St. John Studies

Personal Comments on LGBTQ+ Participation In A Denomination…

A Church Has to Make a Choice: Culture or God’s Word…

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender life are really not addressed much in the Bible, yet today these topics are so controversial that one would think that every other page of Scripture is devoted to these subjects.  “The story of the Bible is not the story of God giving a lecture on same-sex marriage or trying a case before the Supreme Court.  Although homosexuality is one of the most pressing and painful controversies of our day, it’s not what the church has been singing and praying about for two thousand years [Kevin DeYoung*].

From time to time I will stop and write a personal post about this issue because it is touching my life in such a direct way.  My church is struggling with decisions about the future.  But before we ponder the future, let’s provide some context by looking at the past.  The United Methodist Church took a position against homosexuality in the Book of Discipline** in 1972.  That position does not recognize or celebrate same-sex marriages and considers the practice of homosexuality incompatible with Christian teaching.   Practicing homosexual pastors are not to be ordained in the church and same sex marriage rites are not to be performed in the church.  Since 1972, a lot has changed.

In 1987 an openly lesbian Methodist minister was defrocked for violating the Book of Discipline.  In 1996 an openly gay man was ordained as a minister in the church.  In 2004 an openly lesbian minister was acquitted by the church governing body and allowed to be a pastor in her specific regional conference.  In 2016 an openly lesbian woman was elected bishop in the western district of the UMC.  In 2021 an openly gay pastor was elected and consecrated as a pastor in the United Methodist Church [Western Jurisdiction].

A United Methodist pastor spoke to me about this weak stand the church has made about homosexuality since 1972, crumbling under the pressure of American culture to accept LGBTQ leaders within the church, failing to enforce its own rules (The Book of Discipline), 1972.

The Public Religion Research Poll conducted in 2020 put 76% of Americans in favor of LGBTQ rights.  The US News and World Report poll done in 2020 show 72% of Americans saying homosexuality should be accepted.  In a poll conducted by the political website The Hill, 80% of Americans say they support nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ people.

A lot has changed.  In 1994, the LGBTQ acceptance percentage was 46 percent.  In 2002 it was 51 percent.  Acceptance of LGBTQ people has grown over time and it continues to grow.

Has the United Methodist Church handled this issue well? 

It has not.

The pandemic has muddled the whole process.  The last General Conference of the UMC was held in 2019 in St. Louis Missouri, a special session dedicated to the church policies on LGBTQ+ issues.  With much heated discussion, that conference affirmed the 1972 Book of Discipline traditional stance on marriage (even though segments of the church have violated that 1972 Book since its inception).  The pastor I referred to earlier says “why have a Book of Discipline if you don’t enforce it?”  Good point.

The 2020 General Conference was cancelled due to Covid-19 and rescheduled until 2022 [that one was also cancelled due to Covid-19].  The next General Conference will be held May 3, 2024.  At that time many project that the Conference will overturn Book of Discipline statements regarding LGBTQ+ participation.  The 1972 segment of the Book of Discipline will be rewritten to reflect changing American cultural values.  At this point, the rewriting is a projection, not a reality.  The rewriting is a guess, not a certainty.  Will this happen, leaving some more traditional Methodists unhappy with the way the church is going?  All one can say is possibly. Some who can “read the tea leaves” are sure that this is going to happen and they have pushed to break away from the United Methodist Church in advance of the General Conference, 2024.

It this solely about LGBTQ+ issues?  Some say that it is, but some point to other issues like dissatisfaction with church organizational structure and UMC ownership of church campus property ***.  However, the issue that is getting the most press is the LBBTQ+ issue.  This Sunday my congregation is going to have to make a decision about which Methodist organization to affiliate with****.  To date, my church has chosen to disaffiliate from the UMC but no decision has been made about choosing a new affiliation. 

A member of the “transition team” came to my house the other day to share materials about various directions my church could go.  I took the materials and said thank you and I will participate this Sunday as the new direction is discussed. 

Let us not lose sight of where the Body of Christ is on this issue.  The Bible does not spend much time at all on this issue.  God has many more things to talk about other than LGBTQ issues.   However, when the Bible does address the same-sex lifestyle, it is not supportive of this, with several scriptures condemning same-sex practices.  Let’s be direct.  The Bible states that same-sex unions are sinful. 

Should Christians be spending so much time on this one single issue?  Probably not, for God does not spend much time on it.  God might intend for us to deal with more weighty issues, more basic to human life.  God may want us to open His Word and study passages not related to same-sex relationships.  Ninety-nine-point-nine percent of the Bible is not about this issue.

But here we are…

The United Methodist Church finds itself in the middle of  a culture war.  Some say it is more of a “culture skirmish” because of the 40,000 local churches in the UMC and related denominations, the vast majority will not choose to disaffiliate.  They will remain under the UMC umbrella, whether the church decides to incorporate LGBTQ+ rights regarding pastors and marriage within the church or not. 

Let us not lose sight that St. John Studies is a blog that is devoted to discussing Christian living literature and now I am trying to look at an author who supports LGBTQ+ rights, an author who supports traditional Biblical marriage and an author who takes a middle position.  Kevin DeYoung is the author I am writing about now and last week he elaborated on how woman is a natural complement to man, a “Divinely” designed complement.  His views are not the only ones discussed on this blog.  From February 2, 2023 until April 28, 2023 I blogged on Peter Gomes’ book entitled The Good Book.  Gomes was the pastor at Harvard from 1970 until his death is 2011, a staunch advocate for civil rights, gay rights and religious pluralism.

Let us not lose sight of what God says about this issue.  Let us not lose sight of how little of the Bible is devoted to this issue.  How the United Methodist Church has handled this topic has forced members to choose between endorsing a lifestyle ban for its clergy and a marriage rite ban for its members and what God says in the Bible regarding that lifestyle.  What could have been a private set of beliefs has become public because the United Methodist Church has handled this issue as it has. When that happens, people take sides. People get angry and upset and a “united” church is no longer united.

Let us not lose sight…

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

**The Book of Discipline is a fundamental book that outlines the law, doctrine, administration, organizational work and procedures of the church.  It is revised every four years by the General Conference.

***An example of organizational structure concerns is UMC Bishop power [appointed for life and with massive power over local church pastor assignment].  The local church is owned by the United Methodist Church and apportionment payments must be made to the church in general every year.

****Global Methodist Church, Free Methodist, Wesleyan Church, Nazarene Church and Congregational Methodist Church.

It is not a popular thing to say in today’s culture, but God created man and woman.  What makes ths simple statement unpopular is that it implies that God created two genders, deliberately.  Jennifer Heeren* writes “Does that mean that all men act the same?  Or do all women act the same?  No.  Does it mean that a little girl who likes playing sports is a boy inside?  Does it mean that a little boy that likes to play house is a girl on the inside?  Of course not.”  All of us have likes and dislikes that have nothing to do with our gender.  God made me an individual, but Heeren says I am “an individual under the parameter of one gender or the other.”  In addition, it is very unpopular to say that one gender is better than the other; it is much better to say that men and women are different but equal.  Theologically, God states in Genesis that men and women are of equal worth to God, but they approach life in different ways.  Men and women don’t need to compete for gender dominance because they complement one another. 

