St. John Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DeYoung interprets passages of Scripture as non-affirming; some of the same ones that Gomes felt were open to less negative meanings.  Sodom and Gomorrah is a tale of a city that was destroyed for same-sex practices, whereas Gomes felt that the city’s main problem was pride.  Leviticus includes Scripture that prohibits same-sex intimacy for a good reason.  Sexual activity should lead to procreation and that good reason applies to today’s culture.  New Testament references to same-sex activity are a struggle for DeYoung as he is aware of the practice of pederasty.  Maybe that is what the Apostle Paul is referring to in First Timothy and First Corinthians but DeYoung is just not sure.  He has an extensive analysis of the Greek words arsenokoitai and malakoi meaning “bedders of men” but cannot confirm that those words support the idea that same-sex relationships are acceptable today.  His position is clear: “Paul is saying what the rest of the Bible supports and most of church history has assumed:  homosexual activity is not a blessing to be celebrated and solemnized but a sin to be repented of, forsaken and forgiven” [67]. 

Throughout his book DeYoung is unwilling to budge on his non-affirming stance.  To summarize he believes in “the moral logic of monogamy?”  He means that monogamy makes the best sense for society.  It is preferable to have one man married to one woman.  DeYoung holds the Bible up as a Book which calls Christians to personal holiness.  He fears that affirming same-sex relationships within the church will lead to “liberalized” ideas about other sexual practices that go far beyond the idea of heterosexual monogamy.

Regarding his stance on Scripture, should Christians accept the power of personal experience and the changing tide of cultural values or should they cling to their Bibles?  DeYoung makes it very clear.  He is standing with Scripture.   Affirming same-sex orientation violates the grand narrative of Scripture.  For DeYoung, the “grand narrative” is the story of the Bible: God sends His Holy Son to earth as a Sacrifice for unholy humans so that the power of the Holy Spirit can be felt in believers’ lives.  Those believers can enjoy God on this earth as He helps them live lives dedicated to His righteousness.  Can a homosexual be a Christian?  Can they experience the righteousness that Christ offers?  DeYoung has no qualms about saying no; same-sex intimacy is a sin.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe we aren’t….

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

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

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

“The Challenge…”  I like that subtitle.  Dr. Preston Sprinkle has written one hundred and seventy-five pages on homosexuality and the Christian Church, trying to find “middle ground” between Christians who affirm homosexuals and Christians who do not affirm homosexuals. I have discussed his book as well as books by Peter Gomes and Kevin DeYoung.*  I have tried to learn from these authors and in the process, I have tried to determine how I feel about this topic.  As some know, the United Methodist Church is not “united” anymore, having gone through a schism over this very issue.  My United Methodist congregation has discussed what to do about this issue and the majority of my church has decided to disaffiliate and become “Global Methodist.”**

I have felt a challenge to be a Christian, obey God’s Word and navigate within a culture that is more and more accepting of same-sex relationships.  Preston Sprinkle has struggled also.  He is not willing to say that the active pursuit of same-sex partners is acceptable but he is also not willing to close the doors of the church to people who identify as homosexual.  “As I reflect on my interaction with the Bible and homosexuality, I see several challenges for nonaffirming Christians as we seek to be truthfully loving, and lovingly truthful, toward gay people inside and outside our church communities” [177].

What are those challenges?  How can we meet them?  Here is what he says.

“First of all, cultivate an environment where people who experience same-sex attraction can talk about it.”  This is basic.  How will we ever understand what it is like to be homosexual if we don’t encourage open discussion?  Many Christians may reply to this idea with “I don’t want to hear what those ‘pervs’ have to say.”  There you have it, a closed minded person who will probably never learn anything new on this topic.  Too many churches have what Sprinkle calls a “us” [straight people] versus “them”[gay people] mentality.  People who experience same sex attraction are made to feel gross or ashamed.  There is nowhere in the church for them to talk openly about their struggles.  If that kind of talk was allowed to happen, they would find themselves in a church filled with “cold silence and terrified stares.”  Sprinkle is honest enough as a pastor to admit that churches already have homosexuals within the congregation; they just work hard to stay in the closet so the rest of the “straight” Christians do not know their sexual interests.

