St. John Studies

My wife asks me from time to time why I blog.  Sometimes it is inconvenient when I know I should be doing other things, sometimes I wonder if I have any “real”* readers, sometimes I am not in the mood…but I do it anyway.  I told her this morning the real reason why I blog.  I like to learn.  Blogging allows me to learn and then I get a chance to comment on what I learn.

As I begin Chapter One of Preston Sprinkle’s book People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue I am once again in a position of getting to learn new things.  For example, I have learned that I have used the words homosexual or gay lifestyle in my writings recently and LGBTQ people would prefer that the word “lifestyle” not be used to describe “their life”.  LGBTQ people have jobs, friends, favorite foods etc., all the things that everyone has but when lifestyle is used to describe how they live, it conjures up “gay sex”. Sexual intimacy is just one small part of a person’s life, not an overriding factor.  

The word “homosexual” is not the preferred word for a person who is gay.  Gay people prefer the word “gay” or “lesbian” rather than being referred to as a “homosexual”.   Another reason that Sprinkle does not like the word homosexual is that it “is a broad term that has the potential of erasing the faces of real people with different stories.”   The best way to refer to gay or lesbian people (when in doubt or when one needs a broad term) is LGBTQ people.

This is just a taste of the lessons that can be learned by reading PTBL.  Although some may say it is too much trouble to be concerned about labels for people, I think about the labels that kids in my school applied to gay people in the sixties.  The good Christian kids I ran around with used words like “faggot” and “homo” and had little concern for how those words hurt real human beings.  Sprinkle references James 3: 6 when he relates that words like this are dehumanizing; they “stoke the fires of hell.” 

As I think about my past and the cruelty of the words we used, Sprinkle tells real stories about real people.  He tells about Eric Borges, the young man who grew up hearing the word “faggot” a lot.  He wrote “I was physically, mentally, verbally and emotionally assaulted on a daily basis….I was stalked, spat on and ostracized.”  Eric was assaulted in his classroom and no one intervened, not even the teacher who was in the room.  Tim Otto found that he was attracted to other boys at a young age.  Being the son of a Christian missionary, he tried not to act on his impulses.  One day (as an adult) he was propositioned by an adult gay man and they had sex.  Tim went into a tailspin, feeling like he had to kill himself for his sin.  I found his comment so telling:  ‘I wish that somehow rather than ending up in the arms of that anonymous man, I could have found myself in the arms of the church…I wish in the church I had found myself loved.’” 

What does the church offer gay people who want spiritual help?  Well obviously we don’t want to offer negative labels that just hurt people.  Surely we can do better than that.  Yet at times it is so easy to be negative about people who don’t have a heterosexual orientation [I just used a dehumanizing word for the rest of us].  Sprinkle writes “the Christian church has often played an unintended yet active role in pushing gay people away from Christ.  Sometimes away from Christ and into the grave.”  Here is a general truth about life; if anyone is different in any way, they just have trouble fitting in.  If anyone is gay or lesbian, they quickly get the idea that church is not where they belong.  Yet as we read the Bible, we see all kinds of people wanting to be close to Jesus: “broken people, sinful people, marginalized people, people who are clean and unclean, pure and impure.  Some are befriended.  Others are confronted.  All of them are loved” [Sprinkle, 15].  I don’t know, but I have venture a  guess that Jesus would not turn away a gay person who needed spiritual help, yet as Christians we do that very thing. 

Sprinkle tells of a gay friend who leads a Bible study.  I can imagine some Christians saying that gay people probably don’t feel like God’s word would be helpful, inspirational and valuable.  Yet some do have a hunger to know more about God. They actively seek spiritual help from The Bible.   The problem is that they report anxiety about attending Bible study in a church.  Sprinkle’s friend used the words “too scared” to attend Bible study at church.  They do not want to be harassed or humiliated by the treatment they feel they would receive from “regular” Christians.  In my study of Jesus, the only people He got upset with on a regular basis were hypocrites, the people who declared they are Christian but did not act like they were Christians, people who have a Bible study and exclude folks who don’t fit in?

Sprinkle cannot forget the names of Tim, Jeremy, Julie, Wes or Lesli, all people who just happen to be gay, people who were humiliated, people who were shunned, people who found no place in a church anywhere.  Sprinkle writes “I want to be ruthlessly Biblical in how we formulate our thoughts about homosexuality.  It’s not an either the Bible or people question; it is both the Bible and people.  Homosexuality is not about either truth or love; it’s about both truth and love, since truth is loving and love is truthful.  Our God is both.  There’s not room for false dichotomies here.  We need to be thoroughly biblical because we desire to thoroughly love people” [21].  There’s a “broad term”—people.  Aren’t we all people, created by God, seeking a relationship with Him?

