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.

The church is supposed to be a place for broken people.

Succinct statements like that come from Christians who try to encapsulate the role of the church for society today.  Also these thoughts can come from non-believers who like to look from outside the church and criticize the fact that some Christians are not as accepting of “broken” people as much as they should be.  In short, some churches are accused of excluding some members of society.

Why does Kevin DeYoung entitle his Chapter Nine* “The church is supposed to be a place for broken people.”  DeYoung is a pastor, and he is very aware of the role of the church and what it is supposed to be doing.  DeYoung is also aware that the church has been criticized for not doing enough for “the broken.”  However, DeYoung considers all the people in his church “broken” and he also considers homosexuals outside of his church broken.

DeYoung does not welcome LGBTQ+ community members into his church as pastors and does not condone gay marriage.  For him, homosexuality is a grievous sin.

He knows his church is full of broken people but there is a big difference between his church members and the LGBTQ+ community.

He states the members of the LGBTQ+ community don’t repent of their sin.

For anyone who does not understand Christianity, it may seem hypocritical to not welcome the broken (until one begins to unravel what it means to be a Christian).  For DeYoung, membership in a church begins with repentance.  For many outside the church, this makes no sense.  They want to be saved by Christ without any impact on their lifestyle.  They argue, “No one’s perfect; we all fall short of the glory of God.”  We all need God’s grace.  There is no need to repent.

Part of those statements is true, we are all imperfect.  We are all sinners but members of the church (“communicant members”) are born-again repentant sinners.  DeYoung feels that a pastor can preach to “unconcerned, impenitent sinners” and tell them they can find Jesus without forsaking their sin but that is not based on what he calls the “apostolic gospel.” 

I am a member of a church and I am a sinner.  I am joyful that I sin less today than I did years ago but I am not sinless.  What progress I have made in my life is due to repentance and my increasing desire to forsake the sins I continue to commit. However, I don’t revel in them.  I would like to be sin-free. DeYoung says “It’s much easier to get a crowd by leaving out the repentance part of conversion, but it’s not faithful to Christ.  It’s not even Christianity” [99]. 

Giving one’s life to Christ and repenting begins the process of an increasing desire, a “journey to righteous living” that will never be over.  DeYoung calls this “lifelong repentance” and truly that is what it is.

This past Sunday I taught a Sunday school class on R.C. Sproul’s Holiness of God, how some realize that in Jesus we have a perfect role model to strive for.  However we know we are not perfect like Him and we never will be.  When Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they introduced evil into every human’s life and insured that we would always have to live with sin.  The more we compare ourselves to Jesus the more we realize that we fall short.  He understands this because He existed on earth in human form [God incarnate].  Even though He and His Father are willing to extend grace to us to help us with our “sin problem,” He expects us to make the effort to grow in our faith.  DeYoung calls this “a break with the old and a start of something new.”  When you begin your relationship with God, you begin to change your mind about yourself [“I need to make fundamental changes to be a better person”].   When you begin your relationship with God, you begin to change your mind about sin [I am responsible for my own actions and I know my actions are truly sinful].  When you begin your relationship with God you begin to change your mind about God [God is trustworthy, He will forgive me and save me if I put forth the effort].   I believe in His Son Jesus Christ.  I owe Him my life and my allegiance.  I am His adopted child and He is my Father.  I exist to serve Him.  I will follow Him no matter the cost.

DeYoung refers to Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian who writes about what he calls “cheap grace.”  Too often in the church we get the idea that we can be forgiven without repentance.  “We can be baptized without discipline. We can take communion with confession and absolution without our own personal confession.”  [Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship].  For DeYoung, the homosexual who wants to live the life of a Christian should want to repent of their sin.  The problem is that many Christians treat homosexuality as an “allowable” sin or simply “less” than God’s best.   For DeYoung, this is not realistic.  For him, the homosexual is not living a life that is God’s best by a long shot.  He posits the idea that same-sex relationships are comparable to other sins like ethnic prejudice, economic exploitation and violence against women.  We don’t say those are “allowable.”  Then DeYoung says this: “We cannot live like the Devil on earth and expect to meet God in heaven.”