All this is a prelude to Kevin DeYoung’s thoughts on Chapter One of his book** “One Man, One Woman, One Flesh.”  DeYoung’s book is dedicated to focusing on the traditional view of marriage, marriage between a man and a woman.  He gives the reader five reasons that it is right to think that God’s design for marriage is one man and one woman (looking specifically at Genesis 1 and 2).  He is clear in his expression: “the way in which the woman was created indicates that she is the man’s divinely designed complement” [27].  My discussion will focus on the controversial ideas that women are men’s companions, men’s helpers and second in line in God’s human creation process.

Like Heeren’s statement above, DeYoung knows his position is not popular.  “Some have questioned whether this straightforward reading of the text is really all that straightforward.  Eve, some argue, was not a complement to Adam as much as a basic companion.  The problem [they think] is that woman helped Adam with aloneness not incompleteness.  If Adam’s problem was aloneness a nice dog could have helped him with that concern, but Adam needed more, Adam needed a helper, equal to man but also his opposite.  In Genesis 2: 18 God declared “It is not good that the man should be alone.  I will make him a helper fit for him.”  What Adam lacked, Eve provided.

Helper is a word that many object to today, the idea that a helper is not a lead character in life.  The helper only helps the leader.  According to the Hebrew translation of helper [ezer], the word does not imply subservience.  The second Hebrew word used in Genesis is kenegdow which means according to the opposite of him.  Again the focus is not on subservience, but on the need for an opposite.  Adam and Eve were made for relationship; with the creation of another sexual opposite, Adam was able to fulfill relationship needs, the fulfillment of joy and love for another person.

Further problems occur when God takes a rib from man in order to make the woman.  Woman could not be created out of thin air of dust; woman was created from man’s rib [“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”].  This (for some) implies that woman is lesser than man.  Man came first and then woman came second.  Man was original and woman was a copy.  This according to “Are Men and Women Equal in God’s Eyes”*** is a basic misunderstanding of Scripture.  It is not implied anywhere in Genesis that woman are unequal because they were made second.  Just because God has given men a first position in creation does not mean that men have special standing with God.  Man and woman are not in competition with each other.  They are designed to complement each other.  They (together) are designed to glorify God when they work together.  DeYoung states that the “way in which woman was created indicates she is the man’s divinely designed complement” not man’s divinely designed competitor.

Heeren’s attitude is reflective of the traditional view of marriage, that it does not matter that Eve cures Adam’s need for a companion, that Eve provides Adam a helper or that Eve comes from the first man’s rib after the first man was created.  Even if some struggle with the idea that women are “submissive,” one should look at the attitude of Jesus.  He gave up His Divine place with God in order to become a human being.  He humbled Himself, He submitted to torture that was totally inhumane.  He sacrificed Himself so mankind could be released from sin and communication with the Holy Father could be established.  Submission is not a sign of powerlessness.  It is a sign of obedience.  God manifests Himself through us as we humble ourselves.  Second Corinthians 12: 9-10 states that “my strength is made perfect in weakness.  Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.”

When a woman makes things with her hands, feeds her family, serves her family, build up finances, exhibits compassion for the needy, provides clothing for her family, builds up her husband, brings strength to people around her, offers wisdom to others and stays busy in life****, these are noble activities that deserve a place of honor in life.  These jobs are possibly not strong points for men, but men need someone to perform these tasks.  In Got Questions “Are Men and Women Equal” the comparison is to tools in a tool chest.  Differing roles do not indicate differing worth.  “A screwdriver has a different role in the carpenter’s shop than a hammer, but that doesn’t mean one tool is more valuable than another.” 

Complementarity does not mean “less than;”  it means equal, one human is not complete without the other. 

For DeYoung the woman is the “suitable” helper for the man, not another man.  For the woman, the “suitable” helper is a man, not another woman.  This is why DeYoung feels marriage should be a covenant relationship between one man and one woman. 

After discussing the role of Eve in Adam’s need for relationship, the role of Eve in Adam’s need for help and the timing of Eve’s creation in the Genesis creation story, the next post will comment on DeYoung’s “one flesh union” ideas,  that God’s perfect plan for marital intimacy presupposes one man and one woman.

*Jennifer Heeren “Why Did God Create Woman?” Crosswalk Website Accessed on May 26, 2023.

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

*** “Are Men and Women Equal in God’s Eyes?”  Gotquestions.org Website  Accessed on May 26, 2023.

**** Proverbs 31: 10-31.

It happened a few years ago and I confess I was taken by surprise.  I did not know what to do.  One of the women in my church brought a young person to my Sunday school class.  She sat there and listened as I presented the idea of the day and people in class began to participate.  I encourage interaction.  That’s the kind of teacher I am.  Then the visitor spoke and made a good comment.  The woman who brought her there stopped the discussion right there and introduced “Alex.”  I did something stupid.  I got uncomfortable because I was not sure how to address “Alex.”  Alex looked like a girl somewhat and sounded like a girl, but Alex was dressed in boy’s clothing with a short haircut and could easily pass for a boy.  After the class was over and I had a chance to speak to my wife about how I felt, I just felt so inadequate.  Why did I struggle with this situation?

Kevin DeYoung’s book* is not about “trans” people; it is about homosexual people and his interpretation of The Bible regarding homosexuality.  He is very adamant in his position: same sex intimacy is a sin. 

In his discussion he poses many uncomfortable questions that people have to deal with.  When a friend or family member announces they are homosexual, how does one handle that?  If a child is struggling with feelings of confusion about same-sex attraction, how do they tell their parents?  How do parents help their children with this situation?  What if abuse is a factor in the confusion?  Does that make it more complex?  What if my church finds out about my struggle and I think they will be negative about my situation?  What can I do for my friend who just confessed he is attracted to other men?  As a Christian who believes in traditional marriage, should I attend my friend’s same-sex wedding?  I have a lesbian daughter and she wants her partner to spend the night at my house.  Should I allow that?  I am not sure what The Bible says about sexuality specifically.  Where do I need to go for answers?  Can my pastor minister to people who are attracted to their own sex?  How can I talk about this in public?  Can any church help me find relational fulfillment and gospel purpose as a celibate man or woman with same-sex attraction?

These are all good questions and people who are in these situations need answers.  Yet Kevin DeYoung’s book is not going to address questions like this because his premise is same sex intimacy is a sin.  That is the foundation of his book and with that as a foundation, he claims that there is no confusion about what to do in particular circumstances.  There are no easy answers for helping a person with these questions if they don’t know what The Bible teaches about homosexuality.  Many Christians don’t feel the answers are easy anymore because the overwhelming majority of people in our culture accept homosexual behavior, but DeYoung is not writing for “many Christians.”  He writes for those who think that same sex intimacy is a sin. 

“Along with most Christians around the globe and virtually every Christian in the first nineteen-and-a-half centuries of church history, I believe The Bible places homosexual behavior—no matter the level of commitment or mutual affection—in the category of sexual immorality” [DeYoung, 17].

DeYoung then gets very direct with his readers.  He figures there are three types of people in his reading audience, the convinced, the contentious and the confused.  Let’s discuss each group.