Why do I blog?

I don’t want to be a Christian who dislikes a “group” of people.  I don’t want to be a Christian who uses bad language to refer to a group of people.  I don’t want to be a Christian who excludes people from my group because they are different from me. 

I guess I am trying to learn, how not to be a hypocrite.

*apologies to my “real” readers but I am well aware of bots…

Kevin DeYoung did not write What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality  to please the general American population.  This month of June is “pride month” when the world’s LGBTQ+ communities come together to celebrate the freedom to be themselves.   The level of support for accepting gay and lesbian people in America has hit a new peak of 62%.  Support for gay marriage is at an all-time high of 70%.  As anyone who has been reading this blog knows, the United Methodist Church has been dealing with UM Churches that are disaffiliating over this issue.  DeYoung is defending traditional marriage in chapter one of his book and he knows that his book is not “mainstream,” that many readers will never pick it up and if they do, they will react with frustration and hatred because he is not supporting the homosexual lifestyle.

So far he has presented three reasons that the “traditional” approach to marriage should be upheld.  I discussed number one on May 27, 2023 when I summarized the idea that women were made to be men’s companions, men’s helpers and second in line in God’s human creation process.  This does not mean that woman is “less than” as much as a woman complements man in God’s divine plan for life.  On June 10^th, I got very direct about male and female physical makeup regarding sexual intimacy; a man and a woman fit together, not so for same sex intimacy.  On June 17, the topic was procreation and DeYoung believes God intended that male and female sex is all about having a family, which is not possible for same sex couples without turning to surrogacy.   

We are now ready for reason four and five regarding traditional marriage.  DeYoung points to the support Jesus gives for traditional marriage in Genesis.  Lastly, the “redemptive-historical significance” of marriage as a divine symbol only works if the married couple is a complementary pair.

Divorce is a major debate in the Jewish faith, and Jesus was asked what he believed about the permissibility of divorce as a sexual sin, essentially if it destroys the marriage covenant.  DeYoung writes that Jesus’ position supports the Shammi school of thought on this issue.  I am not familiar with this “school” of Jewish thought, but it is ultra conservative regarding the interpretation of Jewish Law.  Jesus reminds His audience that in Genesis, God made “them” male and female.   One must go back to the “beginning” to see that God created marriage as a lifelong union between man and woman. 

What Jesus is preaching is really monogamy, that it only makes sense in a traditional marriage between two people of opposite sex.  DeYoung is quick to point out that he is not arguing that polygamy is acceptable for same-sex relationships, because he is aware that traditional marriage advocates have been attacked on that front.  He is open-minded enough to state “If marriage is simply the formation of a kinship bond between those who are committed wholly to one another, there is no reason why multiple persons or groups or people cannot commit themselves wholly to one another.”  However, if we are to follow God’s Divine plan [God making the woman from the man and also for the man] the complementarity of His plan makes sense in traditional marriage.  Same sex marriage does not fill the need for complementary opposite sex relations.

For the fifth reason we look at the symbolic nature of marriage as a divine symbol.  “God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).  And not only that, but within this cosmic pairing, we find other ‘couples’: the sun and the moon, morning and evening, day and night, the sea and dry land, plants and animals, and finally, at the apex of creation, the man and his wife” [DeYoung, 32].  In each pairing, each part belongs to the other, but neither is interchangeable.  “Marriage is to be a symbol of this divine design: two differentiated entities uniquely fitted for one another” [32].

DeYoung argues from the beginning in Genesis to the end of the Bible in Revelation, we see the concept of marriage illustrated by two parts belonging to the other but neither interchangeable.   This is what I call “big picture” conceptualization or what others call metanarrative.  If God had wanted interchangeable partners for marriage He would have given us that conceptualization in the creation narrative.  “Homosexuality simply does not fit with the created order of Genesis 1 and 2.  And with these two chapters as the foundation upon which the rest of the redemptive-historical story is built, we’ll see that homosexual behavior does not fit the rest of the Bible either. 

As I opened this post, I referred to the increasing acceptance of the LGBTQ+ way of life.  I also referred to the idea that same sex marriage is being accepted at record levels by Americans.   Yet I am discussing Kevin DeYoung’s five reasons that traditional marriage should be upheld and DeYoung has already said that homosexuality is a mortal sin. 

I am not an “expert” on this topic.   I am also not a person who reads DeYoung’s book with frustration and anger because he is attacking a lifestyle I wholeheartedly support.   I have an open mind on this issue, preferring to have an opinion that I will not express unless I am pressed. 