He admits that some Christians are trapped in an endless quest for something they will never achieve; “We are justified by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone and this grace that grants us faith will invariably be a grace that causes us to change.” [101].  The catch is this grace will be a grace that causes us to want to change.  Can we earn our way into heaven with tons of good works?  No we cannot.  Can we earn our way into heaven living like the Devil?  No we cannot.  The key is to try to do better, knowing that sometimes we will fail.  We want to try to do better because we feel a deep-seated need to do better.  God honors that effort even though it can never be enough. 

The Apostle Paul said “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”  To run a race, one has to move toward a finish line.  The key words are “one has to move.”  Paul did not think that running the race was impossible, but it did require commitment, it did require change, it did require repentance. 

For Kevin DeYoung, homosexual behavior is a sin and “allowing” it, accepting it and/or ignoring it will not move us any closer toward “finishing our race.” 

Affirming people may disagree but DeYoung is calling for the homosexual to begin a “true” relationship with God with the following eight heartfelt words: “Forgive me God, for I am a sinner.”

After that is said, members of the LGBTQ+ community may come into DeYoung’s church and sit with the rest of the broken people.

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

From time to time, I must take the time to let any reader who reads this blog know what is happening in the discussion.

On February 2, 2023 I began an ambitious project to discuss an issue that [at that time] was tearing at the seams of the United Methodist Church. Should active homosexuals be allowed to pastor United Methodist Churches, assume leadership positions within the UMC and be married within the church.

My congregation was grappling with the issue and so was I. I had in mind that I could do an open discussion with a writer who affirmed the LGBTQ+ community [Peter Gomes in his book The Good Book]. I could then turn to a non-affirming writer who felt that homosexuality is a sin and the LGBTQ+ community should not be welcomed in church [Keving DeYoung in his book What Does the Bible Really Teach about Homosexuality]. For a “middle ground” viewpoint I could refer to Dr. Preston Sprinkle’s book People to be Loved: Why Homosexuality is Not Just an Issue.

This project has been difficult to say the least; to date I have written sixty-nine posts on this subject. I have covered Gomes’ book at this point, his chapter eight entitled “The Last Prejudice” was his vigorous attempt at affirming LGBTQ+ pastors in the pulpit [Gomes was a homosexual pastor at Harvard’s Memorial Church].

Lately, I have been writing a block of posts entitled “Answering Objections” which are Kevin DeYoung’s defense of the non-affirming church. DeYoung does not accept homosexuality as anything other than a sin. He has thoughts on how the Bible hardly mentions homosexuality. He has thoughts on the “kind” of homosexuality defense that some people use and he has thoughts on other sins that should get more attention [gluttony and divorce?].

Now we turn to his ideas on the role of the church. Shouldn’t the church be a place for broken people?

As I have finished Gomes’ first eight chapters dealing with this topic, I will finish DeYoung’s book, continuing to “answer objections.”

Then we will see what Dr. Sprinkle has to say.

For now, DeYoung………

“Exegesis-defined as the critical explanation of a text, especially Biblical Scripture”.   When a person reads Scripture (if they are trying to make meaning of their reading beyond just simple scanning of words) they may be involved in some form of exegesis.  A critical effort of trying to explain God’s word is much preferred over “just reading” because that means the reader is digging deeper into the text.  However, one of the major problems with exegesis is that we tend look at Scripture with 2024 eyes because we live in a 2024 culture.  It is very difficult to imagine what the world was like in Biblical times.  The text was written in those times and authorial intent came from that cultural timeframe.

Since I began to blog on the topic of homosexuality in the Christian church in January 26, 2023, I have read several references to the practice of homosexuality in Bible times, several attempts at the exegesis of Scriptures that Dr. Preston Sprinkle calls clobber Scriptures.*   I have written 64 blog posts on the topic of homosexuality and the church, trying to find a balance between Christians who do not affirm homosexuals leading or marrying in the church and Christians who do affirm homosexuals in the church. 

Dr. Sprinkle states he is an expert on the subject of Old Testament  and New Testament homosexuality and his book People to Be Loved delves into the meaning of Scripture dealing with same-sex love, explaining that Old Testament same-sex practices and New Testament same-sex practices are not conceived as they are today.  Sprinkle does not write that same-sex practices are affirmed by Scripture [he won’t go that far].  His main point is that Twenty-first Century conceptions are far-removed from Bible times.