“I long for the day when preachers and teachers, deacons and elders, single college students and stay-at-home moms can all talk about their same sex attraction and not be viewed as animals” [178].

Secondly, “listen to the stories of LGBT people.”  As a communications professor I know that one of the most significant things one can do to show love and respect for another is to listen to what they are saying.  Here is what I don’t understand: “I think the fear is that if you listen to someone’s story, it means you agree with all of their decisions and actions in that story” [180].  In other words, if you listen to a homosexual you are affirming their life choices.  We don’t treat other people like that.  Counselors listen to people who need help.  Doctors listen to patients.  Lawyers listen to clients. Friends listen to friends.  None of these listeners agree with everything they hear.  Listening just means that they care enough about the person they are listening to that they are trying to, to try to understand their story.  They respect them.  Yes, they feel called to exhibit the love that Christ encourages us to exhibit.  “To listen is to love, and you can’t deeply love until you listen.”

Next, “put homophobia to death.”  Sprinkle has strong feelings about this; he writes “Stab it. Kill it. And Bury it in a grave.  If it tries to resurrect, step on its head” [181].  Why is this so important?  It should be obvious.  This kind of talk is hateful and if someone identifies as Christian, it should not be coming out of their mouth.  Also never forget that hateful speech hurts all Christians as unbelievers see us using words that hurt others.  Jesus surrounded Himself with sinners; even though people saw that we know that Jesus was not a sinner; He just knew that befriending sinners was a way to help them.  It is called unconditional love.  Jesus cared for people; He did not push them away with hateful language. 

Another idea is learn to “educate others about the complexities of homosexuality.”  This challenge builds on challenge number one and challenge number two.  If people cannot feel comfortable enough to express themselves and if people cannot feel enough respect for others that they are willing to listen, we will never learn about the struggles of being a homosexual in today’s world.  If there is anything I have learned since I began blogging on this topic, the life of a same-sex attracted person is not “one size fits all.”  Sprinkle states that whenever he talks to Christians on this topic it is hard.  Christians are uneasy with these ideas, some even angry.  What he tries to do is humanize homosexuality.  If people are uneasy, it is important to understand what is making them that way, to be open and honest about feelings.  If people are full of anger, they need to know that their anger may be based on a very “thin understanding” of the idea of homosexuality.  The title of his book is People To Be Loved and respect and love for others is what Jesus expects of us.  Sprinkle calls educating others about the complexities of homosexuality a “truth posture”.  It is simple: “listen, attempt to understand, learn the other side and to be connected by God’s Word.”  What are nonaffirming Christians feeling about same-sex attraction?   What assumptions are they making?  “We need to come humbly before God’s authoritative Word and invite the Spirit to show us where we need to be more like Jesus—because with homosexuality, we haven’t been” [182].

I will summarize challenge five and six together because they are strongly related to culture:  “Promote biblical (not cultural) masculinity and femininity” and “we are living in Babylon.”  I live in a small town [population 40,000] in western Kentucky where a large chunk of the local economy revolves around agriculture.  I don’t want to stereotype*** but the large muddy 4×4 pickup truck is a common sight.  There is a strong emphasis on common sense, the ability to fix things, hunting, football and what I call conservative values.  I am trying to express the idea that being a man’s man is valued in this environment.  In American culture today and in the American church today, the “standard” masculine and feminine roles are emphasized so much that any other behavior is ridiculed.  This could lead to a nature versus nurture discussion but let’s not go there [discussed in many other posts].  The main point is that if some artificial standard of gender cannot be met, let’s not chase people away from church because they don’t feel they belong.

Another cultural factor is the current climate of conservatism that views homosexuality through a political lens.  Some only see same-sex attraction as the “gay lobby and legalization of gay marriage.”  What do we need to do to save America?  We need to go back prior to June 2015 and make gay marriage illegal again.  When the Supreme Court decided to legalize gay marriage, that was a “horrible decision”.  Sprinkle has some recommendations for Christians who politicize this issue.  Recognize that Christianity was born in a culture that was much more immoral than America [Roman culture].  Homosexuality is not a sign of the degradation of American society; it is not a threat to American civilization.   Try to overcome this type of thinking.  Stop fighting the culture war.  Gay marriage is legal.  People may be more open and honest about their sexual needs.  “I obviously don’t agree with the morality of their decision [the Court’s].  But I’m sort of thankful that they made it because now the church can stop fighting the culture war and start asking . . .how we can minister to LGBT people?” [185].  Accept the fact that no matter what is going on in American culture, Christians are living in Babylon.  What Sprinkle means is that a secular nation making secular decisions should not be a shock.  We have to live with these decisions but the Supreme Court should not make us hateful.  LGBT people are not an issue to debate or some lobby to vote against.  They are people who need to be treated as people, to borrow Sprinkle’s title “People to be Loved.”

