“On the Side of Angels”

Posted on January 29, 2025 by St. John Studies

For the person who is attracted to their own sex, what does Christian faithfulness look like? 

This question is at the heart of Preston Sprinkle’s writing about homosexuals and the church.  Do they even have a chance to be faithful?

As a straight man raised in the church, I had some pressures.  I was pressured to join the church.  I could have refused baptism but I did not. As a straight man I felt a need to find a girlfriend to date in high school and upon graduation,  I knew I wanted to marry a person of the opposite sex one day.  That was expected of young men in the sixties and seventies in the United States.  I did fall in love and accomplished that goal.  Then my wife and I got subtle suggestions that we should do our part to continue the family by having a child.  We had a boy and named him Scott. 

Following this path, I found that I was accepted in many places; church, school, the workplace, social gatherings etc.  I did not have choices to make that put many limits on my life.  My sexual interests did not hinder my acceptance by others. 

Sprinkle has spent the years of his ministry trying to understand the world of the Christian who is experiencing same-sex attraction.  He knows all about the hard choices they have to make.  Sprinkle does not identify as gay; he identifies as a heterosexual Christian pastor who wants to serve the Lord.  What makes him unique is his dedication to ministering to Christians who are attracted to their same sex.

In Chapter 10 of his book he explores the options that are available.  The questions that a homosexual Christian has are basic:  Where do I go to church?  With my sexual interest, can I serve my God?  Can I have a fulfilled life as a Christian or am I a condemned sinner?

“Imagine that your dreams of getting married and having kids were crushed by the thought that you could never be with the man or woman you desire.  Like waking up from a nightmare, but realizing it wasn’t a dream, gay Christians battle daily with temptations and struggles that most Christians will never experience” [Sprinkle, 157].  Contrast this paragraph to my “straight” paragraph [three] above.  My life took the “acceptable” track.

Needless to say, Sprinkle has known many people over the years who are dear to his heart, people who are attracted to their own sex but also people who love God and want to be in a church.  Over the years of his ministry, he has seen people struggle to find their way in the “straight world.”   How do they attempt to do this?

One option is to gamble on what is called reparative therapy.  This type of therapy is all about counseling gay people into becoming individuals who are willing to renounce their interest in their same sex.  The results of this type of counseling are mixed at best.  A common example can be found in parents who are intent on changing their teenagers into “normal” kids through reparative therapy.   Often the gay teen is not invested in the counseling; the parents want it for their child.  Sprinkle says that any positive results for reparative therapy start with the intent of the client; the person who experiences same-sex attraction must desire the change.  “If someone should seek reparative therapy, they need to be the one who desires it.  Not their friend, not their pastor, and especially not their parents” [161]. The success rate for this type of therapy is not impressive.

A second option is a mixed-orientation marriage.  This type of marriage is a friendship relationship between two people of the opposite sex, but one person in the relationship has same-sex attraction.  When I read about this option, I considered how much a person really feels the need to “fit in” to society.  Mixed orientation couples would rather present themselves as heterosexual when they are not rather than having to deal with non-affirming responses from people in their church, school, workplace and social gatherings.  This is essentially a marriage of convenience.  Sprinkle says that the only way this couple survives is transparency.  The opposite-sex partner needs to be open about their struggles and fears in the marriage and the same-sex partner should not feel any outside pressure to pursue this type of arrangement.  The only way this will work [and it can] is that both people really must want this.

The last option is celibacy.  For many gay people this is how they fit into the church.  They have same-sex desires but they don’t act on them.  Reverend Peter Gomes [one of the authors I have commented upon] practiced celibacy and he pastored the Memorial Church at Harvard.  This arrangement has come under attack from affirming people and non-affirming people.  Affirming people say this kind of life is “dehumanizing,” that people who are attracted to their own sex should be free to pursue a sexual relationship.  They think celibates are forcing themselves to live like this and they are only doing this because conservatives demand it.  Non-affirming people are not satisfied because they don’t trust celibates.  Not acting on sexual desire is not enough for them; they feel that the gay person must be totally devoid of same-sex attraction.

In reading Sprinkle’s chapter on the options that a same-sex Christian has, they are certainly more complex than my choices in paragraph three.  Sprinkle spends a lot of time on celibacy, much more than option one and option two.  Celibacy means that the gay person has to live the life of a single person.  Sprinkle comments on what we all know about church: “The church does not know what to do with singles.”  Most Christians think that being single is just a short period before a person finds their “true love” and enters a marriage relationship.  Most Christians think that marriage leads to parenthood.  Therefore the church tends to say to singles that something is wrong if you don’t get married and have kids.

Is the church doing anything to address this problem?  Most churches do not have a vibrant singles group.  And statistically, single people are the group that is least likely to attend church, be involved with a small group or volunteer at church events.  Married people lead the way in all three of those commitments.  Of course, married people feel welcomed at Christian churches.

I am close to the end of this blog post and I don’t think I have a solution to the problems of the gay Christian.  Where do they go for their worship experience?  Where can they belong?  Can they even be gay and be Christian?  Let’s be honest.  Some “straight” Christians think a gay person cannot be Christian, but I know some who feel they are and certainly Preston Sprinkle knows many who feel they are.  I have a friend who is a pastor and he had a celibate family member who was attracted to the opposite sex and he navigated through life as a single, gay man who belonged to a church and believed in our Lord and Savior.  Was this life easy?  I can imagine it was not.