For a conservative approach to this topic, we turn to Kevin DeYoung: a sampling of his statements on these Scriptures is his writing, “The Bible says nothing good about homosexual practice” [DeYoung, What does the Bible Teach About Homosexuality, 79]. 

This sounds harsh but DeYoung states that even “revisionist” scholars admit that homosexual intercourse is condemned in the Bible.  [Sprinkle’s writing is an example,  that the Bible does not accept homosexuality as a “good” behavior].  DeYoung states that one of the most popular ways to argue for acceptance of homosexuality is to use the “cultural distance” argument.  [We don’t understand Bible times with our Twenty-first Century minds].  He states what Sprinkle has said in previous posts: 1. The ancient world had no concept of sexual orientation 2. The ancient world had no conception of “egalitarian, loving, committed, monogamous, covenantal same sex unions”.  3. The ancient world thought of same-sex behavior as men having sex with boys and the main issue was power imbalances between people, not the sex act itself.

So it seems that maybe the “cultural distance” point of view is valid.  But DeYoung says no; there are two major problems with this kind of thinking.

Silence is not always golden…

Same-sex intimacy during Biblical times was different from today’s notion of homosexuality.  That is a given.  The practice that was most common was pederasty.  Exploitation of the less powerful partner (often a child) was the main problem associated with this practice.  Exploitation of a slave for sex was also common.  DeYoung attacks the idea that since these examples of “bad homosexual behavior” were what people had in mind when Scripture was written, the writers could not have today’s type of homosexual partnerships as a reference point.  In short, admonitions to avoid same-sex relationships must have referred to these exploitative relationships.  For some “revisionists”, this calls into question the relevance of non-confirming Scripture all-together.  DeYoung’s problem with this argument is that no one really knows what the ancient writers had in mind.  Who can really know another’s mind and if they intended to limit their comments only to exploitative homosexual behavior.  If so, why did they not come out and just say that?  One has to imply their meaning due to their use of vague language.  For DeYoung, that is not enough to affirm homosexual behavior today.

Secondly What do the texts say?

DeYoung admits that the argument above would be compelling if it could be proven that exploitative same-sex relationships were the only homosexual relationships in the ancient world, but he writes “From a Christian point of view, there are plenty of examples of ‘bad’ homosexuality in the ancient world, but there is also plenty of evidence to prove that homosexual activity was not restricted to man-boy pairs” [83]. 

To make his case DeYoung cites numerous scholars who have studied ancient times.  Their conclusions counter the idea that “bad” homosexuality was the only same-sex practices that occurred.    Thomas Hubbard** is cited as saying that homosexuality became a category of personal identity in the Roman world “exclusive of and antithetical to heterosexual orientation.” Bernadette Brooten*** comments on the Apostle Paul, saying that Paul’s comments indicate a natural sexual order of the universe and how people who indulge are turning away from God.  N.T. Wright**** supports the idea that in Paul’s day, people were aware of homosexuality as a sexual option and it was not just older man-younger man exploitation.  Louis Crompton in his book Homosexuality and Civilization points to the idea that Paul is only condemning older man-younger man relationships.  That idea he states “however well-intentioned, seems strained and unhistorical.”

DeYoung admits that piling up block quotations from other authors is “poor form” but he does it to make a solid argument that the cultural distance argument will not work.  “There is nothing in the Biblical text to suggest Paul or Moses or anyone else meant to limit the scriptural condemnation of homosexual behavior” [DeYoung 86].  DeYoung refuses to set aside the plain reading of Biblical Scripture.  Revisionist efforts to do this are “less than honest.”

As I have commented on DeYoung and Sprinkle in this blog, I am trying to come to a conclusion about the Scriptures myself.  I have read the arguments [pro and con] and I have seen the damage these Scriptures have done to my church.  Disaffiliation has occurred and we have lost many key church members over this issue. As I have said before, there were ample opportunities in church-wide discussions to struggle with the meaning of God’s word but rather than do that, many took the floor and expressed their feelings.  Don’t get me wrong, feelings are important, but is a critical explanation of the Biblical text better?

Now as I reflect back upon those open discussions, would we have been better served if we had made some effort to parse the meaning of Scripture? 