The final challenge for the church is “remember—God is holy.” If there has been anything that Dr. Preston Sprinkle has been consistent with, it has been that homosexuality is not just an issue.  This topic is about people.  He refuses to dehumanize homosexuals.  When he writes on this issue he writes about real people with real stories.  His agony about this issue is my agony.   When a Christian chooses to post something derogatory on Facebook about this issue, I can’t imagine that God is pleased.  When a Christian uses a homophobic slur in discussion with his friends, I can’t imagine that God is pleased.  When a Christian cannot help a homosexual neighbor in a time of need when they are fully capable of help and their excuse is “I don’t help those kinds of people,” I can’t imagine that God is pleased.  I also don’t demonize homosexuals.  I know that God holds me to a higher standard.  Sprinkle seems to agree.  “We serve a Creator who is holy and just, transcendent and near….a God who is sovereign King of the universe, and He creates, cultivates and judges our morality.  And we serve a Savior who suffered—born in a feeding trough and nailed to a tree—and calls us to a life of joy and suffering.”  Does God feel compelled to answer all our questions about the many aspects of life we don’t understand?  I don’t believe He does.  Yet we have so much evidence that God expects us to fulfill His basic expectations.  Do the work He has set before us.  Love [the first fruit] is mandatory.  Love people.  Serve people; that is our purpose.  Have a genuine faith that produces good deeds.  Persevere in life despite the barriers that will come against you and never stop trying to do more and more.  Reach more people as you can.

Will some of those people we reach not be like us?  Sure they won’t be, but they deserve our attention, our attempts at understanding, our respectful listening…they deserve our love.

Like all people, they are People to be Loved.

*Preston Sprinkle, People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue; Peter Gomes, The Good Book; and Kevin DeYoung, What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality?.

**United Methodists have been more or less civilly disagreeing about gay rights since the 1970s, but the issue came to a head in 2019. At a UMC General Conference that year, the theologically conservative camp, aided by socially conservative United Methodists from Africa, outflanked the moderates and liberals and pushed through a resolution affirming existing UMC bans on same-sex weddings and the ordination of “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” as clergy.

Accessed on 2/20/ 2025 From The Week by Peter Weber, January 5, 2023.

*** I’m stereotyping.

Here is the circular argument of nature vs. nurture regarding homosexuality.   “If someone is born gay, then God must have made them that way, and if God made them that way, then being gay must be okay.” [Also known as the argument that “God don’t make junk”].   Let’s complete the circle: “People are not born gay, but choose to be gay.  And since they choose it, God is not responsible for their same-sex orientation.”  In my thinking, both positions result in what my logic professor would call either-or fallacies.  I am born gay: therefore God intends me to be this way.  He made me this way, so He must have had a good reason and I am ok.  The other view put simply is that God does not make gay people.  They are influenced by society or life experience.  They are made homosexual by their environment.  God has nothing to do with this.  Are these views false dichotomies? Either you are gay and ok or you are “straight” and were made to be gay.  You must be one or the other. I am not 100% sure.

Dr. Preston Sprinkle* thinks this is not as clear-cut as people would like to think.  He describes both positions as “overstated.”  It is irritating to many people to admit this, but Sprinkle’s view [based on years of reading research on this topic] is that both nature and nurture play a role in cultivating same sex desires.  This muddies the water and that makes grappling with this issue much more difficult. 