The convinced are his readers who know that homosexual behavior is wrong.  DeYoung [of course] argues this position but he knows that the self-righteous approach to this subject is very wrong.  Calling others’ behavior a sin and acting sin-free is a recipe for disaster because all of us sin.  If asked about this subject, a “convinced” person should be humble about their own fallenness.  DeYoung points out some horrible mistakes people make with this subject: engaging in an conversation like it should be a theological “throwdown” will only elicit anger on the part of someone with a more positive view of homosexual intimacy.  Anyone who is homosexual should not be treated like a project that needs to be fixed or a problem that needs to be solved.  People need to be loved no matter what their sexual orientation.  “‘Blessed are the pure in heart’ you say. Yes and blessed are the merciful and mournful too.  If you walk away from this book angry and arrogant, disrespectful and devoid of all empathy, someone or something has failed.  I pray the failure is not mine” [DeYoung, 18].

The contentious are those who react with frustration or hatred to any message not supportive of the homosexual lifestyle.  DeYoung hopes that his book should not be used to change someone’s mind, or read just to get a feel for the opposite side of homosexuality.  His hope is that all readers should have an open mind on this subject, especially those who are “contentious.”  “Our feelings matter. Our stories matter. Our friends matter.  But ultimately we must search the Scriptures to see what matters most.  Don’t discount the messenger as a bigot if your real problem is with the Bible” [DeYoung].  I have been is public discussions of this topic and friends who are homosexual have been brought up.  The argument is “they are some of the finest friends I have.”  Family members who are homosexual have been brought up.  “I love my family members unconditionally, (gay or not) and I support them completely.”  I have even heard ad hominem attacks in support of accepting homosexuals in the church.  What I don’t hear is a good discussion of the interpretation of Scripture.

DeYoung is really concerned that the confused are helped by his book.  He is a pastor and he hopes he is making an intelligent defense of traditional Biblical marriage and traditional Biblical sexuality.  He intends to open the Scriptures and make things more clear for those who may be thinking “Something seems wrong with these new arguments, but I can’t put my finger on it….Maybe the Bible doesn’t say what I thought….Maybe I need to give the Bible another chance….(or even) All my friends are saying one thing, and I’m not sure what to believe anymore” [19].  DeYoung says to these folks, “Keep digging, Keep praying.  Keep trusting that God’s word is clear, true and good” [19].

As I close this post, we must remember that homosexuality is a topic that is in the news today as denominations struggle with the role homosexuals can play in the church.  The cultural climate right now makes this a newsworthy item today, when one turns to God’s word, homosexuality is hardly an issue at the forefront of the message of God for His people.  So many issues today are divisive and so many in our culture can’t discuss divisive issues.  This type of discussion can lead to hatred and extreme responses.  So what do we do?  We take sides and dig in…

The Convinced versus The Contentious.

DeYoung hopes there are many that need his help…The Confused.

*What Does The Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality?

“What does the Bible teach about everything?”

I knew Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality defends the “traditional Christian” view of marriage, the view that God intends marriage to be between a man and a woman.  After opening my discussion [February 2, 2023] on today’s struggle with homosexual behavior in the church with comments on Peter Gomes’ The Good Book [February 2, 2023], it is time to turn to another view on this issue.  Gomes is a pastor and he is gay.  DeYoung is a pastor who is not accepting of Gomes’ behavior.  “I believe same sex sexual intimacy is a sin” [DeYoung, 17].  How clear does an author need to be?

Yet when one turns to DeYoung’s book, he begins his introduction with “What does the Bible teach about Everything?”  Why? 

The synopsis of “everything” takes about four pages.  Some might think he gives The Bible a short shrift but the four pages are remarkably well-written. 

Here is a synopsis of his synopsis [if you will].

DeYoung points out the central character of The Bible is God Himself, an “eternal, infinite and, in His essence, unlike anything that ever was, is, or will be.”  Of course God created all things including men and women, making them in His image.  You know the story: the first man and first woman doubted the word of God and took a bite of forbidden fruit, causing sin to enter the world, introducing sin into all of our lives.  They were driven from an idyllic garden, from the tree of life and God was left to find a way to live with unholy people. 

From this point on, humans have been looking for a way to return to that tree, that Promised Land, that Canaan where God would be their God and they would be His people.  The Bible becomes a story of people who cannot keep their promises, breaking covenants with God over and over, only to be restored by a benevolent God to the status of His chosen people.

God dwelt among man in the tabernacle and finally in the temple, a sort of Garden of Eden on earth.  God put His tabernacle in the middle of the Israeli camp and His temple in the middle of Jerusalem, a symbol of how God was intended to be central in the lives of His people.   

Eventually the temple was destroyed [twice], a sign that God was punishing His people and once again, they had squandered their opportunity to have a right relationship with Him.

Finally God tried a new idea, sending a flesh and blood version of Himself to earth in the form of His Son Jesus Christ, what DeYoung calls “a better Moses and a second Adam.”  He would experience the wrath of God that we should experience and die the death that we deserved because we were sinners; He was not.  He promised if we believe in Him, “all the promised blessings—forgiveness, cleansing, redemption, eternal life—become our promises, too.”  The long-awaited restoration to right standing with God will be ours.  The chance to enjoy the fruits of the Tree of Life will be ours.  Nothing will interfere with a holy God and His holy people.  “The way things were—the ways things should be—will finally become the way things are forever and ever” [DeYoung, 14].

Why does DeYoung spend four pages taking us on a “big picture” view of The Bible?  The reason for doing this is that he is saying that homosexuality is not the prime focus of The Book, “it’s not what the church has been singing and preaching about for two thousand years” [14].

Yet today it seems that homosexual behavior is the only thing God is concerned with in today’s church.  My church, a denomination that was formerly affiliated with the United Methodist denomination, had a meeting where the entire congregation discussed the ideas that administrators and pastors should not serve the church if they were openly homosexual.  That homosexual marriage should not be allowed in our church.  DeYoung’s book goes right at those ideas:  “homosexual activity [is] a sin that must be repented of, forsaken, and forgiven.”  At my church’s meeting, member after member stood and recited the following reasons that homosexuals should be allowed to lead in our church and marry in our church.  They said I have lots of gay friends and they are nice people; I think labelling their sexual orientation a sin is a sin.   I have family members who are gay and I love them; I think labelling their sexual orientation a sin is a sin and the denial of church rights to gay people is akin to discrimination that many in our country did to African-American people as Americans practiced slavery and denial of basic civil rights.

Those people who spoke up have left my church.

No one, not one person, asked a question about God’s Word.  There are scriptures that condemn homosexual activity as sexual immorality.  What do we do with those?  Do we remove them from our Bibles?  Do we say that they are not relevant anymore?  Eighty percent of Americans feels that the gay lifestyle is ok, so that should be a high enough percentage to overrule God’s Word? 

God’s Word is about much more than homosexual behavior, the reason DeYoung starts his book with “What Does the Bible Teach about Everything.”  At my church meeting, we were [to borrow his phrase] “getting up close to the trees” when we should have been stepping back to “make sure we were gazing upon the same forest” [DeYoung, 9].  We were forgetting that the Bible is about a Christ who has come to convict us, to challenge us, to change us and is coming again.  Christ came to call us to repent of our sins so we can live forever with God in His new creation.  Not repenting of our sins leads to eternal punishment and God’s wrath. 

