.  I have never had negative feelings about the LGBTQ community, feeling that the choices we all make have consequences and acting on same-sex desires can have consequences [Biblical end-of-life consequences].  However it is not my place to judge; people have a right to make their own life choices.   Even though my church split off from the United Methodist Church on March 5, 2023 I did not feel compelled to leave the church.  In coming to this vote, the church had three meetings where the topic of disaffiliation*** was discussed and even though there was discussion, I was not satisfied that the discussion was adequate.  There was a lot of talk about friends who are gay, family members who are gay but there was no focus on Scripture.  People who were upset and left the church seemed to do so because gay friends and family were no longer going to be welcome.  I don’t think that is true, but that motivated me to try to dig deeper on this subject.

As I worked through discussions of each book, I tried to evaluate each argument that each author made.  Now it is time to conclude my own personal thoughts on this project.  It is time to summarize what I have learned.

The affirming position was represented by Peter Gomes.  Gomes was the Pastor at Harvard’s Memorial Church; he was gay but celibate.  He stated that many Christians who denigrate homosexuals like to use the Bible to make their case and he states that for them, the Bible is thought of as words “set in stone.” Gomes believes God’s word “evolves and transforms as we evolve and transform.”  Over time it becomes more inclusive.  If Bible knowledge does not evolve, we have what he refers to as Bibliolatry [worship of the Bible as an idol].  Worst of all, readers of the Bible can suffer from closemindedness.  What does Gomes think about the influence of culture on God’s word?  Well, Bible readers cannot shake off the lens of culture; culture certainly influences the Bible that we read.  As culture changes, our understanding of the Bible changes.

Gomes spends most of his chapters [four, five, six and seven] presenting examples of the influence of American culture on Biblical belief.  He cites the “hard text” of temperance, how that idea was not really expressed in the Bible but American Baptists pushed the idea as Biblical. It was American law for a short time but many Americans could not give up their alcohol and temperance was repealed.  Chattel slavery is another example of Bible and culture.  Southern slave owners justified slavery with the Bible but the American Civil War and the cultural shift of abolition brought an end to that immoral practice.  Anti-Semitism was common in American history due to hatred for the Jewish people who crucified Jesus.  This form of discrimination has lessened over time as American culture has became more inclusive.  Finally believers in the Bible cited Biblical attitudes toward women as a means to diminish the role of women in American society.  Over time that attitude has changed as American culture has changed.  American women attained education and got the right to vote.  I have covered four chapters in a single paragraph but what is the reason for Gomes giving us what he calls “hard texts”?  He is showing us that if culture can change and these ideas can be accepted, why can’t homosexuals be accepted in American society; indeed, why can’t they be accepted in the church.  Too often the Bible is used to bolster the “status quo” but Gomes argues in all these examples that America has become a better nation due to cultural change.   

Gomes uses inductive reasoning to make the case that one day the church will be able to allow same-sex Christians to participate and be active church members.  Example after example of cultural change is supposed to lead the reader to the conclusion that he is correct.  The status quo within the early church was that homosexuality was not much of an issue.  It was not practiced except in cases of pederasty [and usually between upper class Romans and young lower class boys].  Early church fathers did not even see this as a major problem; they were more concerned with guidelines for sex between heterosexuals.  Jews knew that same-sex relations were prohibited by The Law.  Marriage was made a sacrament in the thirteenth century which emphasized that sex was an activity for procreation and not for pleasure.  Homosexual sex was still of little concern.  Over time sexual pleasure within a heterosexual marriage became more acceptable and same-sex activity became more of an “open” reality.  Homosexuals thought that if heterosexuals could enjoy sex, why can’t we?  The problem [the church states] is that homosexuals do not have sex for procreation.  Therefore over time, homosexuality was seen more as a sin; it became a crime and finally an “illness”.  Gomes states this all stems from the sex act of the homosexual.  He gets right at what many Christians struggle with: “it is not what you are; it is what you do.”