He begins his discussion with the American Psychological Association’s position on this topic and they refuse to take a side in this debate: “it’s unlikely that one’s desires are produced solely by any one biological or societal factor.”  Also abuse is often cited as a root cause of sexual orientation confusion but many LGBTQ+ people have never had that experience and many who have experienced abuse have not had same-sex desires.  Some argue that one’s culture can influence what one prefers sexually.  Sprinkle uses an example of American boys who prefer girls with “big boobs and skinny waists.”  However, in other cultures men are attracted to “heavy-set women” and the size of their breasts is irrelevant.  “Our desires and choices are never independent from our cultural influences—influences that are usually unnoticed.  The lines between our choice, our biology and influences from our culture are often blurred and tough to separate completely.”  We can go on and on with this and Sprinkle admits that.  If a person says “I am gay and ok” and it is either nature or nurture, the evidence is thin for either view [Sprinkle describes the evidence as “scientifically naïve”].

Maybe the best way to look at this is what difference does it really make anyhow?  Let’s start with the biological basis for homosexuality [“God made me this way”].  Having a biological predisposition does not really mean that one has to act on it.  If a person is genetically predisposed to alcoholism that does not give them a license to drink to excess.  If a person is genetically predisposed to violent behavior that does not give them a license to attack others.  Sprinkle compares this to man’s sin nature [original sin that all of us are born with].  If homosexuality is biologically based, then is it ok to act on those desires any more than it is ok to act on other biologically based desire?  Some may object to Sprinkle’s view that same-sex behaviors should be labelled “sin” but he feels this is the proper label for the moral choice that is made. The act of pursuing sex with your same gender has to be a part of this argument.  After all, this is the theological piece that is at the root of this issue.  “Christian theology has always taught that our desires are tainted by sin and are terrible instructors of morality.  The fact that people, even Christians, have same sex desires does not change the ethical question: Is it God’s will to act on those desires?” [133].

Dr. Sprinkle furthers his discussion by explaining the foundational concepts of what it means to be “gay.”  He explains same-sex attraction, same-sex orientation and same-sex behavior. 

“Same-sex attraction refers to an enduring pattern of emotional, romantic, and/or sexual attractions to someone of the same sex and includes other non-sexual relational bonds” [133].  Does it matter if this attraction was produced by nature or nurture?  Are these feelings chosen or created or just felt?  The answer is they are felt, not chosen nor created. 

Same-sex orientation is a “stronger, more fixed attraction.”  A person could feel this attraction but not feel inclined to have sex with another person of their sex.  The last foundational concept is same-sex behavior.  This means acting on one’s same-sex attraction.  Sprinkle writes this includes lustful thoughts [considered sin], and pursuing sex with someone of the same sex. 

What is the point of all this?  Sprinkle is saying that same-sex behavior is a choice and people are supposed to be held responsible for their choices. 

Why define all these foundational concepts?  Because people who are non-affirming lump all people who are gay or lesbian into one hopper.  They are all practicing same sex behavior and therefore they should be condemned.  Sprinkle [who has many “gay” friends] tells of his Christian friend who is attracted to men but has never engaged in sexual behavior.  In fact he believes that same sex behavior is a sin and practices celibacy.  When he “came out” to the elders of his church, he was confronted with being tossed into the “hopper.”  “We can’t approve of your lifestyle” and he replied “Lifestyle?  What lifestyle? My lifestyle is marked by sexual purity.  I have never kissed another person.”  So many non-affirming Christians confuse same sex attraction with same-sex behavior but they are two different things. 

In an earlier post regarding homosexuality and how people react to it, Peter Gomes admits that the stumbling block that gets in the way for most people is “what homosexuals do.”  Non-affirming individuals have a fixation of two people performing “illicit sex”** in their minds and they don’t know that some homosexuals and lesbians do not pursue sex with their own gender.

Why is this so relevant?  No one wants to be misunderstood.  No one wants to be a victim of a stereotype.  No one wants to be charged with something they are not doing.  Sprinkle cites a text a pastor friend of his got from a woman checking out his church.  The text said “Hello, I’m looking for a church that will accept my daughter as a lesbian…If you are that church please let me know, we would love to come to a church where she is not shamed” [135].  How does the pastor respond to this?  Does he/she keep an open mind or does he/she see the word lesbian and automatically assume the daughter is choosing to be involved in same sex behavior?   Would many see that “L” word and fire a text back like “Thank you for your text.  We would love for you to visit our church, but you must know that we do not accept lesbians in our church.”