Those excluded from “the Garden” are “the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters and all liars” [Revelation 21: 8, 27].  What are we do as Christians with this “hot button topic?”  Do we make so much of it that we ignore the totality of God’s Word?  The Bible is so much more than rules against homosexual behavior in Leviticus and Romans 1.  Conversely, do we ignore what God says about homosexual behavior, glossing over His warnings because our friends and family are excellent people, they just happen to be gay?

As we begin DeYoung’s book it is important to recognize that his view is one view, the traditional view of human sexuality, that it should be limited to one man and one woman in the Godly framework of marriage.  He pulls no punches.  He tells the reader up front what he believes.  He just encourages the reader to keep three things open:  their minds, their hearts and their Bibles.

I encourage anyone who reads this blog to do the same.  There are good discussions all around this issue and it is my humble opinion that the only way a person can determine how they really feel about human sexuality is to explore other views, weigh other arguments and then turn to God’s Word.  The Bible is “The Good Book” that will guide us through these times, especially if we are “humble, honest and hungry for the truth” [DeYoung, 22].

Disclaimer:  I am a learner like you.  I am not a seminary trained theologian.  I have a PhD in communication but not in theology.  I am a Sunday School teacher.  I do have a “natural curiosity” about my faith.  I want to learn more and through my learning, I want to grow closer to God.  I volunteer in several places at my church but I am not a paid staff member.  Officially, I do not represent the church.  As Thom Rainer would say, I try to be a good “Church Member” but that is really all I am–a member of the church, like you.

On February 2, 2023, I began the most ambitious project I have ever undertaken on St. John Studies: I began a three-book discussion of the LGBTQ+ issue in the Christian church since that issue is at the forefront in my church and since that issue is changing the United Methodist Church in America. 

On that date in February I introduced Peter Gomes to the readers of this blog.  Gomes passed away on February 28, 2011 but his book entitled The Good Book is a thorough discussion of the Bible and what it means in our world today.  Gomes was a preacher and theologian at Harvard Divinity School and Minister at Harvard’s Memorial Church.  He was highly regarded as one of the country’s great preachers.  Gomes was gay and he felt his sexual orientation did not interfere with his worship of God.

I began this three book discussion with his book because it is the longest of the three.  There are sixteen chapters. 

In the first three chapters of Gomes’ book he has discussed Christians’ dedication to Bible reading [or lack thereof].  He explored the history of the construction of The Bible and the central place The Bible has in Christian worship.  The topic of interpretation of Scripture was next, followed by three factors that impact interpretation [or three temptations].  Some Christians idolize God’s word too much Gomes thinks.  Following that discussion, I looked at the Bible as a defense for the status quo [an excuse to avoid change].  Then how can two diametrically opposed politicians read the same Book and go different directions politically [Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan]?  Finally at the end of chapter three of Gomes’ book I address our society’s inability to have civil discussion of cultural issues today [outside and inside the church].*

Now it is time to turn to another view and introduce the author, Dr. Kevin DeYoung.  He is an American Reformed theologian and author. He is currently the senior pastor at Christ Covenant Church, in Matthews, North Carolina. DeYoung was born in South Holland, Illinois, and largely grew up in Jenison, Michigan, where his parents Lee and Sheri DeYoung worked for Words of Hope – an international media ministry based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Both of his grandfathers were from Dutch Reformed backgrounds. DeYoung graduated summa cum laude from Hope College in Michigan in 1999 and then received his M.Div. from Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in Massachusetts in 2002.  He completed a Ph.D. in Early Modern History focusing on the theology of John Witherspoon at the University of Leicester.

DeYoung has authored many books on Christian living and various theological issues but the one we will be discussing is What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?

Russell Moore states that “DeYoung takes on the most pressing issue of our day: whether we will be conformed to the spirit of the age or whether we will follow Christ.  Against the sexual revolution and its high priests, DeYoung presents an alternative vision, the ancient wisdom of a Christian sexual ethic.”  Rosaria Butterfield describes the book as a help for “Christians to navigate the shifting cultural landscape of sexuality and find confidence and hope in how the Bible directs your steps.”  Robert Gagnon feels that DeYoung has “written a good and faithful treatment on the Bible and homosexual practice for the average churchgoer.”

Will DeYoung agree with Peter Gomes on the LGBTQ+ issue?  No.  That is why I chose his book to discuss.  In his introduction [which will be my next post] he begins his book with “What Does the Bible Teach about Everything” and the intro sets the tone for the book which is a defense of the passages in The Bible that condemn same-sex relationships.

Is it good to turn to other views about a topic to really begin to understand it?  I think so and that is why Kevin DeYoung is the next author in our three-book discussion, so buckle up as we explore the point of view that does not encourage LGBTQ+ activity within the church.

*All these discussions occurred between February 10, 2023 and last week [April 28, 3023].  One post was on the issue of disaffiliation from the United Methodist Church and its effect on my church: “The Shrinking Center” on April 8, 2023.

**My source of facts about DeYoung is Wikipedia.

*** Moore is the President of The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission; Butterfield is a former tenured Professor of English at Syracuse Universiy; Gagnon is an Associate Professor of the New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary.

Disclaimer:  I am a learner like you.  I am not a seminary trained theologian.  I have a PhD in communication but not in theology.  I am a Sunday School teacher.  I do have a “natural curiosity” about my faith.  I want to learn more and through my learning, I want to grow closer to God.  I volunteer in several places at my church but I am not a paid staff member.  Officially, I do not represent the church.  As Thom Rainer would say, I try to be a good “Church Member” but that is really all I am–a member of the church, like you.

“America is angry at Washington, angry at the press, angry at immigrants, angry at television, angry at traffic, angry at people who are well off, angry at people who are poor, angry at blacks and angry at whites.  The old are angry at the young, the young angry at the old.  Suburbs are angry at cities, cities are angry at suburbs, and rustic America is angry at both urban and suburban intruders who threaten the peaceful rustic sense of having escaped from God’s angry land.”

This sounds like it could be written today, April 28, 2023. 

It wasn’t.  Russell Baker [noted New York Times columnist] wrote this on October 22nd in 1994.

Why all this anger in 1994; why do we seem to have more in 2023?

Some may say that this is just from members of society in general, that not all segments of America feel such anger.  Surely Christians don’t feel like this.  They love Jesus; they must feel the call to love their fellow man.  I wish this was the case, but it is not.  I am appalled at some of the comments from my Christian friends who post their thoughts on social media platforms.

As Peter Gomes concludes Chapter Three in The Good Book, he addresses the source of some of this anger.  Even though I may refer to current issues, his words fit today’s controversies.  Gomes feels that Christians use God’s word to avoid adapting to current cultural concerns.  They do not want to see change.  It is all about what can be done to maintain the status quo in the context of the culture wars [again, he wrote in 1996 but his thoughts seem so relevant today].  Those “wars” he referred to rage on as many Christian Americans remain embroiled in the hot-button topics of abortion, LGBTQ+ rights and critical race theory in the schools.  Many “religious” people long for the days when the Bible was taught in school, students were allowed to pray and unrighteous behavior was dealt with strict punishment.  America [after all] is a country where congress begins each session in prayer, the President is sworn into office on a Bible and the currency bears the motto “In God We Trust”.