Do we turn to Sprinkle for the solution?  As he ends his chapter on this topic I don’t see any.  He says “I don’t buy the unchristian notion that denying gay people a same-sex spouse is tantamount to denying them a fulfilled life” [174].  Also he thinks it is a “modern American evangelical lie” that one has to have a marital spouse to find happiness.  That arrangement is the only way that a Christian can feel “called” and experience true fulfillment as a human being.

Then Sprinkle writes this statement that will be upsetting to conservative, non-affirming Christians: “None of this is based on a Christian worldview.”  The Christian world view “finds its meaning in a single [emphasis mine] Savior who was spat upon, mocked, tortured and killed, yet ‘for the joy set before him’ endured the misery of the cross in order to  taste the delights of resurrection life” [175].  Jesus never promised an easy life for any of us, but He did promise that every “spark of loneliness, tinge of pain, every dull ache of depression, every chill of isolation, will be redeemed when Jesus returns to restore His creation and reward the righteous with eternal life” [175].  

When will we know if that same-sex Christians are acceptable to God?  When Jesus returns.  Then and only then will we know if a gay person can be a faithful follower of the Son and the Father.  Then and only then will we know who will be on “the side of the angels.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Gay and Christian: Can Someone Be Both? Labelling Sins in a Black and White World

Posted on January 20, 2025 by St. John Studies

There are many tough questions regarding the issue of homosexuality and the Christian church.  Since I began a discussion of this topic on February 2, 2023, I am sure I have touched on many of those questions.  While working on this project, I have consulted three authors expressing three different views with one author affirming homosexual participation in the church, one author not affirming homosexual participation in the church and Preston Sprinkle.*   Sprinkle seeks to find middle ground on this issue.  As he concludes his book [and I conclude my study of these three authors], he has a chapter that I have commented on: the controversial idea “Does God Make People Gay?” [see posts on November 20 and December 30].   Now let’s try to tackle the chapter entitled “Gay and Christian: Can Someone Be Both?” 

Let’s be honest.  Many non-affirming Christians may have heard that some gay people claim Christianity as their faith.  That is a problem for them: if a person is gay, they just can’t be Christian.  Let’s be brutally honest.  They think they are sinners and are not “qualified.”  Affirming Christians don’t have a problem with gay people claiming they have faith in God; they have an accepting attitude.  Gay people can be Christian.  The fact that they look at the world a different way is not a problem because God values diversity and there are all sorts of identities that are good , reflecting God’s colorful image. 

Sprinkle looks at this from many different angles, but overall, I like his emphasis on labels.  We live in a world where people are increasingly irresponsible in their use of words.  Sprinkle says “When we use language, we need to consider not just what we mean by our words, but how those words will be understood in the ears of others….we need to be sensitive to our audience when we use certain terms—especially terms that mean different things to different people” [142-43].   Today, too many people in our social media world don’t have Sprinkle’s attitude.

I began this blog post with the term homosexual.  I switched to the word “gay” because Sprinkle’s chapter is entitled “Gay and Christian.”  Since I began this study on February 2, 2023, I have been very concerned that I would use improper language to refer to same-sex attracted people.  I felt I should be concerned.  I don’t want to offend.

I am a “straight” man.  That means I am attracted to the opposite sex.  Being heterosexual does not mean that I am only attracted to my wife, but being married means that I don’t want to have sex with lots of women.  I am in love with her and (should only) sexually desire my wife.   It is the way I look at the world.  My wife is also heterosexual and we have had many discussions since I began writing on this topic.  She views this topic from a female heterosexual point of view. 

Of course this is not how same-sex, gay, homosexual people see the world.  First of all, I have learned that many heterosexual non-affirming Christians focus on the homosexual sex act in condemning gay people, but same-sex orientation is not just about sex. Peter Gomes [the affirming author I used for this study] admitted publicly that he was gay but he also stated that he was celibate.  Judgmental, heterosexual Christians often think that a same-sex orientation means that  kind of person spends a lot of time actively desiring and having homosexual sex.  “Being gay doesn’t mean you walk around wanting to have lots of gay sex any more than being straight means you walk around wanting to have lots of straight sex” [Sprinkle, 146].  Are these judgmental, heterosexual Christians too focused on the gay sex act?  Sprinkle cites a lesbian friend who says “I just long for intimacy, a desire for nearness, for partnership, for close friendship, rich conversation and an overall appreciation for beauty.  Over the course of 10,080 minutes that go by in a given week, very few of those minutes (if any at all) are likely comprised of sexual thoughts about othr women” [Julie Rogers, cited in Sprinkle 147].

What happens to many Christians who consider a same-sex individual?  Instead of getting to know people as people, they “stuff you in a box and strap it with a label” and if that label is gay they are very quick to say your behavior is sinful.

There is a part of me that understands the inability to relate to a person who is attracted to their own sex, but there is also a part of me who is offended by Christians who are quick to label homosexuals as sinners.  Those same people may use their money in a greedy way, never helping those with great needs, only focusing on hoarding more funds.  They may go on Facebook and use horrible language to hurt others who don’t measure up to their “high” standards.  Maybe they cheat on their taxes or look at pornography even though they are married.  Too often Christians love to single out certain sins that are just not acceptable and they ignore others they deem acceptable.  This type of behavior is akin to the behavior that the Pharisees exhibited in Jesus’ day.  We all know how Jesus felt about them.