I am just trying to learn.

I have attended a contentious church meeting where three groups of people defended their support of gay clergy in the church and their support of same sex marriage in the church.  The three trains of thought were not adequate.  “I have lots of gay friends and they should be allowed to minister and perform same-sex marriages.  I have gay family members and they should be allowed to minister and perform same sex marriages”.  Lastly, the support centered on discrimination, that “LGBTQ+ people are being discriminated against by the attitude that they cannot become ministers and cannot perform same sex marriages”.  The man who stated this compared homosexual people to slaves before the American Civil War.  I am not sure that ancestors of slaves today would agree with that comparison.

As we consider Kevin DeYoung’s five reasons for upholding traditional marriage, I have to admit that there is some significant support that he is providing, much better than friends, family and discrimination regrets.  I have already looked at the first three chapters of Peter Gomes book entitled The Good Book and now we have introduced Kevin DeYoung’s book which does not support LGBTQ+ living and same-sex marriage. 

Next, we turn to Preston Sprinkle’s book People to Be Loved for a different point of view.

On Monday night June 19th, my family lost a member in a motorcycle accident. His name was Stephen Floyd, the son of my sister-in-law Debbie Carter.

It has been a difficult week for my whole family. My brother practically raised the young man and my 93 year old Mother [I am her closest caretaker] was shaken by the event. She lost a son in a drowning accident many years ago. I had to break the news to my Mom this week and she was not even sure she could attend the funeral yesterday, June 23rd. She lives close to my home in an assisted living facility now and going back to her hometown was a serious concern for her. She likes her new home but also lived at her old residence for 60 years. Her transition to a new life has been difficult.

My post this week is delayed. For any readers, I am sorry. I has been a tough week.

Stephen’s Obituary:

Stephen Floyd, 50, of Marion, KY passed away June 19, 2023 at Mercy Health Lourdes in Paducah, KY. He attended Lola Missionary Church.

Survivors include his wife, Elizabeth Floyd of Marion, KY; son, Blake Floyd of Marion, KY; parents, Debbie (Larry) Carter; brothers, Brett Carter of Marion, KY and Mason (Tiffany) Carter of Nashville, TN; aunts, Missy Drake, Marcia Floyd and Barbara Floyd; uncle, Danny Drake and several cousins.

He was preceded in death by his father, Randy Floyd; grandparents, Anna and Buddy Drake and Ralph and Erma Floyd.

Services are scheduled for 2:00 PM Friday June 23, 2023 at Gilbert Funeral Home in Marion, KY with interment in Mapleview Cemetery. The family will receive visitors from 10:00 AM until service time at the funeral home.

My prayer is that life will settle down soon…

God only knows…

Last week’s post was dedicated to Kevin DeYoung’s second reason that Godly marriage requires one man and one woman, that the way men and women are designed presupposes two persons joined together in the human sex act.  At the end of that post, I mentioned today’s topic, that procreation adds further support to DeYoung’s argument.  By design, same sex couples cannot have children.  Of course that means that God designed opposite sex couples for procreation.

In this post, I will explore DeYoung’s ideas further.

The crux of his argument is founded upon the idea that there is a purpose for marriage and that purpose is to create offspring.  God says in Genesis that He intends for everything He created to multiply:  vegetation, trees, fish, birds, and every living creature “according to their kind.”  Likewise, God created man and woman deliberately so they could be fruitful and multiply.  Detractors might say that procreation is not mentioned in an explicit manner in Genesis but it is commanded [says DeYoung] “in Genesis 1 and specifically mentioned as affected by the fall in Genesis 3.”    DeYoung cites the Hebrew words for man and woman to bolster his case.  The Hebrew for “man” is ish and “woman” is ishah, the two intended to fit together to produce offspring from a Godly union.  DeYoung is willing to admit that all might not go right in every case [as everyone knows].  Some married men and women are not capable of having children because of some biological dysfunction.  Does that mean they don’t fulfill their purpose for marriage?  Of course as humans age, heterosexual couples must find new purposes for marriage, but DeYoung states “if all the plumbing is working properly—children can be conceived.”  And God is pleased.

Of course, procreation is important.  Practically, if people failed to procreate, humanity would eventually cease to exist.  Spiritually, one can turn to Psalm 127: 3-5 to read of the rewards of having children:  “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from Him.  Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth.  Blessed is the man whose quiver if full of them.”

Procreation says DeYoung “is the natural outworking of the marriage covenant.”   Procreation in a Christian family gives parents the privilege of raising their own flesh and blood.  Ephesians 6: 4 says “fathers bear the primary responsibility to bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.”  The “ideal” among Christian parents is that teaching children the ways of Christ is an honor and a privilege. 