Were our discussions “less than honest?”

*He refers to them as clobber scriptures because Christians clobber the LGBTQ+ community with those Scriptures.

**Thomas K. Hubbard, ed. Homosexuality in Greece and Rome.

***Bernadette Brooten, Love Between Women: Early Christian Responses.

****N.T. Wright, an interview.

One might say that the seminal chapter of Peter Gomes’ The Good Book is Chapter Eight which he entitles “The Bible and Homosexuality: The Last Prejudice.”  In Chapter 8 he recounts the story of the circumstances of his announcement to the world of his sexual preference.  He explains his feelings about the parts of The Bible that non-affirming Christians use against homosexuals.  He makes a  defense of homosexuality by explaining the context of the First Century and how the world at that time felt about same-sex relationships.  He delves into the reasons that Christians have a history of not supporting homosexuality and then focuses on the homosexual sex act and wonders why (in modern times) sexual pleasure must be limited to heterosexual partners. 

Now we come to Kevin DeYoung’s book* against homosexuality in the church.  He entitles his response to the defense of homosexuality “Answering Objections.”  In seven very short chapters he attacks the reasons for accepting homosexuality in the church today.

A common argument for affirming homosexuals in the church is the idea that “The Bible Hardly Ever Mentions Homosexuality” [Chapter 6].  If this is the case, then why is everyone making such a big deal about homosexuals in the church?  One can turn to Gomes and see what the fuss is all about when he writes that “silence on this subject speaks volumes.”  Anyone following this blog knows that when Kevin DeYoung entitles Chapter 6 of his book “The Bible Hardly Ever Mentions Homosexuality,” he is not going to accept the idea that silence speaks volumes.  DeYoung does not agree with Gomes at all; silence is not an adequate defense for accepting homosexuality.

The Bible is a very big book and DeYoung is willing to admit that the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality is not in the center of it.  There are 1,189 chapters in the Bible and more than 30,000 verses but there are only a dozen or so that deal explicitly with homosexuality.  What are we saying here?  Are we making “much ado about nothing?”  Are denominations splitting up over just a few scriptures?  Are homosexuals being denied marital rights and leadership in churches over a dozen or so Scriptures?  DeYoung goes even further: “does this mean that the traditional view of marriage is based on nothing more than just a few fragments?

DeYoung goes right to the heart of the question: “Why do Christians insist on talking about it [homosexuality] so much?”

He has some reasons.

First it is being talked about so much because some Christians are trying to “revise” the Bible regarding this topic.  Fifty years ago abortion was not a hot issue.  Euthanasia was not worth discussing. But the culture has changed on these topics and they are ethical issues that we find ourselves dealing with today.  In a like manner, same-sex marriage is an important topic today because “revisionists” are trying to bring about change and “traditionalists” do not want change to sacred Scriptures. Revisionists are “responding” to the culture and traditionalists are holding fast to the Scriptures (not culture).

Secondly, the reason that homosexuality was not discussed in the Bible is that it was not a controversial sin among Jews and Christians in the First Century.  But does that make it an acceptable sin?  Just because it was not deemed acceptable, and not worthy of discussion does not make it ok.  DeYoung uses bestiality as an example.  The church does not comment on that topic or incest or child abuse etc. but counting the number of verses dedicated to homosexuality is not a good way to justify the seriousness of the sin.

DeYoung does admit that the Bible is not totally silent on this topic.  Gomes, DeYoung and Sprinkle** have all elaborated on the relevant passages in both the Old and New Testament.  The Bible may not have numerous chapters on this topic but the negative view that is expressed about homosexuality is very clear [“even many revisionist scholars acknowledge that the Bible is uniformly negative toward same-sex activity”].

Sexual immorality is mentioned as a serious concern in Scripture. “Sexual sin is never considered adiaphora (a matter of indifference), an agree-to-disagree issue like food laws and holy days.”  If one lumps homosexuality into the category of sexual sin (and many do), the Bible states that sexual sin characterizes those who will not enter the kingdom of heaven. 