I find it interesting that Sprinkle castigates these people, yet he does not totally accept all gay Christians.  Of course he can accept gay people who are attracted to their own sex but they have not acted on their desires.  He also struggles with gay people who honestly love God: “gay Christians…experience a stronger realization that one’s primary familial identity is in the church and not in one’s nuclear family.”  Their orientation is very much akin to mine as I put my God Father above my earthly father and my brothers and sisters in Christ are my church family.   Jesus states “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”  Sprinkle says gay Christians that he has met really understand this.  Sprinkle refuses to condemn this kind of person.

Remember, Sprinkle seeks middle ground and in a world that likes to see the world as black and white.   Many think there is not such place as “the middle ground”.  As I began this post, I stated that some think if you are gay you can’t be a Christian.  If you are a heterosexual you can be.  Sprinkle likes to suspend judgement and get to know people before he labels them.  Then as a pastor he tries to decide if a person’s sin is “morally culpable.”   He states “a morally culpable sin is a concrete act of disobedience that people need to repent from” [144].  He is not quick to say same-sex orientation is a morally culpable sin.  If same sex lust is acted on, that is different from other same-sex orientations.  He uses himself as an example.  “Whether I am sleeping or awake, studying or at the beach, I never cease to be heterosexual.  I am attracted to females; that is my orientation.  That doesn’t mean I am slobbering around 24/7 wanting to ‘have sex’ [my words] with every female I see.  That would be lust, not attraction” 145.  In his study of this issue, it is the actions that are morally culpable and some actions are more acceptable and some actions are less acceptable.  This is not a black or white position on this issue. 

Sprinkle feels that passages in Scripture [eg. Romans 1] condemn specific sins but Paul doesn’t label a person as “sinner” and insist they be thrown out of the church.  He comments on 1 Corinthians 5 when the church at Corinth did not act on a sin that should have been addressed [an incestuous affair between a son and his stepmother].  The people involved did not repent and the church did not take action.  Paul writes “Expel the wicked person from among you” [1 Cor. 5: 12].

Does this same command apply to gay people in the church?  Some Christians say yes while others say no.  I can imagine a non-affirming Christian reading this post and citing Matthew 5: 37:  “Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.”  I wonder if it is that simple.  Sprinkle closes his chapter nine with these words: it is “unloving…to cherry-pick verses from the Bible that feel right to us and ignore the rest that don’t feel loving to us….If we are the ultimate judges of what is right and wrong and if we think we have a better, more updated understanding of what love is, then we are doing nothing more than replicating the sin of Eden and becoming our own moral authority—determining what is right and wrong” [Sprinkle 155].

To those who would be quick to condemn gay Christians and insist they be prohibited from worship let us turn once again to 1 Cor. 5: 2 and see that Paul says “The perpetually unrepentant greedy, revilers, drunks and sexually immoral who claim to be a Jesus-follower,” let us not turn a blind eye to their sin: “put [them] out of your fellowship.”

Maybe we need to be consistent and not single out certain sins.  Maybe the world is not as black and white as we think

 *People To Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Look To The Story Beneath The Waters

Posted on December 30, 2024 by St. John Studies

On November 20, 2024, I wrote a post entitled “It Is Just Not That Simple.”   In that post I commented on much of the debate regarding the nature vs nurture issue* and homosexuality.  The nature vs nurture debate fuels a lot of the attitudes that people have toward homosexuality and the church.  In that post, I referred to the nature vs nurture discussion as a “circular argument,” trying to explain that the “debate” goes around and around in circles, really getting nowhere.  One can leave the discussion there and just allow people to have their own opinions but if those opinions are “stuck” and based on pure lack of knowledge, that is a shame.  What we can do to work toward some solution is to read Sprinkle’s advice in Chapter 8.  I don’t do this often but I want to get personal in my comments about what Sprinkle is saying in “Born This Way: Does God Make People Gay.”

I don’t often reference my background but I will in this case because I have a level of expertise in a related subject matter.   I have a Ph.D. in interpersonal communication from the University of Kentucky.  Interpersonal communication study can be defined simply as the study of how two people can share their life experiences through the exchange of messages.  They can share to the point that they have a degree of commonality.  They can share to the point they feel that they have relational knowledge.

You might be asking how does this intersect the nature vs nurture issue regarding homosexuality and what is the solution that Sprinkle proposes?  I think that Sprinkle is trying to tell us in Chapter 8 that making the effort to understand others through effective interpersonal communication is the key to making progress with this endless debate [i.e. sharing experiences through the exchange of messages].

At the risk of being too simple, I will explain how people communicate. 

Like Sprinkle, I believe that there is a lot of complexity inherent in the communication process as one person shares their perception of the world with another.  Simply put, that is what happens when communication occurs.  I share how I see the world with another person who has a differing perception.  Communication occurs when they share in return.  Eventually we may begin to understand each other’s perceptions.

Don’t get me wrong; differing perceptions are ok.  There are so many factors that come into play that make us individuals, that make us have differing perceptions.  Here is a very partial list: gender, age, occupation, individual interests, cultural background etc.  The list can go on forever as each of us considers all the factors that make us unique.  It is ok to celebrate uniqueness but let us not forget that the goal of interpersonal communication is sharing experiences through the exchange of messages.   When I communicate with someone I want to understand them as a person.  I want to find some way to connect my life experience [my perceptions] with theirs and then I can begin to  know them as a person.

Let’s not spend much time bemoaning the current state of interpersonal communication today [the speed of life, the need for expression (and not making an attempt at understanding others), the search for simplicity, the lack of interest in expanding our understanding of others].  All of these factors (and many more) work against sharing experiences with other human beings. 