Today same-sex activity is not what it was in Old and New Testament times.  Sexual exploitation of a powerful person over a less powerful younger person was the most common same-sex relationship in those days.  There was no conception that a homosexual relationship could be permanent, monogamous, faithful and intimate.  Today are we ready to accept active same-sex Christians in the church?  Some congregations are [the United Methodist Church included].  But many struggle with this idea still, feeling that a homosexual cannot be a Christian.  Peter Gomes felt that the church needed to change; he served as a celibate gay pastor to Harvard’s Memorial Church for forty years.  His sexual orientation was no secret.  He announced it at a student rally at Harvard Yard. 

Representing those who think that a homosexual cannot be a Christian is Dr. Kevin DeYoung.  On the first page of his book he states his position: “Same-sex intimacy is a sin.”  DeYoung used the Bible to support traditional marriage and his traditional attitude toward sexual activity.  It should be between a man and a woman.  God designed the man and the woman for sex [His divine design].  The fact that homosexual sex does not lead to procreation is evidence that homosexuality is wrong. 

DeYoung interprets passages of Scripture as non-affirming; some of the same ones that Gomes felt were open to less negative meanings.  Sodom and Gomorrah is a tale of a city that was destroyed for same-sex practices, whereas Gomes felt that the city’s main problem was pride.  Leviticus includes Scripture that prohibits same-sex intimacy for a good reason.  Sexual activity should lead to procreation and that good reason applies to today’s culture.  New Testament references to same-sex activity are a struggle for DeYoung as he is aware of the practice of pederasty.  Maybe that is what the Apostle Paul is referring to in First Timothy and First Corinthians but DeYoung is just not sure.  He has an extensive analysis of the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi meaning “bedders of men” but cannot confirm that those words support the idea that same-sex relationships are acceptable today.  His position is clear: “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]. 

Throughout his book DeYoung is unwilling to budge on his non-affirming stance.  To summarize he believes in “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 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 that go far beyond the idea of heterosexual monogamy.

Regarding his stance on Scripture, should Christians accept the power of personal experience and the changing tide of cultural values or should they cling to their Bibles?  DeYoung makes it very clear.  He is standing with Scripture.   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.  Can a homosexual be a Christian?  Can they experience the righteousness that Christ offers?  DeYoung has no qualms about saying no; same-sex intimacy is a sin.

Finally I come to Preston Sprinkle who seeks to understand the Christian who affirms homosexuals in the church and the Christian who does not affirm homosexuals in the church.  He is well aware that many think homosexuality is ok for a devout Christian life and leadership in the church and he is well aware that this viewpoint is “in sync” with the feelings of a majority of the people in American culture.  He has also read writings which condemn homosexuality for devout Christian life and church leadership.  He knows that non-affirming people condemn homosexual behavior as a sin.  Yet he vows he will  “stand on truth and stand on love.” 

The truth is that Scripture states that same-sex desire is a sin if gay people act on that desire.  What he cannot accept is the non-affirming Christians who cannot find a way to love gay people.  Sprinkle states that Jesus spent a tremendous amount of time with the outcasts of His contemporary society.  The reason He did that is to reach them with His message.  He spent a lot less time with religious leaders of His day because they did not need to hear His message and did not appreciate it anyway.  Sprinkle has made it his ministry to reach out to gay Christians.  He knows them as people who are seeking a place to worship.  He knows that some heterosexual Christians do not want to have anything to do with gay Christians even going so far as to be cruel to them. 

What I do like about Sprinkle is his serious study of the culture of the Old Testament and New Testament.  He writes about the use of Greek and Aramaic language in the Scriptures that condemn same-sex activity.  Whereas some people base their opinions on feelings, Sprinkle bases his opinion on ancient writings of the time and careful translation.  He tackles many of the arguments that affirming people use to defend gay Christians.  Jesus does not speak negative words against gay behavior.  Sprinkle explains He did not have to because Jewish Law was very clear about people having sex with their own gender.  In Bible times the practice of homosexuality was rare [aforementioned pederasty was the most common practice].  Too many affirming people use the silence argument that means Jesus’s silence means acceptance but Sprinkle thinks this argument is not very strong. 