Today the news focuses on transgender bathroom concerns and fair competition in sports with transgender athletes.  My neighboring state has passed a law that severely limits “drag queens” from taking to the stage [they cite worry that kids could attend the show as the need for the law].   Increasing numbers of parents are worried that their children are being exposed to sexually explicit material in school libraries so they are pulling books from library shelves.   Increasing numbers of Caucasian parents are worried that their children are being exposed to a retelling of history that explains the role of white race in the oppression of African-American people.  Nationwide there is a push to ban critical race theory.

Inherent in all these examples is the feeling that all these changes are horrible.  Christians seem to feel that society is being controlled by Satan and all this change is his way of destroying the world.  Gomes writes “to change is to go against the Bible; what is, is mandated by the Bible” [58].  In other words, The Bible expresses the idea that here is no need to adapt to a changing world.  We need to keep things just as they are or we need to look to the past, the “good ole days” when we did not have to deal with any of these issues.  Many of these angry people are individuals who are not weighing the good and bad of change; they feel all change is bad if it upsets the way things have always been.   In reality, are all changes bad?  No they are not.  But conversely, are all changes good?  Of course they are not.  Many in the Christian community have forgotten there is such a thing as critical evaluation of change. 

Gomes’ focus is on the Bible and he says that many of the “people of The Book” desire to maintain the status quo: “For those who hold to the intimate relationship between the Bible and the culture, the Bible often becomes the icon of that culture.  The culture sees itself mirrored in the Bible, the Bible is understood to be the norm by which the culture is defined, and this often results in the Bible’s use as a textbook for the status quo” [The Good Book, 58].

It is hard to do, but as Christians live their lives, it is important to evaluate cultural change with a more mature outlook.  How much of the change that we see in society today could be called a passing fad?  How much of the change we see in society today is not all bad?  We need to see some forms of change.  Can some good come from a measured response instead of instant hatred of change and a call to maintain the status quo or return to the “good ole days.”

Richard Rohr* warns that “If change and growth are not programmed into your spirituality. . .your religion will always end up worshiping the status quo and protecting your present ego position and personal advantage” [11].   He goes on to say that resistance to change is so common that we expect that from religious people.  They love to look at the value of the past more than they treasure the present or accept the challenges of the future.

Many feel that change and growth should be part of one’s ongoing spiritual life but that is not the case with many Christians.  Most of my “serious” adult experiences with Christian faith have occurred in my days as a Methodist.  John Wesley [the founder of Methodism] was very serious about growing and changing in our faith.  When one becomes a believer, Wesley labeled that person “justified”.  Their sins were forgiven and they began their relationship with God.  Quick on the heels of justification is sanctification, or growth in faith.  That means I should change.  The believer should devote time to prayer, study, fellowship with believers etc.  Sanctification results in deepening faith and relating to God on an even deeper level.  Sanctification is all about change and growth.

Many will be quick to point out that changes in society do not even apply to the need for spiritual change.  The two are not related.  In 1996, Gomes had no idea where we would be in today’s Methodist Church, that the church would split over the LGBTQ+ issue, the idea that some feel that gay marriage should be allowed, active gay pastors can minister to their flock and gay administrators should be allowed to take the reins of the upper echelon of the church.  His words seem prophetic when he states “the land we seek is not behind us, it is before us”.  We should not envision a stagnant God who is unwilling to adapt to the needs of society.  “The Bible is a book for the future, about the future, and written with confidence in the future.  It embraces the future not out of disgust with the present, or with the past but out of the conviction that God is in the future, and to be where God is, is to know fulfillment, purpose and bliss” [64].

As I make my final comments on Chapter Three of The Good Book, I need to recall that Gomes advocates for acceptance of gay Christians within the church; in fact, Gomes is a gay pastor at Harvard [at the writing of his book].  Is he laying groundwork for later chapters when his calls for acceptance get stronger?  Is this issue something that holds Christians back in their spiritual development?  Would Richard Rohr say that acceptance of gay Christians should be a part of spiritual growth?  Would John Wesley scold Christians who cannot accept the call for acceptance from the gay Christian community?

We will see in future posts.  Can there be a time of peace in our future as American society finds compromise between extreme views?  Can Christians get control of their negative reactions when change shows up on their doorstep?

It is bad enough when we feel we have to live in an angry society. 

Maybe it is even worse when we feel we have to worship in an angry church…with angry Christians.

*from his book  Falling Upward.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”…

“in order to form a more perfect union“…

I draw upon that phrase from the United States Constitution to discuss Chapter Three of Peter Gomes’ book entitled The Good Book.  I am a student of history, having an educational credential* in the subject, but I have never taught it.  I have always been a person who has a great respect for the past.  I am also not a person who has a naïve view of my country’s past, one prone to rewrite American history in order to make a certain group of people look better or worse.  I believe history happens and then historians strive to put it down on the page.  In that process, excellent professional historians go through a stringent methodology to capture the most accurate view they can of what actually happened.

Before I begin to comment on Gomes’ third chapter, I need to be transparent about my views.  I see our country’s history riddled with example after example of human cruelty and injustice**.  I don’t ascribe to the idea that our founding fathers were perfect men of God who were divinely inspired to create a nation under my Christian God.  That is what is stated in The Constitution but in my opinion putting something down on paper and actually doing what you intend to do are two different things.   

Has America achieved great things?  The answer is yes.

Has America done horrible things to innocent people in the name of our quest for power, even in the name of God?  The answer is yes.

Has America been a country that has invoked Scripture and God to justify its actions?  Sadly, I have to admit that we have.

The Good Book was published in 1996, but as you read Chapter Three [“The Bible in America”] it is astonishing how the problems of that era linger on into today’s world.  Gomes opens the chapter citing two towering figures of the past: Reverend Jesse Jackson and Pat Buchanan.  Both men are still alive but some would argue that their influence over the culture wars of today has waned.  Gomes uses these men as polar opposites, two men looking at the same book and seeing two different worlds.

Jesse Jackson is an African-American political activist, Baptist minister and politician.  He ran for president in 1984 and 1988.  Pat Buchanan is a Caucasian author, political commentator and politician, serving in the administrations of Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan.  Gomes writes “their visions for America could not be further apart, and yet both appeal to the vision of the Bible to sustain their own views, and both regard the Bible as the moral platform upon which the well-being of the republic ought to be reconstructed” [53].  Jackson has always argued that America has never lived up to its lofty ideals about equality for all its citizens, while Buchanan feels that we have lost our biblical basis for a Christian society; we need to revive those lost ideals [those founding father goals].  How could two views be more different, with a single basis for those views being one Book [God’s word]. 

Where does Jackson see America going?  If you study this man, his earthly inspiration comes from Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who began a civil rights movement, a moral movement dedicated to eradicating racial inequality from the American landscape.  Dr. King took The Constitution literally, that the nation was created to be under God and the founding fathers intended to declare that all men could be free.  Dr. King did not see that reality in American daily life of the past or in the present but his life goal was to try to get America working toward euality [trying to get America “to form a more perfect union”].  Jackson has always seen himself as carrying Dr. King’s work forward toward making America what it truly could be.