It takes time to speak and then to listen [really listen].  Efficient expression is not the ultimate goal; the ultimate goal is understanding.  Simple opinions about others can destroy relationships because those simple opinions can be based on all types of biases, incorrect attributions and just plain stereotypes [stereotypes can kill interpersonal communication].   Lack of interest in understanding others is also a major problem because that shows a lack of need for learning.  The more you share experiences, the more you learn.  Someone who wants to communicate with others has a deep-seated interest in learning from others.

Today there is a great confusion about tolerance.  Some dismiss tolerance as an erosion of standards.  In some Christian circles, the attitude toward tolerance is akin to an “anything goes” attitude about human behavior.  If tolerance is allowed, sin will soon follow.  Maybe it is unusual, but I have never seen tolerance that way.  Early in my career, I was profoundly influenced by a quote by a communication scholar named William Prather.  I used to share the quote with my interpersonal communication students: “I don’t see the world the way you see the world, but that is ok; you are not me and that is ok.”  For me, that is tolerance based on reality, the reality that people are unique individuals who must share their experience in order to understand others.  We cannot construct a world where we are all alike; it does not exist.  The best we can do is try to take what we think the world is like and share that with others and let them share their ideas about the world with us.  Let me add, that It is best to realize that the sharing process is talking and listening, not just talking.  Take the time to process meanings coming from others [of course, we must be quiet and concerned about understanding the positions of others to do that].

What is the point of all this?

The point is that given the complexity of the issue of homosexuality and Christianity we must be good interpersonal communicators or we will never understand people who have views that are different from  our own.

There are many metaphors that one can apply to the “circular argument” of whether a homosexual should be affirmed or not be affirmed by the church, but Sprinkle chooses the metaphor of an iceberg.  When someone learns of a person who has same-sex interest and wants to join the church, how do they handle it?  Do they “look to the story lying beneath the waters” or do they just see the tip of the iceberg and come to a quick conclusion about the person involved?  Too often it is the latter.

He advises making time to meet with the individual.  He advises listening, 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].

You acknowledge that “People don’t just wake up one day and say ‘I think I’m going to be gay’” [139].  It is a process that occurs over time, a conglomeration of a massive number of experiences that result in a view of the world that may indeed be different from your own.  Yes it is not simply nature or simply nurture.  What we are saying is that we have to add another differing perception to the partial list I cited above: sexual orientation.  That differing perception is at the heart of the circular argument of nature vs. nurture.  That differing perception is at the heart of a Christian’s ability to affirm or not to affirm a homosexual person who wants to belong to the church.   

The way to deal with this is to communicate, to share experiences.  Sprinkle calls his brand of interpersonal communication “You confront with the otherworldly love of Christ, which is far superior and way more humanizing than any other love you will find in the world” [139].

“People will gravitate to where they are loved the most.  And if the world out-loves the church, then we have implicitly nudged our children away from the loving arms of Christ” [139].

As Christians we can go around and around in circles on this issue or we can take a side and say awful things about the “other side” but I don’t think that those approaches solve anything.  To get somewhere with this issue we must take action.

We must learn to share our experiences and encourage others to share their experiences.

We must strive to understand others.

We must speak and we must listen.

*Comments on Chapter 8 of People to Be Loved  “Born This Way” by Dr. Preston Sprinkle, the author of the book People to Be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What is an interlude?

Posted on December 17, 2024 by St. John Studies

What is an interlude? 

Some define it as an “intervening period of time” or “something done during an interval.”  I would call it a recess, a pause, a respite or a halt.  In Preston Sprinkle’s book People to be Loved:  Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue, he has a section titled “Interlude” that occurs before his final three chapters and his afterword. 

Sprinkle is getting to the point in his book where he is summarizing why homosexuals deserve to be loved as people, not scorned because they are “merciless sinners”. 

As a writer, commenting on what are called “affirming positions” regarding homosexuality and the church, I have tried to explain all the reasons why Christians should accept homosexuals in the church without reservations.*  As a writer commenting on what are called “non-affirming positions” regarding homosexuality and the church I have tried to explain all the reasons why Christians should not accept homosexuals in the church.** As I get near the end of my comments on these positions and conclude with an author who tries to bridge the gap between affirming and non-affirming, maybe I need an interlude too.

Sprinkle begins his “Interlude” with his damnation of people who misuse wealth.  That’s unusual because I thought his topic was homosexuality but he is trying to make a point.  The Bible has lots to say about the role of wealth in the Christian’s life but it has a lot less to say about homosexuality.  Yet today the “sins” of the LGBTQ+ community are at the forefront as we turn our heads away from considering other sins [e.g. misuse of wealth].  “When overfed and overpaid straight Christians condemn gay people while they neglect the poor, stockpile wealth, and indulge in luxurious living, they stand on the wrong side of Jesus’s debates with the Pharisees…let’s make sure we are on the hunt to slaughter all types of sins, especially those in our own lives” [121]. 

He begins his “Interlude” with a challenge akin to the Matthew 7: 3-5; should we attend to the speck in someone else’s eye while ignoring the larger issue in your own?  Let us not be hypocrites.

He then summarizes the arguments for the non-affirming position, from Genesis and Eve’s female nature being a prerequisite for her marriage to Adam to the more technical discussion of malakoi and arsenokoites [see St. John Studies, November 3, 2024].  There are eight arguments in all that he mentioned.  Not only has he discussed these positions but Kevin DeYoung has also spent time on them.  He adds a ninth argument that has not been previously mentioned but it is very important.  “For two thousand years, orthodox Christianity has believed that marriage is between a man and a woman and that such sexual difference is necessary” [123].  Sprinkle is not opposed to overturning tradition but he states “it would take a rather earth-shattering series of arguments to overturn such well-established tradition” [123].