All this sounds perfect as Christians point to procreation as a sign that marriage is a Godly covenant.  Some argue that inability to procreate is a sign that same-sex unions are not blessed by God.  Of course gay couples point out that they can procreate but not as a couple, having to use artificial insemination and surrogacy.  In addition, same-sex couples can adopt.  But Christians will counter that biological children from a heterosexual couple are given better care than adopted children and nothing can bond a couple more than the birth of a biological child.  All these statements are so general, with notable exceptions abounding; some heterosexual Christian couples are disastrous parents and some gay couples are wonderful parents [to surrogate children or adopted children].  It all hinges on the idea that Christians feel they know what is ordained by God: He is on their side.

For Christians, the one man and one woman marriage blessed by God is the best scenario for the family and some think it is the only acceptable scenario.   In that setting, people in the family can grow in righteousness and serve the Lord. 

For individuals who want to pursue same-sex relationships and want to have children, their concerns might not even be the pursuit of righteous living and serving God.   Maybe they are just pursuing love, friendship and companionship within a different context.  Are Christians willing to admit that or would we rather judge?

When DeYoung writes “only two persons of the opposite sex can fulfill the procreative purposes of marriage” he is stating what he prefers.  But he is doing more; he is stating what he believes God prefers.  He is trying to mirror the word of God in the Holy Bible.  As Christians we need to be careful not to be overly zealous in our condemnation of others who do not choose to live within the bounds of Christian values, especially when it comes to the pursuit of meaningful relationships.

Marriage has many functions across all kinds of people and just because a Christian pursues marriage in a “faith framework” does not negate the value of marriage for others.  Marriage provides life structure for people [regardless of faith].  Marriage provides sexual gratification for people [in a faith context or out of a faith context].  Marriage can provide a way to divide labor among couples or divide mutual expenses [regardless of faith].   Marriage can be an opportunity to grow together as a couple into maturity, to learn to work as partners in life [regardless of faith].  What many Christians have problems with is admitting that same-sex couples can do all of this and they value the opportunity to do so.  They can love another person sacrificially. They can serve their partner.  They can fulfill their needs for affection and companionship [regardless of faith].

My personal note is that I am troubled by Christians who think that the Christian faith framework is the only way for any relationship to thrive.  In my way of thinking, it is not.  We are discussing personal needs and it does not bode well for Christians to condemn others and put themselves up as self-righteous role models.

Is DeYoung right as he argues that two persons of the opposite sex can fulfill the procreative purposes of marriage? Of course he is right.  Is he wrong if he says that God ordained it this way and other options are wrong?  We can think this, we can believe this, but we must be careful when we say that the standard of procreative ability negates companionship, love and mutual support that all people feel for each other. 

The Christian faith framework is my personal choice for my life and my marriage and I am so happy to be a father of a son by my wife, but I am not going to say that personal private feelings that another person may have for someone else are invalid.  Nor am I willing to say that a relationship is invalid because procreation cannot happen.

This is a different standard from the idea that God created woman as a complement to man (Genesis 2: 18-22).  This is a different standard from the idea that God created man and woman to become “one flesh” in the act of human sex.  This standard presumes that same-sex couples cannot find happiness because procreation must be the purpose of their relationship.

Recently many Christians were saddened by the death of Pat Robertson, a great man of God who was a media mogul, religious broadcaster, political commentator, presidential candidate and Southern Baptist minister.  Robertson did great good in this world in the name of Jesus Christ but at times he also went too far in his expression of ideas.  I recall a time in the 1980’s when he commented that “AIDS is God’s way of weeding His garden.”  I cringed when I heard this, that a major Christian leader could express something so hurtful.

As Christians, we don’t want to be hurtful in the expression of our ideas. 

That can happen when we make broad declarations like the purpose for marriage is procreation.

Last week my post was entitled “Let Us Not Lose Sight” and it was not devoted to commenting on Kevin DeYoung’s book What Does The Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality.  It was devoted to my feelings about how the United Methodist Church has handled the issue of LGBTQ+ participation in that denomination.  It was devoted to my feelings about my specific church having to choose between cultural acceptance of the LGBTQ+ lifestyle and God’s word.  For many, cultural values and Christian values are not compatible.  Before I posted my personal comments, I was working on DeYoung’s five reasons that many Christians are right to think that Genesis 1-2 establishes God’s design for marriage.  I had discussed the idea of male and female complementarity in “Companion, Helper and Second in Line,” that God made woman to help man, to be equal to man, but also man’s opposite [May 27, St. John Studies].  Now it is time to move onto reason number two, “the nature of the one flesh union presupposes two persons of the opposite sex” [DeYoung, 27].