Where does Buchanan see America going?  He is unhappy with the way things are today.  Prayer is out of school, Roe V. Wade is overturned but there are still too many options available for women who want an abortion.   Gun rights are under attack as more and more shootings are happening in American society.  Gun control is definitely not the answer.  America is adrift.  We are too lenient on the LGBTQ+ community, too much entertainment that comes out of Hollywood is anti-family and the black community is suffering due to too many “hand-out” social programs [no incentive to work for a living].  America needs to return to the “good old days” when life was simpler, right and wrong were clearly defined, and people had a definite strong moral influence from their faith in God.  Buchanan wants to turn the clock back to the days of the founding fathers, those idealists who envisioned a strong America centered on God. But is a return to the past the answer? Were those “good old days” really that good?

Both men declare that America needs “to get back to the Bible.”  The problem is that it seems like they are not talking about the same Book.  Americans have always thought of themselves as “people of The Book.”  One can see it in our wars where our armies were destined to win because “God is on our side.”  One can see it as we expanded from the east coast to the west coast; Manifest Destiny was a mandate from heaven.  As previously stated, one can even see it in how some white Southerners turned to the Bible to justify heinous acts like human slavery [see “I Am Justified” St. John Studies, April 15, 2023].

Truly when Puritan settlers came to America, they had lofty goals.  Gomes speaks of John Winthrop, leader of the Puritan colony that reached Boston Harbor.  He delivered a sermon on the Christian basis for the new civilization that his people intended to found in the new land.  He referred to it as a “New Modell for Christian Charity.”  America was intended to be a beacon for the world, a shining light on the hill; he drew from Proverbs 4: 18 “You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid” [Proverbs 4:18].  Today we still have a problem with people trying to come to the beacon.  Some say we have too many people wanting to come to America from all over the world.  They want to be Americans but they don’t want to enter the country legally.  The process is lengthy, complex and expensive but suffering people from other countries are willing to risk their lives so they can have what Americans have.

What we take for granted.

Gomes entitled his Chapter Three “The Bible in America” but whether you believe in America moving forward “toward a more perfect union” or returning to the ideals of our Christian founding fathers, it is important to realize that all American people don’t agree.  America today is not that far removed from America of 1996, when Gomes published The Good Book.  The problems we had then still exist and some would say they are even greater. 

This post has looked at two different men with two different outlooks.  What both men have in common is a strong attachment to The Bible.  The problems we have in this country cannot be encapsulated in such a simple discussion.  We will revisit the topic again in my next post. 

Does America even need to lay claim to the Bible?

Is the Bible a truly American book?

These ideas merit further discussion.

*Bachelor of Arts in History, Western Kentucky University, 1974.

**injustice to indigenous peoples, slavery, immigrant discrimination and cruelty, denial of voting rights to women, internment of Japanese-Americans etc. etc.

In last week’s post, I responded to my church’s decision to disaffiliate from the denomination of The United Methodist Church.  I don’t regret that post.  The changes brought about by the disaffiliation vote are tangible and heartbreaking and writing is a form of therapy for me.  Because of the LGBTQ+ issue I am seeing friends leave, friends I have known for thirty years.  I am a faithful churchgoer and many of my relationships revolve around my church.  I sing with those people in choir, I teach them in adult Sunday school and I engage with them as my church has special events.

Now they are gone.

When I began this section on the “Matter of Interpretation” of the Bible, I had no idea that I would veer off the path by writing “The Shrinking Center” on April 8, but I felt I needed to address that personal issue.  I had intentions to discuss the three temptations that interfere with the interpretation of the Bible: bibliolatry, literalism and culturism [Peter Gomes “A Matter of Interpretation” in The Good Book]

To this point, I have commented on bibliolatry [March 25, “Can We ‘Idolize’ the Bible”] which addressed the worship of the Bible.  How this interferes with interpretation of Scripture is that Scripture can become an idol; God’s word is not an expression that is lifeless, a book that does not inspire by existing.  It must be opened and read.  Even though it was written many years ago, it provides boundaries by which we are supposed to live our lives.  Also I have written about literalism [“Worshipping the Text of the Bible”, March 31], the worship of the text of the Bible makes the point that for some, the meaning of Scripture is limited.  God’s words are important [some would describe them as “most important”] but they are not stagnant.  Some treat Biblical words as lifeless; they mean what they mean to “a specific reader” and that is all they mean.  Of course, that means that no one else could have an alternate meaning.  This attitude denies the symbolic nature of words; by their very nature, words have various levels of meaning.  Some readers understand words more or less depending on their life knowledge, experience, reading ability and education.

Now we come to the third “temptation,” culturism.  I have alluded to the effect of culture on the reading of the Bible in the two previous posts but Gomes elevates the idea even further as a factor that can make us misunderstand scripture.  “How can one not live in one’s own time?” is the way Gomes opens this section of his thought on culturism.  I have written about how challenging it is for a 2023 reader to understand words written so long ago in a middle-eastern world, a world that can seem so foreign.  Realistically, we all have to admit that we have cultural lenses that we apply to the Bible. 

Add to this the idea that believing Christians have another cultural problem if they take the words of Jesus seriously.  It says in Scripture that believers are to live in this world but we are not supposed to be “of this world.”  When Jesus came to this world, He ushered in a “new culture,” a different understanding of this world.  Many of His ideas challenged the culture of His day [e.g. see His platitudes expressed in The Sermon on the Mount].    Paul writes that a believer is to “be transformed by the renewing of your mind” as we respond to “things that are unseen over things that are seen.”  When asked by Pilate about His kingdom, Jesus replied “It is not of this world.”

Yet the reader of God’s word often reads the Bible as a means to support the “status quo.”  Gomes calls this the justification “for what has been and what is.”  Gomes is African-American and he confronts the idea of culturism head on, using the uncomfortable idea of the Southern white Christian in America in antebellum days.  Today, many people attack “critical race theory” as an inappropriate study, but when one considers Southern Christians who owned slaves (despite their ardent professions of faith) maybe they need to be studied.  These people supported owning human beings and then segregating the races based on their reading of The Bible in their cultural times.  I have family members who refuse to consider historical context when they try to understand the past.  I don’t defend one person owning another but I admit the idea of racial equality was not in place in 1850 southern America. 

Those people knew their Bible.  Gomes points to Genesis 9: 18-27 when Noah was discovered naked and drunk by his son Ham.  Ham told his brothers about the incident and they averted their eyes to their father’s condition but Ham actually saw Noah and was punished for looking.  Noah cursed Ham and his descendants with the word “Cursed be Canaan [Ham’s son]: a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers”.  For the sin of Ham, Canaan is cursed to serve other races. 