In Gomes and also Sprinkle’s books, the idea that Jesus never addresses homosexuality directly is seen as a defense of same-sex intimacy.  However DeYoung writes that Jesus did reaffirm the creation account of marriage in Matthew and Mark and He condemned the sin of porneia (Mark 7: 21) a broad word encompassing every kind of sexual sin.  Porneia is a word that is used in Greek literature to refer to a variety of illicit sexual practices including homosexuality.  “Jesus did not have to give a special sermon on homosexuality because all of His listeners understood that same-sex behavior was prohibited” [DeYoung, 75]. 

So what are revisionists of Scripture wanting?  DeYoung writes that they want a third way.  They want churches and denominations to come to an “agree to disagree” compromise.  “They want a moratorium on making definitive pronouncements until we’ve had the chance to mull things over a good deal longer” [76].  DeYoung calls this approach “death by dialogue.”  The historical, traditional, conservative position may be affirmed initially but there will always be additional discussion, a symposium, and endless Bible studies until the revisionist position wins the day.  The moratorium will never be lifted until the hotly debated topic is discussed to death.  DeYoung says that “agree to disagree” sounds like an acceptable middle-of-the road position but he feels it is really a subtle way of telling conservative Christians that homosexuality is not a big deal and we are wrong to make it a big deal. 

DeYoung is adamant when he writes that homosexuality is a big deal.  He is willing to admit that it is not the only sin in the world and it may not be the most critical sin but it cannot be brushed aside.  He is very serious when he writes, “When we tolerate the doctrine which affirms homosexual behavior, we are tolerating a doctrine which leads people further from God.”    Teaching that affirms homosexual behavior is not God’s will for His people.  DeYoung feels we cannot be silent in the face of Scripture that does not affirm homosexuality and dialoging of this subject looking for some middle ground called “agree to disagree” is not the answer. 

According to DeYoung, the Bible may say little about homosexuality but it does address the issue and it addresses it in a negative manner.  To ignore this and bend to the ways of today’s culture is not acceptable.  “This is not the mission Jesus gave His disciples when He told them to teach the nations everything He commanded” (77).

Unlike Gomes, DeYoung feels there is no middle ground, no agree-to-disagree area.  “The Bible says more than enough about homosexual practice for us to say something too.  Silence in the face of such clarity is not prudence, and hesitation in light of such frequency is not patience.”

DeYoung’s position: “homosexual activity is not God’s will for His people.”

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

**Preston Sprinkle, People to be Loved

When it comes to homosexuality and its acceptance* by the Christian community, it seems that people talk all around the issue.  What is the basic problem with this topic?  Why does the church struggle with it so much?  Why do congregations split on the issue?**  Why do some line up against it [seeming to condemn it] and others take the position that homosexuality does not disqualify a person from full participation?  I would like to comment on the root causes of all this polarization with my thought based on writing by Peter Gomes.

Gomes does a wonderful job of discussing all of this in the pages of his book entitled The Good Book, in particular Chapter 8 “Bible and Homosexuality.”  In this chapter, he gets to the heart of the problem with these words: “homosexuality is not about the Bible or texts.  It is all about sex, and that is what tends to make it rather difficult to talk about in polite society” [166].  I have been in these types of discussions and I think he is one hundred percent right.  As a culture, we are squeamish about this topic.

Why is this so?

It seems that we can deal with some aspects of sexuality [in the “proper” context].  Advertising uses sexual imagery frequently in order to sell products.  Daytime dramas portray characters in sexual situations.  Some movies have sexual activity as part of the story line.  Yet despite all this exposure, we as a culture struggle to have an open discussion of sexuality (especially homosexual sexuality).  Yet when one expresses disgust (a strong word) with homosexuality, it is the sex act that homosexuals engage in that causes the most negative feelings. 

Gomes says this is deeply rooted in the Jewish morality of sex and the early Christian church’s attitude toward sex.  When the Hebrew Bible commanded that humans be fruitful and multiply, the Hebrew writer meant “from the posterity of Adam would come the Messiah.  Fecundity was not simply to replicate the race but to provide the means for the Messiah to enter the world….any sexual activity that interfered with the possible birth of the Messiah was forbidden” [167].  Non procreative sex was destructive (masturbation, coitus interruptus and of course homosexual sex). 