In preparing for this post,  I have been amused by adult writers who struggle to directly address this one flesh issue.  “One flesh” does not have to always refer to sexual intercourse, but in one sense it does.  Like many words, “one flesh” means many things and that it why it is used; it helps with the uncomfortable discussion of a private matter.

Let’s get the uncomfortableness out of the way.  “One flesh” refers to the sexual bond a man and a woman have.  He use of words one flesh “presupposes two persons of an opposite sex.”   What does he really mean?  The biological fit of sex organs emphasizes that marriage is really between a male and female.  The argument here is the male’s penis fits into the female’s vagina, which some would say is an observable fact that God designed man and woman for intercourse.  DeYoung does state this: “The act of sexual intercourse brings a man and a woman together as one relationally and organically. The sameness of the parts in same-sex activity does not allow for the two to become one in the same way.” 

Ok there are those who would say that Jesus never really said anything against homosexuality, but one can point to Matthew 19: 4-6 and say that He had some significant words about marriage.  Let’s look carefully at the Scripture: “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.  So they are no longer two but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”  This is a common Scripture used in many traditional marriage ceremonies and one can say it implies a joining together of male and female in marriage, in relationship and in sexual intimacy.

I get amused by DeYoung writing about sexual contact.  I can tell he is squirming when he writes “Mere physical contact—like holding hands or sticking your finger in someone’s ear—does not unite two people in an organic union, not does it bring them together as a single subject to fulfill a biological function.”  DeYoung seems to be trying to write that physical contact between the sexes cannot bring the same result that sexual union between a man and a woman can, but any honest adult knows that some forms of contact can bring sexual pleasure.

Is it the same kind of pleasure that a husband can enjoy with a wife?  Defenders of traditional marriage would say no, but we have to admit that sexual pleasure is sexual pleasure [I have lapsed into full-on vague language mode]. 

Defenders of traditional marriage would like for all marriage to be the arena where God produces a “higher calling” for two Christians joined together in matrimony.  They can serve Christ together as a unit and raise their children to serve God.  As a couple pursues living for Christ, the joy of the Holy Spirit can fill their marriage. 

Let us not get too naïve about this subject.  Some marriages never fulfill the Godly plan for marriage.  Too often people in marriage fall into the worldly idea that marriage is all about what feels good for me and the idea of pleasing one’s spouse goes away.  What we are talking about is the idea of self-centeredness.  After the honey-moon is over, one spouse can become too focused on self-needs and they forget the idea that meeting the needs of their partner is one of the foundations of marriage.

Some marriages fail because one’s sexual needs become too important and cannot be fulfilled within a marriage.  The Apostle Paul writes about straying outside of marriage in First Corinthians 6: 16: “Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her body? For it is said, ‘The two will become one flesh’”.  This comes right after Paul writes “your bodies are members of Christ Himself.  Shall I take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never!”  In today’s world the temptation is to fulfill sexual needs any way you can; any method is acceptable.  However in God’s word it says “The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife and likewise the wife to her husband.  The wife’s body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband.  In the same way, the husband’s body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife” [First Corinthians 7: 3-4].  Paul write a lot about self-control in these scriptures; when that is lost, Satan will tempt with sexual desires. 

Lest we forget, many, many Christians focus on procreation as the end result of the sexual act in marriage.  The feeling is that offspring from a heterosexual relationship can be the best situation for children.  Stephen Holmes writes in his book Two Views on Homosexuality: The Bible and the Church that “procreation is the proper end of marriage.  A relationship that is not ordered toward procreation may be good and right and holy, but it is not a marriage.”  Same sex couples cannot have children but they can adopt children and some argue that this parenting situation is outside God’s design for marriage.  God’s design is for a married man and woman to be father and mother to a child.

Let me close this  post on the thoughts that even though “traditional marriage Christians” want to see a man and a woman in marriage having heterosexual sex, producing children within the marriage framework, there is a growing acceptance that sexual activity outside God’s design has become common is society today.  Traditional marriage Christians may not approve but they are not willing to turn their backs on people who are what they call “sexually broken.”  There is dogged determination to get the word to the world that Christianity is about forgiveness and wholeness in Jesus Christ.  The ideas of grace, patience and love are available to all those who seek to follow Jesus.

No matter what you have done in the past, it is impossible to rewrite your beginning but it is not impossible to begin to write your ending. 

It can start right now…

With Jesus Christ…

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.