Like DeYoung, Sprinkle discusses at length Paul’s use of malakos and arsenokoites and the specific meaning of those words.  DeYoung says that this is a direct Scriptural reference to same-sex activity as sin but Sprinkle says “possibly.”  Those terms also refer to effeminate men, “abusers of themselves with mankind” [that is unclear] and also men who abuse others with sexual activity.  It depends on the translation of the original Greek.  Have those words been used in a destructive way to denigrate homosexuals; yes they have.  What Sprinkle is saying is the words are not clear; the language is not that simple. 

Sprinkle does not shy away from difficult topics.  Are people born gay or does society make them that way?  Is reparative therapy effective in changing a gay person into a heterosexual?  Is a mixed orientation marriage an effective method of avoiding condemnation?   Sprinkle has thought long and hard about this topic and cannot say that acting on same-sex desire is ok but he also cannot say that he condemns gay people.  As far as gay people serving in the pulpit, he has no problem with that as long as they are celibate.  But If a church member is active sexually, he writes “I cannot hate them”.  As the title of his book says, they are people to be loved.  Scripture supports the idea that their sexual activity is not appropriate, but people in the church should reach out to homosexuals.   He advises making time to meet with gay individuals and listening to their stories and asking questions.  “You learn about the deep, painful, joyful, confusing story that has driven this marvelous soul from church and now back to church.  You look them in the eye.  You take them by the hand.  You smile, you cry, you hug, and you show the love of Christ that drew tax collectors and sinners to Him” [139].

At the end of this long post, it is time for me to state what I have learned from this project.  One thing I have to be clear about is that I don’t have a negative, hateful attitude toward gay people.  Today tolerance means that you accept their life choices.  That’s not what tolerance means.  Tolerance means “live and let Iive.” I don’t accept their life choices because Scripture does not support their sexual activity.  But I feel that people have a right to do what they feel they must do and I am not the judge of their choices.  That is God’s work.  Too many people feel that because American culture is accepting of homosexuals that everyone in the church should accept them.  I am not sure the church should bend to fit American culture.  Maybe it should be the other way around.  Culture should bend to the church.  I am a Global Methodist because I did not feel compelled to leave my church when it disaffiliated.  But I don’t want people to label me as a hater of gays because my church disaffiliated over this issue.   When it came time for me to decide what to do, I did not have adequate knowledge of this issue and I knew non-affirming Scripture was in the Bible.  Could we just ignore those Scriptures?   I do not feel we can.  However, in my mind a gay person can be a Christian.  Based on Scripture, It would be better for them if they were celibate.  My intention is not to say harmful things about people who prefer same-sex intimacy.  I am expressing my belief about Scripture. Should a gay person serve in the ministry?  They can but not in my church; many denominations do allow this.   Could a gay person be an effective pastor?  Probably they could, but it would be difficult for some Christians who  have  very negative feelings about non-affirming Scripture. 

Even though I worship within a church that sets boundaries for Christian leadership and the sacrament of Christian marriage, I cannot hate gay people.  I know of friends who do and I think they are wrong to harbor such negative feelings toward any human being.  Christians are what we do and if we hate others we are not showing the first fruit of the Holy Spirit.  That fruit is love.  Love is of God and God’s people will love.  If we can’t do this for everyone, something is wrong.  Maybe we want to be called Christian, but if we can’t love others…

Maybe we aren’t….

*Some of my posts from February 2023 until today are what I call “directional” posts.  I felt I had to let the reader know where I was going from time to time as I shifted from one book to another.  Those directional posts were entitled “Don’t Lose Sight.”  I did not count them in my totals.  I had the odd post that occurred from time to time on the LGBTQ issue: Christmas, voting in an election, a personal family tragedy etc.  I did not count them in my totals.

**March 3, 2024  Basic changes to the United Methodist Church:  marriage is defined as two adults of consenting age [changed from adult male and adult female]. Homosexuals can become ministers  [appointed by the United Methodist Church].  The United Methodist church will allow same-sex weddings in United Methodist Churches.

***To date over 7,000 churches have disaffiliated from the United Methodist Church.