Have there been “earth shattering arguments” to overturn the traditional view?  Non-affirming Christians don’t even want to acknowledge the strength of affirming arguments but not to do this is “intellectually naïve and biblically anemic.”

Sprinkle lists three.  First when the Bible lays out a position on heterosexual marriage, it does not even mention homosexual relations.  Maybe that means that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman but maybe not.  Sprinkle acknowledges that this Scripture needs to be used “with caution” before it becomes a foundation for Christians who are non-affirming.

Secondly, Paul’s comments in Romans 1 are using big ideas and broad concepts.  Do his condemning thoughts about excessive lust apply to all same-sex relations?  Maybe, maybe not.  Too often non-affirming Christians cite Romans 1 and think Paul’s language is clear when it is not. 

Lastly, same-sex relations did exist in the time of Jesus Christ but Jesus did not comment directly on this behavior.  Maybe Jesus did not feel compelled to comment and after all, history tells us that same-sex behavior in Jesus’ time was “extramarital, exploitative, pederastic or exhibited unhealthy power differences that are deemed immoral by all Christians today” [124].  Affirming Christians find themselves arguing today for the opposite of the same-sex behavior in Jesus’ day:  consensual, monogamous, same-sex unions.

Non-affirming Christians find themselves having to examine arguments they would rather ignore.  That is evident in the ways some non-affirming Christians describe the opposing views.  “Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve” is a poor response to affirming arguments.  “Gay pride is why Sodom fried” is insulting.  Comments like that seem to say that non-affirming Christians could care less about what the Bible really says.  They would rather cast aspersions and say they won the argument.

Finally, the way Jesus behaved is the biggest stumbling block to non-affirming Christians.  Jesus provided a role model of acceptance for all people.  He did not open discussion with people by pointing out their sin; he accepted them and worked to get them to come to the conclusion that there was a better way.  Sprinkle writes of Jesus that He certainly desired for people to live holy lives but He began His relationships with others with love rather than condemnation.

After Sprinkle’s “Interlude” he is ready to conclude his book with three chapters addressing key ideas about homosexuality and the church.  Does God make people gay?  Can a person be gay and Christian at the same time?  With this affirming, non-affirming argument as a background, what does Christian faithfulness look like today? 

Sprinkle is a Bible scholar and pastor.  He admits he is not an expert on all the different fields of study that would help him understand homosexuality but like me and maybe you, he is searching for answers.  He knows that Jesus exhibited love in His life on earth and today, too many Christians fall short in their love for the LGBTQ+ community.  That’s why he titles his book People to Be Loved.  He knows it is “not just an issue.”

*Peter Gomes,  The Good Book

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

It Is Just Not That Simple…

Posted on November 20, 2024 by St. John Studies

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Malakoi and Arsenokoites

Posted on November 3, 2024 by St. John Studies

Here is a very familiar lament: why don’t Christians read their Bibles more?  The excuses are so numerous: the language is too hard, The Book is too old and not relevant today, I’m too busy, I can’t get my mind to focus because there are too many distractions; there is no value there for me.  We could go on and on.  This is not a lament but is it a concern:  when Christians read their Bible, do they pay any attention to the translation they are reading?  Are they just reading what is handy? The original languages of the Bible are Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.  I have encountered American Christians who think the original language was English.  I have encountered American Christians who think that “The Bible” was the King James version which was printed in 1611.  I say all this, not to ridicule Christians but to point out that the focus of most Christians is not the language of Scripture, the actual words of the Bible, but should that be our focus?  I think so.  It matters which translation you read.  It matters because the words we read are the bedrock of what we believe.

I have reached the point in my discussion of the role of homosexuality in the church where I seek to “bridge the divide.”  I have presented the affirming view with Pastor Peter Gomes.  I have presented the nonaffirming view with Pastor Kevin DeYoung.  Now I will begin to finish my discussion of the role of homosexuals in the church with a man who tries to find common ground between opposing views: Dr. Preston Sprinkle*. 

Sprinkle is very concerned with Bible reading.  He knows that our Bibles should inform us about how to feel about this issue.  He knows that the translation we read will alter how we feel about this issue.  He also knows that the meanings of individual words will shape how we feel about this issue.

Yes, individual words. 

Too many Christians make up their minds about affirming or nonaffirming homosexuals in the church based on personal experience, media exposure or countless other non-Biblical influences.  If a Christian does read the Bible, they may pay little attention to the history of the translation they are reading.  Sprinkle explains that some translations just don’t accurately reflect the meaning of original Scripture.  “Translations have life implications…[a case in point the NIV** that translated arsenokoites as ‘homosexual offenders’ (1984 version].  What does that word offender mean?  Who has been offended?  What law has been broken?  Is a neighbor offended? God? straight people?”  The problem is the use of imprecise words.  Imagine how a homosexual would feel when they are referred to as an offender in the 1984 NIV.

Sprinkle addresses the issue of words in the Bible directly.  In fact, he says get ready, we are going to go deep.  “Perch up in your chair, roll up your sleeves and turn you phone off for a couple hours to study two words.”  Yes, he wants to focus on two words which have caused more discussion than any other words in the Bible on this issue, the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoites. 