With this as a background, the Christian church emerged.  Of course the Messiah had lived on this earth by that time so the wasting of human seed to interfere with the birth of the Messiah was not the utmost concern.  What did bother early Christians was the existence of pagan sexual practices (“private pleasure and satisfaction, together with aspects of exploitation and degradation at the expense of the best interests of society”).  Early Christians felt that a line had to be drawn between their faith practice and the “anything goes” attitude toward sexual activity.   There was no need for a difference between homosexual and heterosexual sex.  Same sex relationships were common and usually equated with social status, especially among nonbelievers (a wealthy older man would take a younger partner and have sex with them without any societal restrictions).  This type of activity was open and not condemned until Christians began to think this practice should not be accepted in the Church. 

It is interesting that Gomes points to the influence of the early church fathers as instrumental in the attitude toward heterosexual sex and the church.  They realized that celibacy would not sustain any religion because children raised in the church were necessary for future growth.  They were very aware of pagan sexual practices and the lure of lust.  They knew they had to develop “Christian sex” as a viable alternative to “pagan sex.” 

To begin, church fathers sought to minimize carnal pleasure, assuring church members that intercourse had the burden of shame.  Augustine labels the organs of sex (the genitals) pudena from the Latin pudere (to be ashamed).  The sex organs for the Christian were therefore necessary to procreate but they were shameful and disgusting for the simple act of sexual pleasure.  Gomes writes of the wildly successful change of attitude in the Christian community: “sex within marriage was tolerated not for pleasure but for the morally worthy purpose of producing more Christians” [169].  In the twelfth or thirteenth century, marriage was made a sacrament which means that it could not be dissolved.  The idea of sexual pleasure outside of marriage was abolished: “One marriage…should supply enough companionship for any man; second marriages were adultery, third fornication, and fourth nothing short of ‘swinish’” [169***] 

To make matters more clear, homosexual sexual pleasure was a threat to the moral order, “the equivalent of a heretic in the church or a traitor to the state” [169].  Over time, homosexuality was more than a sin; it became a crime and finally an illness.  This all stems from the sex act of the homosexual.

Gomes cites a refreshingly clear moment from a television talk show where the conservative commentator Patrick Buchanan confronted a gay Roman Catholic editor of the New Republic magazine.  The editor was defending same-sex marriage and Buchanan was opposing it.  Buchanan cut to the basic point with these words: “Andrew it is not what you are. It is what you do!”  Everyone knows that what they do is have a form of sexual pleasure where procreation is impossible.  Within the definition of sex for the church, this is “unnatural.” 

This is the crux of the problem.  Homosexuals engage in sex for pleasure, not for procreation.  Gomes writes “are we able to advance beyond the moral hypothesis of Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas that the sole natural function of sex is procreation?” [171].

For many in the church, the answer is no, we cannot.  In 2024, where is our culture on this idea?  When Gomes penned his book (1996) he did not anticipate today’s attitude toward pleasure within the Christian marriage.  One can type “sex websites for Christian marriages” and see plenty of products to enhance “Christian” intercourse.  This seems to be a very different attitude from the Church fathers idea that sex within the Christian marriage is only for procreation. 

For the homosexual, this may seem to be a double standard.  If heterosexual couples can engage in intercourse and have fun, what is wrong with our efforts to have sex for pleasure?

If heterosexual couples can do this and be viable members of the church, why can’t we?  Why the stigma?

Gomes goes to the heart of this issue, the idea of “it is not what you are. It is what you do.”  What the homosexual does is have sexual pleasure.  Today (in contrast to the First Century) there is such a thing as permanent, monogamous, faithful, intimate homosexual relationships.  In those days there was no conception of a monogamous homosexual marriage; there was no need.

As we examine the history of sexual attitudes within the church, the idea of affirming today’s “new sexuality” within the culture boils down to whether today’s Christian is willing to accept that sex can go beyond the need to procreate.  I find it very interesting that Gomes goes directly to the act of sex to make his argument.

The big question that all Christians must deal with is this: does he make a good argument?

*When I say “acceptance” I mean that same-sex people are allowed to preach from the pulpit as ordained ministers and assume leadership positions in the church hierarchy.  When I say “acceptance” I mean that same-sex couples are allowed the sacrament of marriage within the church.

**Most recent evidence is the split within the United Methodist congregation over this very issue.