Now in the southern part of America, slavery (of course) was deemed an economic necessity, for plantation crops had to be harvested by intensive human labor.  The cheapest labor pool could be obtained by removing human beings from their African homeland and transporting them to America.  At that point, the greatest fear the southern plantation owners had was subjugation of the slave population.  Gomes writes that the white Christian southerner lived in constant fear of the rebellion of the sons of Canaan and also dreaded the “fabled potency of the black male” who could seduce and satisfy the sexual needs of white womanhood.  It was the Bible-believing, Bible-reading, churchgoing Southern Christians who found ways to justify lynching, castrating and mutilating black men on Saturday night and then wake up on Sunday morning and pray and praise God all day on Sunday. Gomes writes “How could they sustain such a culture for so long?  “The Bible told them so” [50].

At this juncture, let us not lose the point.  Gomes is providing a powerful example of what he calls culturism, understanding The Bible from the point of view of one’s “world view.”  Even though Christians are called to throw off worldly concerns in favor of God’s kingdom, we always fall short of this goal.  It seems we cannot shake off our lens of our cultural context.  It seems we cannot completely understand the context of Jesus’s admonitions.

Today we may not have the specter of slavery hanging over our heads, but 2023 concerns are bound to pollute our understanding of Scripture.  Let’s use a couple of contemporary examples for illustration:  the prosperity gospel and Christian nationalism are popular today among some Christians but these ideas are not in Scripture.  Of the three temptations that Gomes mentions, he feels culturism is the most dangerous.  People who believe they are carrying out God’s will by actions done in the name of culture can do a lot of damage to the Faith, the Bible and our world.  He cites an old expression: “A surplus of virtue is more dangerous than a surplus of vice.”  We naturally would ask why this is so and the answer is “a surplus of virtue is not subject to the constraints of conscience.”

Christians can read God’s word, they can go to church and hear their preachers, they can say their prayers and then do wrong-headed and serious damage by doing what they think is right.  They are justified.

When I think about advice I would give to a “young” Christian, one thing I would recommend is getting very familiar with your Bible, read it, study it, and even meditate on Scripture.  Most people might think my recommendation would mean that we read it just like any other book, but that is not what I suggest.  The Bible is a special book that requires a special approach to its words.  Since it is complex, we need to learn as much as we can to help us understand it.  Since it is ancient, we need to explore ancient history to understand the world of the ancient writers.  Gomes says we need “patience, endurance, diligence, skill and perhaps most of all humility.”  It may be surprising but he says that “arrogance in reading these Texts is perhaps an even greater sin than unbelief” [52].  Arrogance dampens the Spirit of God and readers “will be held to a strict account at the final judgement” [how’s that for a threat].  Reading for Gomes is a matter of life and death and we need to approach God’s word with “fear and trembling.”

I understand what he says, agreeing that harming other people in the name of God is horrible work.  We blindly read the Bible, we forget the Greatest Commandment and twist its meaning.   

We can’t defend our actions by simply saying this is what God’s Word means in today’s world.

“I am justified.”

On March 5, 2023 St. John United Methodist Church took a vote to remain “United Methodist” or to disaffiliate from the United Methodist congregation.  I was there.  I voted.  How I voted does not matter, but I did vote.  I did not abstain.  I had already decided to stay at my church no matter how the vote went.  I joined my church on March 1^st, 1998, twenty-five years ago.  I felt a need to be a stabilizing factor in my church through this process.  I knew there would be “rocky days” ahead. 

The needed majority of St. John voted to disaffiliate.

There have been rocky days.  I am pausing my comments on Peter Gomes The Good Book  because right now [thirty-three days after the vote] I have seen what has happened to my church.  I felt I had to write this post after a Wednesday night choir practice.  A very intelligent daughter of a former pastor at St. John got up at the beginning of choir practice and announced to the “dwindling” choir that she was leaving the church over the disaffiliation vote. 

Then she left choir practice…and the church.

The way she did this struck me.  The fact that her father pastored St. John struck me.  It is time for me to comment on my experience with this issue at my church, not focusing my efforts on understanding this concern from a much larger perspective.  I need to be personal.

I taught communication for thirty-six years at a small college in western Kentucky.  My favorite class to teach was interpersonal communication.  I studied this subject at the university, getting a Ph.D.   I accumulated a lot of knowledge which I enjoyed passing along to countless numbers of college students.

I have always fancied myself a peacemaker.  I served as department chair for several years at my college, where I liked the challenge of taking people with “warring” disparate views and finding some middle ground where we could solve problems.  Conflict is an inevitable part of life and to ignore it (not addressing burning issues) is a mistake.  Escalation of conflict is bound to occur.  I loved the role of problem solver.

I never thought I would see such a breach in my church but in 2023, this is where the United Methodist Church is; this is where my church is.

Let’s provide some context:  This is the crux of the argument that is at the forefront of the United Methodist Church today.  Of course it is much more complex than I can describe in a few words.  The guidelines for the UMC are published in what is called The Book of Discipline and in that book, the official stance of the UMC regarding homosexuality is that homosexual marriage is prohibited within the church.   Clergy that officiate a same-sex wedding are performing a punishable offense within the church.  Coming out as an LGBTQ+ minister is prohibited and in 1971, the first UMC minister was defrocked for being openly gay.

The Book of Discipline reads “the United Methodist Church does not condone the practice of homosexuality and considers this practice incompatible with Christian teaching.”   With a statement like that [taken out of context of course] the church has struggled to enforce its own guidelines.  Over the years, clergy performing same-sex marriages have not been disciplined and ministers who have openly declared their homosexuality have not been defrocked.  This has led to increasing calls for more tolerance of LGBTQ+ leadership within the church, especially among United States churches. 

The Methodist church leadership has tried to maneuver through this debate finding some way to keep the denomination united, but now there is a sense that the church must split over this issue.  Some would say that it is a Biblical, theological concern, over passages of Scripture warning that homosexual behavior is condemned by God.  Others may see this schism as a political issue fueled by progressive liberal ideology versus conservative ideology.  Progressives point to increased acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle within American culture.  Conservatives point to Scripture that says in black and white that this lifestyle is not appropriate for God’s people.   Add in the fact that so many Americans today do not seek common ground. Many Americans feel that taking a “side” is the proper way to think. Take a side and use disparaging words toward the “other side.”  We see this in the politics of the day as more and more “role model leaders” would rather assume their extreme positions and hurl epithets at their opponents.   It is a good way to get on television.

In defense of my church, I have not seen much crass behavior.  I have just seen people disappear.  People who have always been sitting in the pew are gone, maybe never to return.  I have tried to be “big,” wishing in my heart that they be at peace with their decision and hoping that they find another church home so they can continue to worship in a community of believers.  I know that is very important in a Christian’s life.  It is important for me.

I have heard some of their reasons for leaving and I pass them along to you.  I have heard impassioned statements that they have wonderful LGBTQ+ coworkers and friends who should not be discriminated against and St. John disaffiliation does just that.  The church is no longer a place for their coworkers and friends [and them].  I have heard parents of LGBTQ+ children say that they support their family members in boycotting St. John.  It is not a welcoming place now for their children so it is not a welcoming place for them.  I have heard a prominent church member liken this schism to the pre-civil war split in the United Methodist Church over the issue of slavery.  Slavery was such a divisive issue but I am not sure the parallel to today’s LGBTQ+ community is a perfect one.  African-Americans would argue that their suffering was much more severe.