Sprinkle is a graduate of Aberdeen University in Scotland, receiving a Ph.D. in New Testament theology and co-founder and president of The Center for Faith, Sexuality and Gender.  He has done extensive research in Scripture related to same-sex relationships and is an expert on the study of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew languages.  He sees the meaning of malakoi and aresnokoites as key elements in the understanding of this issue. 

Sprinkle focuses on the use of these two words in the New Testament and in particular Scripture from First Corinthians 6 and First Timothy 1:10, both Scriptures penned by the Apostle Paul.  Of course affirming scholars do not think malakoi and arsenkoites refer to homosexual intercourse.  They say that both terms refer to exploitative sex such as male prostitution or pederasty [economic exploitation].  Nonaffirming scholars say the terms refer to homosexual intercourse.

At the risk of getting “too deep into the weeds,” I will attempt to summarize some of Sprinkle’s points about malakoi.  Original use of this Greek word refers to something soft or delicate but in First Corinthians the word describes a person.  In the context of Paul’s comments, he is addressing sexual immorality, idolatry, adulterers, thieves etc.    It is highly unlikely that he is writing about something like soft clothing.  Sprinkle’s research takes him to sources outside the Bible so he can determine the cultural climate and common word use in the First Century.  Other authors use malakoi to describe men who want to be women, men who castrate themselves to “make” themselves feminine, and the passive partner in homosexual intercourse.  In short, there is enough evidence in the language use of the time for someone to surmise that malakoi refers to something more than economic exploitation of individuals in prostitution and pederasty.  

When Sprinkle turns to arsenokoites, it is interesting that the idea of sexual sin in malakoi depends on the meaning of arsenokoites.  Scholars differ widely on what this word means since in Paul’s writing this is the first time it occurs in ancient Greek literature.  The word is a compound word made up of two Greek word: arsen and koite.  Koite means bed or used as a verb it means “to sleep with” in a sexual sense.  Arsen means men.  Literally the word means a man who sleeps with other men.  Again Sprinkle turns to other uses and for this word he focuses on Old Testament use.  In Leviticus the relevant Greek words are kai meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten gunaikeian [“you shall not lie with a male as with the lying of a woman”].   It does not take an expert in Greek to see that there is a strong resemblance to arsenokoites.  Sprinkle comments that affirming scholars seem to give this similarity very little attention [which is problematic for their case].  In later Jewish literature the word is rarely used and since Paul knows Hebrew and Greek and is trying to spread Christianity to both Jew and Gentile, maybe he had to invent a new word.  Hebrew has a word [mishkab zakur] which refers to prohibited same-sex relations.  Sprinkle examines later Christian literature and there the word has more use.  Perhaps Paul’s invented word caught on as several First Century Christian authors define homosexual activity as sin [e.g. Bardaisan, Origen etc.].  In the summary of this section of his book, Sprinkle reasons that Paul uses malokoi right before arsenokoites which gives credence to the idea that he is indeed referring to men having sex with men.  Other scholars say this is pederasty but there were already words for that and the question is, why did Paul not use those words?  Why did he have to come up with new terms?

Paul uses arsenokoites one other time in First Timothy [1:10].  In First Timothy he proposes a list of vices and arsenokoites is in the list of sexually immoral acts.  One might argue that this could refer to adultery but based on his previous use of the word, it may mean that Christians should not be involved with same-sex activity.  Sprinkle admits “It’s impossible to jump inside Paul’s head to be sure.”

After this etymology, how do the words malakos and arsenokoites get translated in the Bible?  To use a common analogy, that is “where the rubber meets the road.”  Sprinkle highlights what he calls the destructive nature of Scripture.  Some translations [NASB] use the words as a reference to effeminate males, regardless of whether they are having sex with other males.  The King James Version refers to these words as “abusers of themselves with mankind.”  The Message (which is a paraphrase) labels same-sex individuals as those who “abuse each other, use and abuse sex, use and abuse the earth and everything in it.”  This is a very serious charge to bring to a group of people.  Is it any wonder that same-sex individuals have suffered abuse from people who are quick to take Scriptural references like this and use damaging hurtful words to describe them. 

After discussing two words in such detail,*** it is clear that the basic references to same-sex activity found in the Bible are not clear at all and translations of the words malakoi and arsenokoites vary according to the translation that is read.  With this as a background, Sprinkle has to address this fundamental question: “Are all gay people going to hell?”  A second question he has to address is very important: “So what do the words of the Bible say?”

Christians have come to conclusions about the role of same-sex individuals in the church.  What are they basing their conclusions on?  Are they accurate in their ideas or do they just have an obscure set of feelings based on personal experience, media exposure or countless other non-Biblical sources.

Dr. Sprinkle who fancies himself an expert will address all of this in a section of his book called “Interlude.” This is a person who is trying to find common ground between affirming same-sex activity in the church and nonaffirming same-sex activity in the church.

Will he succeed?

*author of People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is not Just an Issue

**The NIV refers to the New International Version translation of the Bible.  

***I have not been as detailed as Dr. Sprinkle.  I would encourage you to study pages 103-120, Chapter 7, “Lost in Translation” for more specifics.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Does He Make A Good Argument? Part 2

Posted on October 24, 2024 by St. John Studies

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.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Does He Make A Good Argument? Part 1

Posted on October 15, 2024 by St. John Studies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Answering Objections: “The God I Worship is the God of Love”

Posted on September 19, 2024 by St. John Studies

Chapter 12 of Kevin DeYoung’s book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality deals with the “feeling” element of the discussion of homosexuality’s role in the Christian church.  He admits that this issue is not going away.  I agree. The United Methodist Church has already lost twenty-three percent of its congregations over this issue [GBH Website accessed on 9/18/2024].  “The issues are too massive, the stakes too high, the feelings too intense for all of this to slip silently into the night” [125].  The GBH website describes the debate as “ongoing.”  Last night I attended a meeting at my church and I heard about a church [rumor?*] that faced this issue long after the spring 2024 deadline to disaffiliate set by the United Methodist Church.  They did not openly discuss this issue in time to disaffiliate but when eventually confronting it, a church of one-hundred and seventy members suddenly became a church of seventy as one-hundred walked out the door.  Yes, I would say that this is a sign of an ongoing debate. 