I know this is such a trite phrase but “what would Jesus do?”  I don’t know.  No one does.  But I suspect that Jesus would look at her as a human rather than as a lesbian, a human who is reaching out to find a church home.  Sprinkle says that inherent in the text is the fact that the mother expects that some churches will shame the daughter, in fact maybe she has already experienced shaming. 

Sprinkle says that realizing the complexity of same-sex individuals is the key to responding properly.  The pastor should know how he/she feels about the nature-nurture issue and the difference between same-sex attraction, same-sex orientation and same-sex behavior.  Then this type of text could possibly be sent:  “Thanks for your text!  I’m very excited that you and your daughter are interested in coming to our church.  Since God accepts all people, even straight people, yes of course, we would accept your daughter.  But I would love to sit down with you and your daughter to hear her story and let her know about our church and the God we worship.  Can I buy you both a coffee?” [137].

*This discussion is based on Chapter 8 of Sprinkle’s book  People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not just an Issue.

** “illicit sex”…I am not sure about how to refer to the sex act between same-gendered people. Illicit sex would be a term that non-affirming people may use to describe that type of sex. My apologies to anyone who would be offended. I know that illicit does sound pejorative.

I am not a pastor.  I have family members who are.  I have close friends who are but I have never personally felt the “call” to enter the ministry.  I know it is a challenging vocation, leading a church, interpreting God’s Scripture for a group of people, setting the tone for worship, inspiring congregational leadership, tending to the sick and infirm etc.  The list goes on and on as pastors find lots of things to do “to lead their flock”. The best word I can use to describe the lifestyle of a pastor is “irregular.”  When a pastor wakes up in the morning and plans the day, the day may not go according to plan as they have to respond spontaneously to the needs of their congregations.  In my opinion however, there are two basic goals for pastors to keep in mind as they practice their vocation; they should be about the business of leading unbelievers to Christ and helping believers to grow in their Christian faith. 

As I promised, in “Part 2” of “Does He Make A Good Argument” I will discuss how a “traditional marriage pastor” [if I can use those words to describe Kevin DeYoung] can uphold the idea of marriage between a man and a woman and still pastor those who do not fit that mold.  In “Part 1” it is pretty clear that DeYoung thinks that same-sex love is sinful.  Of course it is ok for him to make that stand.  He has every right to believe that.  There is Scriptural support for his ideas, but how will he minister to the person who comes to his office and says “I am gay and I believe in Jesus.  Can you help me?”  How can he set aside his staunch views about same-sex behavior in general and help a struggling individual in particular?

How can he “pastor” that kind of person?

Before I address these questions with DeYoung’s words at the end of his book, I want to express my views.  My position is that individuals have responsibility for their own actions.  I am aware of the Scripture that condemns same-sex relationships and I know those scriptures are condemning.  I also know that those Scriptures do not deter some people from loving members of their same sex.  I personally do not think less of people who engage in this behavior but I believe that they should be aware of the serious consequences they will face at the end of their lives.  In short, it is their business what they do in their private lives.  On page 137 of DeYoung’s book, he refers to my stance as the stance of the “Catholic politicians: personally opposed but publicly none of my business.”  This is not DeYoung’s view; he goes way beyond me in being concerned about same sex relationships, to the point that he has a special section at the end of his book on the politics of same-sex marriage [see appendix 1, “What about Same-Sex Marriage”].  DeYoung makes the case that the acceptance of same-sex relationships is harmful for society and should never be normalized.

My position has allowed me to navigate between three pastors who have written books on same-sex relationships in the Christian Church and be as objective as I can be, but I am not a pastor, affirming or disconfirming or occupying the middle ground between those views.

So does DeYoung seem to be able to fulfill his pastoral role for the aforementioned person who comes into his office?  Are there words in his book indicating that he is willing to help those who are attracted to members of their own sex?  There are.  He writes “Every Christian wrestles with thoughts we can’t quite understand and feelings we never wanted.  This is not a homosexual problem; it’s a human problem” [146]. 