Here is what I did not hear.  What do we do with Scripture that strongly discourages homosexual behavior?  There is strong language in Leviticus and strong warnings from Paul in Romans.*   When does one declare those Scriptures null and void?  Seventy percent of Americans support same-sex relationships and it is trending upward. **  Maybe the time to disavow Scripture is dictated by polls? I am not sure.

I don’t presume to know where my church is going in the future.  Mainline churches all over the country are slowly assuming a smaller role in the life of the ordinary American, with churches reporting shrinking membership rolls.  This may exacerbate the decline even further as more and more Americans feel turned off by “church” (look at those Christians; they are not loving the LGBTQ+ community).   Maybe St. John is headed for a slow but certain death.  The partisan divide over this issue proves that our country is a country that does not seek to avoid conflict, find solutions or middle ground.  We are living in a culture that has what could be called a “shrinking center.”

I remain at my church, hoping for the best, hoping that the number of people who are disappearing will stop.  St. John is a church that is seeking to be a beacon of light in our community; rather than a shrinking congregation, we want to be a growing congregation. 

I am there at chuch wanting to worship God, wanting to find a way to be faithful to God’s word and not be bigoted toward any particular group of people.  I seek to extend God’s grace and mercy to all people within the guidelines of God’s word.  Billy Graham says Biblical truth is timeless and does not differ from one age to another.  Adam Hamilton*** says “God’s word is no longer binding on us.  It does not reflect God’s timeless will.”

I sit in my church, hoping to find a place in the shrinking center.

*1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Mark 10:6-9; I Timothy 1:8-11; Jude 1: 5-8; 1 Corinthians 7: 2.

**Newsweek PRRI Poll, 72% of Americans support LGBTQ rights, Pew Research 61 % support same-sex marriage, Gallup Poll shows 70% support for same-sex marriage.

***American Methodist minister, senior pastor to the 25,000 member United Methodist Church of Leawood Kansas, the largest Methodist church in the world. My quote of Hamilton is not extensive and he would probably say not reflective of his views, but he is supportive of LGBTQ+ leadership in the United Methodist Church.

In recent posts on St. John Studies it seems I have analyzed the reading process a lot.  It is important to have a working knowledge of what happens when we read.  Most of us take reading for granted.  It is not a simple process, even though many people that I know feel it is so.  It is almost like they want reading to seem as normal as the blinking of an eye or the breathing of a breath, but that is very naïve.  Reading is much, much more.

In Peter Gomes’ The Good Book he points to three “temptations” that Bible readers need to avoid as they read God’s word.  I have commented on worship of the Bible itself in “Can We Idolize the Bible” [March 25, 2023] and now we are ready to tackle literalism [the second temptation].

Before we begin, let me admit that extensive thinking against literalism could result in wholesale doubt about God’s word.  Since Gomes is a pastor, I doubt that he would advocate that.  I also do not think that wholesale doubt is an option for me.  

However, I don’t believe that words are as “literal” as some think they are.  I know that many factors can come into play as a person reads a page.  Let’s refer to just two of those.

The first factor is context.  Context is the location and timeframe of the writer.  A good example could be Genesis (written, scholars think, around 1060 BC).  Genesis describes activity in a middle-eastern world over three thousand years ago.  As a Bible reader I try to imagine this world as much as I can, but try as I might, I am a 21^st century American living in the Midwest.  I have never been to the Holy Land and even if I went, this part of the world has changed so much in three thousand years that it is hardly like it was even in the time of Jesus.  In short, I don’t understand much about the context [location or timeframe].

Another concern is authorial intent.  Now many readers of the Bible call upon The Holy Spirit to help with their understanding of the Bible and as one who also does that, I feel I do get help from time to time.  I need help because I am not a theologian who has been trained in exegesis [critical interpretation of Scripture].  I am an ordinary person who wants to understand God’s word as much as I can.  I know I need help to begin to understand the authors of the Bible and I am not above consulting scholars who have studied the Bible for their opinions.  Sometimes I just don’t know what the human authors or God [as Author] means to communicate on the page.  Is the meaning of all scripture literal?  I wish it was but my common sense tells me it is not.  I know that two people can read the same verse and come to two different conclusions.

We could go beyond concern for context and authorial intent but you get the point.  The Bible is not an easy read. 

In the history of Protestantism, a major reason for the movement revolved around the right of the average untutored believer to interpret the Bible as he/she saw fit [again see “Can We Idolize” 3/25/23].  Gomes writes “to place the Bible in the hands of the people was to place the people in charge of the Bible, or so they thought.  True, the Holy Spirit was to mediate meaning to the individual reader, but authority was now removed from the community of the church to the conscience and mind of the reader.  Since experts were no longer needed, every reader became an expert.”  It is not much of a leap to see that some began to take their newfound “ability” too far.  There came about a belief in the authority of the literal text (“a sovereignty of words now replaced the sovereignty of the church’s interpretation of Scripture”) [Gomes, 42].   I find it extremely fascinating that many literal readers of the Bible feel they are saving The Bible from “ruination.”  They feel that they can recognize the original intent of the authors if they are left alone to decipher text. 

I find that attitude a bit laughable due to the fact that literal readers can do more damage to the meaning of the Bible than good.   Do they really feel like they can understand Biblical context or authorial intent with a common sense approach to God’s word?  Maybe they can but I personally doubt it.  I know there is a strong vein of anti-intellectualism in the United States and I wonder if this is fuel for this attitude. 

Gomes summarizes the damage of literalism.  First of all, the “fanciful” notion of natural intelligence applied to Scripture can elevate interpretation to God’s will [“what the reader thinks is there becomes not merely the reader’s opinion, but the will of God, with all the moral consequences and authority that implies” Gomes, 45].  Secondly, literalism can free the meaning of the Biblical text from earlier interpretation.  I am teaching from Jesus’ parables right now in my Sunday school class and the parables are full of symbolism, metaphors, allegory etc.  I don’t look at exegesis of The Parables as corruption; the scholarly interpretation is quite helpful in my understanding.  “Literalism does not want the text held hostage to these devices” but literalism itself is held hostage to the notion that words are fixed and understandable with reason and common sense.  In my reading, I have not found that to be the case.

In a perfect world, I would hope to see readers open their Bibles and the meanings from God through man would be clear, but we do not live in a perfect world.  Words on a page are but a medium.  As I strike the keys of my laptop I seek to take thoughts from my brain to the words on the page.  Those words are there to represent my thought and it is my hope that the thought is clear.  It may be sometimes, but sometimes it is not.  Maybe my thought processes are flawed, my words are not as good as they should be or maybe the reader brings a very different perspective to my words (maybe the readers can be confused and the words are confusing).

Whatever the problems, challenges occur as I try to communicate via the medium of symbols on a page.  I am not a God-inspired writer of a holy document so if confusion occurs, it is of little import.  Challenges will occur no matter the writer; that is the nature of transferring meaning from one human to another via words on the page.  I don’t advocate wholesale doubt of God’s word because it is difficult to communicate via the printed page, but to say it is simple and clear is to ignore the problems that always exist with reading.  It is not a simple process, even though many literalists feel it is so.

Let’s not be naïve.  Reading scripture is not as simple as the blinking of an eye or the breathing of a breath.

To believe so is to be naïve.

Reading God’s word is much, much more.