DeYoung entitles Chapter 12 “The God I Worship is a God of Love.”  That seems to be the feeling that is expressed most often when affirming** Christians express their support of same-sex marriage in the church and LGBTQ people in church leadership.  In my church, we had a very open discussion of this issue and [as I have said before] people who affirm like to say things like my gay friends are the best people in the world and I hate it that they will not be able to worship here if we disaffiliate or I love my family member(s) and he/she/they are gay and I hate it that they will not be able to worship here if we disaffiliate.  I don’t know that any person has ever said that anyone who is homosexual cannot attend church, but that is the “feeling” expressed.

DeYoung knows these feelings exist and they drive some people away from the church but when someone says “the God I worship is a God of love” what does that really mean?  He refers to the doctrine of divine simplicity.  This doctrine makes it sound like God is simple, slow or dim-witted.   No, this doctrine refers to the idea that God is not made up of His attributes, He His attributes.  God is good, merciful, just, and powerful.  Yes, also God is love.  But the fact that God is love does not make Him more love than any other thing.  Often in expressing dissatisfaction over the lack of affirmation for homosexuals in the church, people will say “my God is a God of love.”

DeYoung would counter with the statement that this is true.  God is love but God also is a standard bearer for correct interpretation of Scripture. The Bible has many examples of culture’s impact on Israel [Old Testament] and Christianity [New Testament].  DeYoung turns to Revelation and the letters to the seven churches.  John the Elder is wrote his evaluation of the Christians in these churches and he found serious fault with the church at Thyatira.   The church at Thyatira was a “caring church, a sacrificial church, a loving church” but it also tolerated a church leader named Jezebel.  The problem with this woman was that she was as false prophet, leading church members into adultery and idolatry.  Jesus speaks of this woman as someone who is too attuned to cultural popularity.  To support her is the easy thing because she advocated the “easy way” to be a Christian.  Her followers believed they could participate in pagan rituals and still consider themselves faithful.  DeYoung states that her view was positive not only toward idolatry but also toward “sexual revelry,” a normal part of the Greco-Roman world.  To stand against such practices would endanger a person’s social and economic status within the community.  Make no mistake, this is “compromised Christianity.”

DeYoung states “Show Me The [Biblical] Text” that supports this type of Christianity.    He admits that feelings are important and people have serious feelings about what we should tolerate and what we should not.  “But …a rant is not an idea, and feeling hurt is not an argument.  To be sure, how we make each other feel is not unimportant, but in our age of perpetual outrage, we must make clear that offendedness is not proof of the coherence or plausibility of any argument.  Now is not the time for fuzzy thinking…. Now is not the time to let moods substitute for logic….We cannot chart our ethical course by what feels better”[126].

We cannot keep our Bibles closed. 

When my church was confronting these issues head-on and affirming people were standing up and signaling their future exit from the church with statements about their God being a God of love, I wish we had flashed the pertinent Scripture onto the big screens at the front of the church.  We did not do that.  It was emotional to hear them postulate that their friends and family members would be denied worship if their church disaffiliated from the United Methodist Church.  I wish we had confronted the Scriptures and asked what do these words say?  How do we respond to God’s admonition to avoid homosexual practice?  I wish we had opened our Bibles.

DeYoung writes that the God he worships is the God of love, but that does not mean that today’s culture defines what love means.  God’s love is not a sexual compromise for DeYoung.  God’s love is much more than that.

God’s love is the love that He expressed when He sent His Son to be the “propitiation” for our sins, our substitute on the cross.  Love is what we do when we keep God’s commands.  Love is sharing with our brothers and sisters in need. Love is also disciplining the wayward sinner and chastising the rebellious saint, but also love is throwing your arms around the prodigal son when he comes home.

After all this, DeYoung is not willing to go further by accepting the cultural definition of love.  “The God we worship is indeed a God of love.  Which does not, according to any verse in the Bible make sexual sin acceptable”[127].

Sexual sin is a problem and DeYoung will not turn a blind-eye to it. Of course when he uses the terms “sexual sin” he refers to many forms of sexual sin [including homosexuality].

Like all sin, the person who commits sexual sin is not condemned.  Our God of love believes that the sinner can change, the sinner can be redeemed and the sinner can be forgiven.  But tolerance is not the way to bring this about.  Giving into the popularity of the cultural worldview is not the way to bring this about.  Throughout the Bible there are thousands of verses stating that our God of love can take care of this situation. 

All one needs to do is repent.

*I was not able to confirm this event.

**An “affirming” Christian is in support of LGBTQ+ participation in the church.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Answering Objections: “It’s Not Fair”

Posted on September 3, 2024 by St. John Studies

As I draw closer to the conclusion of my discussion of homosexuality in the church, I find myself discussing the very personal response to this issue in Kevin DeYoung’s book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality.  That personal view is in Chapter 11 of his book and it is entitled “It’s Not Fair.”