Let’s be specific.  DeYoung is aware that his words about the sin of homosexuality can be impactful.  “We will crush the spirits (or worse) of brothers and sisters who experience same-sex attraction through no conscious choice of their own” [146].  In reading his words I feel he would counsel a LGBTQ+ person like he would anyone who is struggling with sin.  We all need grace in our lives; we all fall short of the glory of God.  Someone who is struggling with same-sex attraction may feel like they are indulging in feelings that are inappropriate but they do not need to purge those feelings before they ask for help.  They may have a come as you are attitude.  The change process is the work of The Lord as He heals our brokenness and our pain.  What does He expect of us?  We need to repent of our sin and make an effort to grow in our faith.  “We need someone as gracious as Jesus to tell us the truth: we are not OK.  We need forgiveness.  We need rescue.  We need redemption.  We need truth. We need grace.  We need Jesus” [135].

For the individual who has feelings of attraction for his or her sex, “I’d tell him [or her] that does not make him [or her] a failure, and that the desire to walk in holiness is evidence of the Spirit’s work in his [or her] life” [146].  DeYoung admits that he is not the person he is supposed to be either, but that Jesus is a “sympathetic High Priest” interceding for us.  Jesus knows what it is like to be tempted and knows that God sometimes give us challenges in life to make us grow.  Same-sex attraction is like any other sin, in that it can be a way to bless us and through the process of walking with it, our struggle can bless others.  It is all in how a person handles it.  To overcome same-sex attraction, DeYoung says the key is acknowledgment of sin and expressing a desire to repent.

Here is the problem today:  acknowledgment and repenting.  We live in a culture that is more open to many varieties of sexual expression.  People who are not believers are not concerned about what the Bible says; they are listening to the idea that their desires are ok.  “Be comfortable in your expression.  You are not alone.”  If same-sex individuals are not feeling the need to repent because society says they are ok, then there will be no effort to offer these people help from the “non-affirming church.”  “In the years ahead the church will be forced to think through these issues, think of them often and then act.  The church will have a tremendous opportunity to be slow to speak and quick to listen, to keep our Bibles open and our hearts too, and to speak the truth in love and show truth and grace” [147].

I find it encouraging that DeYoung is not asking Christians to be aggressive with their attitudes toward “changing” same-sex individuals.  He is not promoting LGBTQ+ counseling to change someone’s lifestyle.  I have been around Christians who are hateful in their condemnation of homosexuals.  I am ashamed for the woman who attended my church’s intercessory prayer group chanting the slogan she heard on her conservative news outlet from the Gay Pride March in New York from this past June.  “We’re here, we’re queer and we are coming for your kids” was a slogan that was chanted that day but I don’t believe that slogan in that march represents a wide-spread attitude.  It did spur her on to express hatred in the most inappropriate context. 

As I conclude my comments on DeYoung’s book, I am aware that as Christians we need to be very careful not to be so judgmental that we cross the line into hatred.  We stand no chance of helping anyone if we hate them.  The traditional or conservative church must find a way to walk the line between not accepting same-sex attraction and standing with the Bible without showing hate or fear.  There are increasing numbers of unbelievers in the culture today who are looking for that attitude.  For them, this is just another reason to not be Christian.  “The people of love are exhibiting hate.”  DeYoung expresses his views very well in Appendix 3 of his book as he shows an awareness of the many types of individuals that Christians must address: the cultural elites who despise the church, strugglers who are in anguish about their same sex attraction,  sufferers who have been mistreated by the church,  shaky Christians who are willing to compromise for society’s approval,  those who are living as The Bible says they should live and “belligerent Christians who hate and fear persons who identify as gay or lesbian.”  Instead of lumping all people into one category, he is willing to accept the diverse nature of society today.   

Is he a Pastor who holds conservative Biblical views toward same-sex relationships?  Yes he is. 

Is he a Pastor who will help the person who comes into his office and says “I am gay and I believe in Jesus.  Can you help me?”

I believe he is. 

The message will not be you are fine the way you are. However, he will admit that there is hope.  You can be made new by listening to the Holy Spirit that is within you.  Listen to Him and realize that sometimes new things are found by following the old paths.  DeYoung will offer that and for some it may be what they need.  I find it very telling that he references Jeremiah 6: 16 in his closing words: “Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.”

Those ancient paths are found in the Bible.  Maybe culture has changed but DeYoung believes those ancient paths are still the same.