DeYoung is not an affirming pastor* and when he wrote this chapter he got right to the heart of this issue for many Christians.  Believers may have brothers and sisters who have been homosexuals for years, or maybe an aunt who has been a lesbian and is quite happy.  Maybe believers have friends who have been attracted to their own sex since they could remember.  DeYoung even writes “You may be thinking of yourself and your own failed attempts to get your desires to change” [109].  DeYoung admits that homosexuals are actual people who have lives.  His church (where homosexuality has not been affirmed in the ten years he has preached there) “has always had men and women who struggle with same-sex attraction.  I’ve know most of them personally.  Some of them have been friends.”

DeYoung has written ten chapters on this topic like he is trying to stay “arms-length away.”  He does not want to get too personal, too emotional.

But like most of us in society today, he admits in Chapter 11 that he knows homosexual people, some rather well.

He has faced the hard questions about this issue first-hand.  Why would God make a homosexual person?  Why would He give people these desires and not allow them to express them?  What am I supposed to do about my family members who have same-sex desires?  Do I disown them?  Do I try to “change” them?  Some of his members has asked him “do I leave your church and try to find an LGBTQ+ friendly church?”

DeYoung call these “fairness” questions.  It is just not fair the way the non-affirming church treats homosexual Christians.

Fairness objection number 1: “I was born this way.” 

DeYoung admits the popularity of this point, but questions the origin of homosexuality.  Is this desire biological?  Is it behavioral?  He cites the American Psychological Association’s statement that there is no predominant cause for homosexual behavior (questioning “I was born this way”).  Rather than point to a cause for homosexuality, DeYoung prefers to talk about sin in general.  “We all struggle with desires that should not be fulfilled and with longings for things illicit” [111].   In other words, he lumps homosexual desire in with other sins like binge drinking, promiscuity, rage etc.  He feels that as Christians we have to be responsible for our behaviors and know that God wants better behavior from us.  Christ insists that we must be born again in a different way [from John 3: 3-7; Ephesians 2: 1-10].  He cites examples of homosexuals who have been born again [from homosexual to heterosexual].  He tries to make this point but I know that homosexuals do not appreciate the “change” argument, and are skeptical that it is even valid.

Fairness objection number 2:  “I don’t have the gift of celibacy.” 

DeYoung cites pastors who choose celibacy instead of fulfilling their same sex desires.  DeYoung uses the Apostle Paul as an example, the fact that he had the unique “gift” of celibacy. 

Revisionist interpreters of the Bible like to say that denial of one’s desires is only granted to a few.  How can we ask those without this gift to live a celibate life?    It is a burden that is too hard to bear.

DeYoung is willing to admit the struggle involved with celibacy but he likes to point out fallacies that undermine this view.  First of all, the person who says the burden is too hard to bear is assuming that homosexual desires cannot change.  DeYoung recalls a young woman who had a lesbian relationship for many years and then found she did not like that form of love anymore.  She chose to marry a man.  Secondly, there is an assumption that sexual desire is fulfilled in marriage.  “To be sure, intimacy in marriage is a precious gift, and it does provide an outlet for sexual desire” [114].  Resisting sexual desire is a part of discipleship for every Christian, no matter what type or relationship a person is in.  Homosexual marriage is not a “cure” for the sin of same-sex desire.    Celibacy is a valid choice for the LGBTQ+ Christian.  DeYoung insists that a person with same-sex desires can have a positive attitude toward a celibate life.  Many would disagree.

Fairness objection number three: “God Wouldn’t Want Me to Be So Miserable.”

Revisionist literature is full of stories of men and women who had lives that were full of despair because they were surrounded by family members and church members who judged them negatively.  Their response is often depression, confusion and even suicide.  The stories change when they embrace their true identity (gay Christian) and they experience renewed spirituality.  DeYoung knows of these stories but admits that they are probably the result of what he calls “self-deception.”  He feels too many experiences like this are based on what “feels” right rather than what is good according to The Bible.  “Are any sins made acceptable because the person committing them feels they are quite natural?” [117].

I have recently been teaching in my adult Sunday school class about “hard sayings,” aspects of the Bible where Scripture seems to be asking too much or God acts in a way that seems unfair.  For Christians who have same-sex desires, it is hard to find a way to live without fulfilling their needs.  DeYoung says that these people have to find a way to not pursue same-sex relationships.  Yes, he has stated that intimacy in a marriage is a gift from God but he points out that Jesus lived the life of a celibate. 

He finishes his chapter by declaring that our culture mythologizes sex too much.  “Nothing in the Bible encourages us to give sex the exalted status it has in our culture, as if finding our purpose, our identity and our fulfillment all rest on what we can or cannot do with our private parts” [119]. 

Surely we all know people who are homosexual, some of them are friends and some of them are family members.  To tell these people they cannot live a life like anyone else is tough, but maybe DeYoung is trying to say that the totality of man and woman’s existence should not be defined by what they do in bed.  God has a higher calling for man and woman than that.  Jesus [the celibate] makes it very clear in Matthew 7 that we are to hear His words and put them into practice.  There are plenty of places to do His will outside of the bed, plenty of places to bear fruit, to be obedient to our Lord and Savior.

To exclaim “it’s not fair” to expect me not to fulfill my sexual needs seems to put sex very high up on a pedestal. 

Life should be more than that.

At least, I hope so.

*Non-affirming pastors see homosexuality as a grievous sin and do not support the idea of homosexuals being accepted in the church.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment